this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
226 points (97.9% liked)
Gaming
4069 readers
340 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.