u/Cethin — Cethin

Yeah, I signed up for a slot, but I had a thought that I'd just wait and get it cheaper later. Then I realized that's not really how things work anymore somehow, and I could probably buy now and resell it higher later, even used, because none of this makes any sense.

This is, of course, assuming the current status quo continues. With the recent "AI needs to be restrained" comments from AI execs, it might crash soon and things go back to being sane.

I agree. It's been my prediction that Valve will use this to publish mobile games. They already have the Steam app. There's also an app that already uses this that lets you play your Steam library on mobile (GameNative). I think Valve would be stupid to not push a patch to the Steam app that allows you to play your games on mobile.

Yeah, you can license it with their permission. It's not something large studios want to deal with, and it's not something small studios usually have the influence to do. It's also a risk, as the engine isn't as documented as the major ones, and you don't know if it'll work for you.

Every one of these comments have been correct, despite sounding like they're disagreeing.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't know what it is. Gaming has never seemed to be something that's interested him. It could be, but it doesn't seem like it'd be a high priority. Most non-gamers probably do not know what a Steam Deck is. Hell, a lot of gamers probably don't if their only platform is a console, and they don't engage with gaming spaces online.

I don't want one of these, because I have a computer that's *far* better, but also it depends on what you play. 99% of what I play would probably be fine even at 4k60fps. Sure, if you want to play a AAA game from the past 5, maybe 10, years, it's not going to happen. Most indies probably will, especially 2D or light 3D ones.

Yeah... this didn't age well. How did you end up here 7m later?

But you can get the same with Garuda, CachyOS, or other Arch based distros, without any limitations. There's no reason for people to be waiting for SteamOS because it's not even the best option for most users.

There are advantages to soldered RAM. It can be faster without extra cost. The issue is it's not upgradable. It depends if they're targeting people who will upgrade their device or people who won't on which is the smarter option.

If you want SteamOS though, there are already plenty of options. SteamOS is just another distro based on Arch. It isn't doing anything special (except on the actual Steam Machine which will have extra hardware to, for example, turn on when you press the button on your controller). There is literally no reason you should be waiting for it, especially if you want just a desktop OS that can play games. If you want a console-like experience, where it's harder to access the desktop and more restricted, then there still isn't a reason but it is a thing you can do.

That's what I've been wanting, but I don't think so, at least not yet. I have a pretty powerful PC, and I don't care to use this away from it. I'm totally fine with a tethered requirement. Being standalone is cool, but it isn't worth the additional price in my opinion.

I thought the Index was higher than that.

I had an original Vive though. I've used an Index, and it looks mostly totally fine in comparison. It definitely doesn't suck, but higher is almost always better. Notably though, the Frame will not be pushing this resolution everywhere. It'll only be where you're looking, but that's pretty much fine, if not ideal. Using extra energy and creating more heat to render detail we can't perceive isn't good, especially for something mounted to your face.

I sure, if/when they do an Index 2 it'll be wireless optional at least. They've already developed the tech for it. I don't see any reason it wouldn't be included with the "no compromises" headset.

I'm willing to bet it isn't an Index upgrade. That was an absolute top end VR HMD with no compromises. If you're able to run it, with the space for it, then this isn't going to top it. The resolution is lower, and the tracking is internal (which seems to be fine, but not as good if you can do lighthouses instead).

The only parts that are upgrades, I think, is being able to do things standalone without a connection to a computer, and being wireless (pros and cons).

I think the micro SD is important for what they're trying to do. I think you can store games on it and play it on the Deck or Machine, just by moving the card, IIRC.

I agree, it isn't what *I'd* want, but the entire product isn't what I want. It's not really made for people who are willing to build a PC for themselves.

Metric also uses (metric) tons (aka tonnes).

>I'm not expecting a business to always act in the best interest of everyone, that is just completely unreasonable. I'm not even expecting individual people to always act in the best interest of anyone but themselves.

Clearly you aren't doing the last bit, though you should. If you're excusing Valve, for acting in their best interest, you should at least have the backbone to ask for your own best interest. You're giving them your money. Demand the best outcome possible for yourself. Either that's cheaper games (if they just decrease price by 10% but still take 20% of what they currently do, you save money) or better outcomes for developers, which means more games, and niche games that can afford to make fewer sales.

>And the fact that valve has never raised prices...

Steam is a marketplace. They don't set the prices. They provide a place for games to sell their product at whatever price they want. There are plenty of $70 games, and quite a few much higher than that. What are you even talking about?

>never tried to shaft anyone and in general never attempted to extort their presumed "monopoly"...

But they have. You aren't allowed to sell your game cheaper someone else. If you want to distribute on your own website and sell on Steam, you have to charge the same price, even though you could sell for ~30% less and get the same amount of money. You essentially *have* to sell on Steam though, or you get far fewer eyeballs. There are also other ways they've extorted their market control.

>Maybe you heard of don vultaggio, the founder and CEO of arizona ice tea...You're not going to see me ask him to lower the price because clearly he "can afford it" (his net worth is 6 billion. Not quite gabe, but still extraordinarily wealthy). The man is doing everything I can reasonably expect from a business: Not squeeze consumers, not treat staff shitty and not worsen their product for profit. Valve is doing the same thing, just on a much much larger scale.

Yeah, these aren't even remotely similar. His tea is priced incredibly low for the market. Yes, he makes a lot of money, but it's through volume of sale. Their margins aren't that large. Steam has insane margins. The operating cost of the server infrastructure is pretty cheap (we can't have specific numbers, as they're private, but servers aren't expensive). Their margins are absolutely ridiculous *and* they have high volume. If we're going to make the comparison of these totally different markets (selling a product VS providing a service), Valve is incredibly greedy. If you like what Arazona Tea does, you should be asking for far lower margins from Valve.

>I just think that, in a realistic world view, while your intentions may be good, your expectations are unreasonable.

Consumers should demand absolutely everything for what they purchase. Expecting to get everything you ask for is not expected, but you won't even ask. *If* you actually have this capitalist mindset, where we shouldn't be asking them to do good, then we should ask them to do whatever we want as consumers. Without us they're nothing. Demand that they do better. It's your money.

I very clearly do. Them giving away a bunch of money that isn't required has nothing to do with their distribution service not making a profit. Valve doesn't do this, so it obviously is not required to run a games distribution service. That's the part that's subsidized by Fortnite, not the distribution. The distribution is pretty cheap. All it requires is having servers that can store the files and an internet connection.

>> Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers).

>

>There's plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you're never going to reach the audience you'd do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.

Yeah, it won't be more profitable. It isn't a choice. There is a small choice for some games of distributing it yourself. This is incredibly cheap (which proves Valve's profit margin is insane), but 99% of players won't leave Steam. This means it isn't a choice for all but a few niche games. Starsector, for example, distributes it on their own, so they get a 100% cut. The players who want to play that are generally more intelligent and can get it off of Steam. For something like CoD, that's marketed towards mass appeal go the absolute minimum of technological literacy, you have to be on Steam. There isn't a choice.

>You make defending sound like I'm a company white-knight that'll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn't the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don't think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.

You've already agreed it's worse than it being lower. You don't think it's bad enough to be upset over, but you agree it's worse than it could be. That's the difference. I won't stop at "better than it could be." I'll always argue for more from a company, and you should too.

>I'm not defending them. I'm saying that a service has to be financially successful...

No, the comment above brought up the stupid argument to defend them. You implying they need to to remain solvent *is* defending them too. How many yachts does Gaben have? How generously are the employees paid? Clearly they're making more than enough money with 30%. Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it's certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?

>But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don't think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution.

I said this already, but this is assuming the sales wouldn't happen if Steam didn't exist. I doubt it. The sales numbers would be approximately the same, provided by someone else. They just have almost full market domination, so you don't have a choice but to sell on Steam. It isn't because it's so great for the developers. It's because they don't have a choice.

>I've worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.

"Thats just the way things are" isn't an argument. "Slavery is just the way we do things! You can't say it's bad! We wouldn't make a profit otherwise!" Not a good argument, right?

>So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don't really see why.

To help developers. It seems like you're purely capitalism brained. My argument was that it'd be better for developers. I didn't say they'd make more profit. There's a lot of bad things you can do to make more money. It doesn't mean you *should*. It'd be good for the industry if they charged less. It'd allow smaller studios to make a profit for more niche games.

>The service they provide is just worth that much.

Again, there isn't a choice (for developers). It makes it worth it in the same way it's worth it to hand over my wallet when someone points a gun to my head. It doesn't mean it's the best outcome for the developer if other options were equally viable.

>Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.

IIRC, no. It was Fortnite specific.

>And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That's your right. However, I'm just not agreeing with that stance. That isn't defending a company, even tho you're trying to frame it as such.

What do you define "defending" as? You're making arguments supporting the behavior. Who in the world wouldn't define that as defence? I'm not framing it as defence. It just is.

>Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees?

Again, that was from the Fortnite team. It's like if Valve laid off people working on DOTA, it doesn't mean the storefront is doing poorly.

>Also, ever notice how *nobody* was complaining about Steam's cut before that?

Yeah... you weren't paying attention then. People have been complaining about it before their storefront existed. This has been discussed a lot. Steam actually doesn't take 30%. That's the default. Big games, despite making more money, actually pay less, as dumb as that sounds.

>Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem...

Citation needed. *Some* is. How much is going towards Gaben's several yachts?

Them giving away a ton of money does not mean the distribution alone isn't profitable.