Hey if you wanna interpret Gabe’s quotes of aggressive and painful pricing as something other than a loss or close to a loss as I said in my comment, while ignoring the theoretical cost of building a device like that, and the precedent set by so many other companies trying to break into a market like that, there’s nothing else I can say to get you off “winning” this argument. So yeah, I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure Valve is just banking on a bunch of existing steam users to want to buy a $700–$800 mid range box so they don’t have to move their PC into their living room to game on the couch. Solid business model.
That could just as easily mean the profit margins were thin, not necessarily negative. I asked if there was actual confirmation that it’s being sold at a loss, because all I could find was speculation, and you gave me speculation.
I said loss or near loss if you want to be pedantic about it instead of addressing the evidence that they didn’t make money on steam deck hardware in order to increase user base, which was the point of my comment in hopes that they would do the same for the console.
This conversation started with you saying you expected Valve to sell the Machine at a loss, me explaining why that’s unlikely, followed by you saying the Deck was definitely sold at a loss. You can’t backpedal that to near loss now.
Wtf are you talking about!? This conversation started with me saying I hope they sell the console at 499 and I don’t know why they wouldn’t consider selling at a loss for hardware, which would be following a proven strategy used by so many other companies (including themselves!!) trying to break into a market.
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.
Hey if you wanna interpret Gabe’s quotes of aggressive and painful pricing as something other than a loss or close to a loss as I said in my comment, while ignoring the theoretical cost of building a device like that, and the precedent set by so many other companies trying to break into a market like that, there’s nothing else I can say to get you off “winning” this argument. So yeah, I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure Valve is just banking on a bunch of existing steam users to want to buy a $700–$800 mid range box so they don’t have to move their PC into their living room to game on the couch. Solid business model.
That could just as easily mean the profit margins were thin, not necessarily negative. I asked if there was actual confirmation that it’s being sold at a loss, because all I could find was speculation, and you gave me speculation.
I said loss or near loss if you want to be pedantic about it instead of addressing the evidence that they didn’t make money on steam deck hardware in order to increase user base, which was the point of my comment in hopes that they would do the same for the console.
This conversation started with you saying you expected Valve to sell the Machine at a loss, me explaining why that’s unlikely, followed by you saying the Deck was definitely sold at a loss. You can’t backpedal that to near loss now.
Wtf are you talking about!? This conversation started with me saying I hope they sell the console at 499 and I don’t know why they wouldn’t consider selling at a loss for hardware, which would be following a proven strategy used by so many other companies (including themselves!!) trying to break into a market.
Go back and reread my first comment? $499 is absolutely not happening.
Lmao, your first comment is what I’m arguing against! Incredible dialectic, really.