But somehow these all came together to make the Steam Deck which is an astounding success. I don't know if Valve are geniuses or just incredibly lucky.
Lessons Learned. The Steam Deck is the culmination of previous iterations. Even with the flop of the Steam Machines, The Steam Controller and Steam Link have ended up as Cult Classics, and there is the possibility they'll get revisions down the line, even if they end up minor niche releases.
I don't think it's luck. After the Steam Machines Valve worked for years on proton (wine, dxvk, vkd3d) and AMD graphics drivers to fix game compatibility. Experience with selling hardware themselves had Valve with the Index already.
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/omdia-steam-decks-total-consol...
Valve might not directly profit from the sale of GPD, Aya or Asus PC gaming handhelds, but they still get their percentage from every Steam software sale made on them, other stores notwithstanding but lets face it, they continue to dominate that space. It highlights that it's not specific hardware that Valve care about as much as broadening access to their storefront.
It's not the hardware itself you should be keeping an eye on, but rather how many platforms on which Steam is available.
But those handhelds, being quite expensive, almost certainly sold much less than the Steam Deck, which itself didn't sell overly well.
It's Switch vs. Steam, which is available on desktop, laptop and handheld form factors and in the future likely a lot more (see box86/FEX, Chromebooks, Deckard). Valve doesn't care where you buy your games, they care that you buy them from Valve.
Valve don't need Steam Deck to become as big as Switch, Steam as a whole already is.
Windows isn't the "winner" because Windows isn't an app store, Microsoft don't get a cut of every game sold on Windows, but from sales through their store. That's the revenue stream that matters, moreso than how many Xboxes or windows licenses they sell.
You're not wrong that a lot of people don't see things this way. But they, particularly regulators, probably should.
Apple did the same thing with random features like LIDAR scanners in phones that you have no reason to use. Everyone questioned their thinking. Turned out they were doing that in order to make the best VR headset ever made.
Steam Controller was a bit of a bust, but it sold ~2 million units so not entirely. They probably made their money back.
mostly because it's cheaper and everywhere. Even water these days can cost $2 in a standard 16.9 oz bottle. You don't go out to buy a coke because you want the finest drink in the land.
The history of handheld gaming pretty much is Nintendo. I fully realize the history (and recognize the innovation. That is the Switch). I had the original Gameboy back when it was a new product in the 80s.
My guess is that 99% of the people posting here can’t even envision the product that comes after the Switch and makes such a large impact. And they did not envision the Switch either. Even though now it seems obvious because someone more creative already did it.
There’s an easy way to prove me wrong. Create the next Switch and become a billionaire. It’s that easy.
That’s definitely a part of a product, but depending on the specifics it might be trivial/not the most important part compared to, say, the actual implementation.
Also, let’s not start with this nonsense of “become a billionaire, it only needs that good idea” bullshit. Sure, give me all the connections and resources to actually be able to even play at that league. That’s just a cheap way to shut down the other.
I get what you're saying, but I think the key point is execution of an idea. If it were so obvious and so easy, someone other than Nintendo or Apple would actually get it done once every few decades.
The billionaire argument isn't bs. If you actually had a great idea, or knew how to execute things well, you'd have either patents or products under your belt. It's just incredibly difficult to execute an idea in the real world. Most people, 99%, don't even have a good idea. The whole thing seems like if you "just had connections and resources" you could do it. But you wouldn't be able to. Most people actually do less with connections and resources. What would your grand idea be? Buy rental apartments? You certainly aren't going to be taking on Twitter when you can lose your millions doing it, and have no particularly amazing ideas for a competitor. Most millionaires don't invent things or execute complex ideas. They sit on the couch and contribute even less than if they were hungry with ambition. This applies to most of us, most likely including myself.
The millionaires are largely self-made, and were hungry with ambition. That's the portion I'm referring to in the last paragraph. The billionaires that keep doing things and making money like Musk are even rarer yet.
That was simply a tech issue. The PSP in 2004 was capable of playing games from last generation. it was pretty high tech for its time, and sold for about the cost of a Steam Deck's cheapest variant after inflation.
It also fit in your pocket, very comfortably. The one thing I feel handhelds gave up in their attempt to reach parity with modern consoles (and partially why I rarely take out handhelds anymore, in lieu of phones). I ultimately bought a GPD Win 4 because it was the smallest form factor while keeping those specs, but It fits in my pocket about as well as my high school jersey fits on my body 12 years later :(
>either did the old handhelds allow you to play two player on the same handheld on the go
That's a usability issue, not so much a hardware issue to innovate around. Even if the PSP was like a Switch, we're comparing a 4.3 inch LCD screen to a 6-7" switch/SD screen. over double the screen estate.
I think the real let down here was Sony not having the kinds of party game software that let multiple PSPs play with one cart, like some DS games did. Or at least, they weren't well known if they did exist.
What amazing things do we miss out on because not everyone has a infinite well of capital to draw from?