• MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think the problem is Valve lost control of the messaging, which led to bad expectations.

      At least in the US, a computer hooked up to a TV to play games means it’s a “console” and not a computer. Maybe we can blame Nintendo back in the 80s for going out of their way to avoid calling the NES a computer (despite it’s name in Japan being Famicom, Family Computer), but the distinction exists today despite technologically no real difference. You know this, I know this, Valve knows this. So Valve wants to make a computer you hook up to your TV so they can get you to use their money printing machine Steam in the living room too.

      If you read Valve’s marketing material on the Steam Machine, they don’t use the word “console” once. It’s always either by name or the terms PC, computer, or system. They likely don’t mention the word “console” because to date, video game consoles follow a different business model, one where the model subsidizes the shit out of the hardware and then make money on the back end with game sales/licensing.

      Current “console” hardware starts in the <$500 price bracket, and with so much third party media marketing calling the Steam Machine a console, that got people’s mind set on pricing expectations of that market.

      • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you read Valve’s marketing material on the Steam Machine, they don’t use the word “console” once.

        Doesn’t matter at all. Its clearly meant to operate in the position of one. They could have very well avoided that term to avoid implying the lock down that consoles come with.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Idk, $699 USD for the PS5 pro seems a bit closer to “PC pricing” than I would expect from Sony if they’re subsidizing the cost with future game sales.

        I’d kind of expect them to be making consoles at break-even/no-profit, more than at a loss right now.

        • Flamekebab@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          They can set the asking price to whatever they like but a lot of us cannot justify those amounts for what amounts to a toy. By this stage in a console generation I would expect a lot more games and a lot cheaper hardware. The reasons that haven’t happened aren’t of interest to me as a consumer (they’re of interest to me as a nerd!).

          • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The reason is simple. Inflation.

            The NES originally sold for $180 USD in 1985, which is worth $530 today. The SNES, circa 1991, was $199 USD or $459 today.

            Fast forward a bunch…

            The switch 2 is currently priced at $449 USD.

            The literal price has gone up, but the cost is going down. Slightly, but still.

            I’m sure I could repeat the same experiment for PlayStation, Xbox, or Sega’s consoles and see similar results.

                • Flamekebab@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Because hardware, software, culture, incomes, demand, supply, and many, many other factors have all changed since the 1980s. It’s not a straight comparison. Inflation is a factor but it is not the only factor.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s the confusing part for me because statements from the design team said they had the very optimistic goal of running most games at 4k 60fps, which is more like $1000 entry level imo.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        $1,000 is not entry level.

        If you go on any website and look at entry level PCs they’re all around $600 to $800.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The lowest amount to run most modern titles AT 4K 60 FPS is around $1000, and thats only because graphics card prices have come down.

          If 30FPS on 1080p is good enough I could build it for $400.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s not a 4K capable graphics card though it’s a 1080p capable graphics card that they’re saying is 4K because of the existence of AI upscaling which I think is a cheat. So you’re already overestimating the cards capability.