I think $700-$800 is a more realistic range unfortunately. It depends on how thin margins Valve is willing to accept, but I don’t think they want to sell at a loss like the typical console manufacturer.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t consider selling at a loss if it means bringing a massive user base over to their gaming ecosystem where they take a 30% cut of game sales. 700-800 is probably a good price point for what you get. I’m just not a big enough gamer to justify dropping that kind of money on a setup to try out PC gaming.
Who else is buying a PC designed for gaming for non gaming stuff? What other industry is this an optimal build and design for? The last steam machine didn’t sell outside of its intended audience. Why would this one?
Because the steam deck wasn’t a loss leader either? It is still a pc that could be used for anything. What makes it optimised for gaming after removing SteamOS? Maybe cec and what else? Pc can be used as a workstation anywhere.
Console manufacturers sell at a loss because they have to sell the hardware first before they can sell anything else. They know they’ll get that money back on software you couldn’t have bought without the console.
While I’m sure Valve hopes to bring some new customers to Steam this way, I’ll bet that the majority of Steam Machines sold will be to users who are already invested in Steam and have an existing library of games to play. If they take a loss on hardware, they can’t be certain they’re actually making up for it elsewhere.
It’s not practical for the Machine to be a loss leader because it’s a supplementary product, not one the rest of their business is dependent on.
They used the same strategy for the steam deck. Valve acknowledged that it was sold at a loss or near loss and it was incredibly successful because it broke into the handheld market. Don’t know why they wouldn’t do the same for this console like system. I’m hoping they do.
You picked one quote out of both those articles to interpret as your counter to my point? Seems to me this isn’t even an argument. It’s a consensus among anyone that understands the cost of building that device. Amazing that your response to me providing sources is “But the owner didn’t say it explicitly, so it doesn’t count.” Are you 12 years old? Why don’t you provide some sources about how profitable the steam deck was?
I think $700-$800 is a more realistic range unfortunately. It depends on how thin margins Valve is willing to accept, but I don’t think they want to sell at a loss like the typical console manufacturer.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t consider selling at a loss if it means bringing a massive user base over to their gaming ecosystem where they take a 30% cut of game sales. 700-800 is probably a good price point for what you get. I’m just not a big enough gamer to justify dropping that kind of money on a setup to try out PC gaming.
You have to consider that this is a pc and can be mass purchased by industries other than gaming.
Who else is buying a PC designed for gaming for non gaming stuff? What other industry is this an optimal build and design for? The last steam machine didn’t sell outside of its intended audience. Why would this one?
Because the steam deck wasn’t a loss leader either? It is still a pc that could be used for anything. What makes it optimised for gaming after removing SteamOS? Maybe cec and what else? Pc can be used as a workstation anywhere.
The form factor kinda does that by having a controller attached, limiting power consumption to 15W, and limiting connectivity to a single USB port
Console manufacturers sell at a loss because they have to sell the hardware first before they can sell anything else. They know they’ll get that money back on software you couldn’t have bought without the console.
While I’m sure Valve hopes to bring some new customers to Steam this way, I’ll bet that the majority of Steam Machines sold will be to users who are already invested in Steam and have an existing library of games to play. If they take a loss on hardware, they can’t be certain they’re actually making up for it elsewhere.
It’s not practical for the Machine to be a loss leader because it’s a supplementary product, not one the rest of their business is dependent on.
They used the same strategy for the steam deck. Valve acknowledged that it was sold at a loss or near loss and it was incredibly successful because it broke into the handheld market. Don’t know why they wouldn’t do the same for this console like system. I’m hoping they do.
Do you have a source for that? All I can find are conflicting rumors and speculation.
https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/gabe-newell-says-steam-decks-aggressive-pricing-painful-but-critical-2995253
https://www.indiekings.com/2025/07/why-valve-sells-steam-deck-at-loss.html
The only actual quote here is
But Newell didn’t actually say it was at a loss, did he? Seems like they’re just speculating.
You picked one quote out of both those articles to interpret as your counter to my point? Seems to me this isn’t even an argument. It’s a consensus among anyone that understands the cost of building that device. Amazing that your response to me providing sources is “But the owner didn’t say it explicitly, so it doesn’t count.” Are you 12 years old? Why don’t you provide some sources about how profitable the steam deck was?
I picked the quote that’s actually attributed to Gabe. The second link you gave doesn’t even have any quotes at all.
It doesn’t sound like Valve actually did confirm this, but that some news outlets ran with a rumor.
To Newell “painful” probably means one less annual yacht’s worth of profit.