If it can play all games on Steam _today_ at 4k60fps (even with FSR) it means I have about 570 games on my Steam library it can play in perpetuity.

Even if I play 2 hours of each game, it's still a bargain =)

And because this is Valve and I've had a stellar experience with my Steam Deck, I'm pretty confident that future games will run on it too. Most likely gamedevs will add special "Steam Machine" performance profiles like they've done with the deck. And there will be a "Steam Machine certified" checkmark on Steam.

> I have about 570 games on my Steam library it can play in perpetuity.

You presumably have other hardware that can also play the 570 games too? You’re spending more money on hardware that can do the same job your current hardware can do.

Yes and no. I have a Steam Deck and a Macbook M1 Pro, my previous Windows PC is from 2010, it ran Overwatch 1 at about 30fps on a good day and managed through multiplayer Valheim games during covid lockdowns =)

I _can_ play something like CP2077 on the Deck, but it's not exactly a worthy experience, it's better suited for stuff like Citizen Sleeper or Rogue Trader

Not OP but I happily throw money at companies that help Linux adoption and more open hardware grow. I bought the steam deck, used it for a while and gave it to a nephew (I'm not big on mobile gaming), I've bougt the Pinebook, Librem 5, and will happily throw Valve more of my hard earned cash for enabling a more open ecosystem. We need to vote with our wallets or Microsoft, Apple, Meta, et al will gladly remove your ability to own your hardware.

In my younger years I built gaming pcs. Old me has no time for that. I console game because it respects my time and I can play any major release. I’m interested in the new offering from steam as a way to play indie games I miss on console with a machine that doesn’t look out of place next to my tv.

This, plus I also find that the fact that I'm not going to spend random time thinking about upgrading my console, looking at components, etc, also respects my time (and money).

I don't play games much anymore, so maybe I'm not the right person to respond.

Why would anyone ever buy a console again? This thing has the ultimate library and works on all platforms.

Steam seems to have played the best game of chess in the industry. Sony and Microsoft were battling over exclusives and acquisitions and ways to screw over customers. This came out of left field and looks a million times better than Xbox or PS5. It has people's entire libraries on it, and the games are cheap and portable. There's no lock down. No funny business.

I almost want one. I'm excited about it and I don't even think I'd play it.

In the era of mobile games, hardware really isn't a thing anymore. Even AAA titles are niche IMO given the cost to play them at full settings. All that matters now are the exclusive titles. You refer to this derisively but really that's what made the nintendo switch, clearly the weakest compared to the PS5 and even the steam deck in the last generation the clear winner.

And do you think PC has less exclusives compared to PS5 / other consoles? How many games on Steam has never been released on consoles vs the other way round?

By that logic I'd expect this one to completely dominate.

Exclusives are intentional, those are just games that they never bothered porting

So, we should define terms. To "dominate" should mean to sell more than or make more money than the competition, which may include taking market share from the competition. I don't doubt valve will continue to make money in an absolute sense, it already does and this likely doesn't change that.

Steam already has a monopoly in the PC space and has the "exclusives" you talk about, essentially games that never were ported to the PS5 or the switch. Thus, in order for the steam machine to take market share from the other consoles, you a) have to take console share from those players, likely by pressuring those developers to port from the consoles to PC. That could be something, but no doubt that pressure already exists, as steam already exists. I don't see how the steam machine changes that. In fact, the opposite situation exists which is why steam makes so much money, as you said. To actually dominate, it can only happen after situation c) below.

New customers or dollars cannot come from people who have a PC and can now forgo using their pc for gaming (by neglecting to upgrade their pc to keep up to date to play new AAAs), as the assumption here is they are selling the consoles at a loss (which may not be true, we'll have to find out). That if anything, is essentially a soft form of b) cannibalisation. So that isn't really "gaining market share" more so than it's changing the means of consumption of the same thing. Moreover, if they choose to sell at a loss, then I only can imagine this leading to actual cannibalisation from their existing PC customers as there isn't really any actual profit being made here.

So finally, the only route they have to expanding their player base in my mind is c) new gamers, that is casual phone players or other non-enthusiast gamers who don't really play games but will be willing to buy a console. This is how the Wii excelled in its generation and how the switch won the last one. Here, it all comes down to price and thus how much Valve is willing to sell at a loss or otherwise subsidise the steam machine using steam proper. So, this to feels like their only real route to "dominating."

As I alluded to above, a) can only happen if c) happens, as Steam already has the mindshare it does and thus it already has the same allure to developers as is the case today, and those developers are still pursuing exclusives with the PS5 and the switch. Thus, if certain developers or games are stuck on the switch or the PS5 with current conditions, they won't move enmass to the steam machine unless c) happens first and thus their calculus changes. And of course, selling at a loss means that they also run the risk of only b) occurring if they don't gain enough new players fast enough to offset the loss from selling consoles.

That leaves them not selling the hardware at a loss, then I don't really know. It's just the steam machine will likely be north of 700 usd if you're not subsidising it, and like the steam deck it will be a novelty item they may or may not make a profit off of. That I wouldn't call "domination", although they may make money overall so I don't doubt they will end up happy.

You can't compare mobile and console players.

They are literally two different markets.

I know they get put together because of "videogames", but a gamer that plays on a console is not going to play mobile games, except those that are ports of console games onto phone.

There are exceptions of course.

I have a family of 4 (and both me and my wife are gamers) and a pc is expensive. A steam machine is a great compromise.

I'm also in the market for a new secondary pc, since the other one is old: the steam machine is exactly what I want with gaming primary and also do general computing.

I use the nvidia shield to stream games, but it has issues at times depending on the game being streamed.

The enthusiasm is based on:

- do you have a tv and a couch

- do you have games in your steam library that would benefit from the extra power and the setup?

If you've had steam installed through a number of christmas sales then most likely yes lol