Can everyone please stop claiming and speculating that Valve’s new hardware will be loss leaders? If you watch LTT and Gamers Nexus’s first videos on the announcement, they actually spoke with Valve’s engineers. And the Valve representatives already said that the new hardware WILL NOT BE LOSS LEADERS.

There isn’t even evidence that the Steam Deck was a loss leader. All GabeN said was that the lowest cost launch model was priced “painfully”, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was sold at a loss, it could easily have been sold at a very tight margin.

And no, low margins does not meet the definition of a loss leader. A loss leader is a product sold below cost, in that every unit sold actually costs the seller money.

I get the desire to speculate on new hardware. It’s fun and it helps pass the time until we hear more info from Valve. But there’s limits to what is reasonable. Valve has already stated that the new hardware won’t be loss leaders, so hoping and/or claiming they are isn’t reasonable.

Sorry for the rant, but all of the comments that seem to have only skimmed headlines are quickly getting to me

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    They can’t sell them at a loss without a locked-down ecosystem. Sony learned that the hard way with the OtherOS support for the PS3 that lead to a ton of them being purchased to build cheap supercomputer ls and never spending a dime on games or software to cover the loss.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      IIRC, the Deck, at launch, had a limit per Steam account, and it had certain requirements. There’s no reason they couldn’t do something like that here. Sure, it makes it harder to convert console players if they do the same technique, but it could be restricted sales based on something.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I think that was overstated. Sure there were some “fun” projects for fun or publicity.

      However supercomputer clusters require higher performance interconnect than PS3 could do. At that time it would have been DDR infiniband (about 20 Gbps) or 10 g myrinet.

      Sure gigabit was prevalent, but generally at places that would also have little tolerance for something as “weird” as the cell processor.

      OtherOS was squashed out of fear of the larger jailbreak surface.

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The US Air Force built the Condor Cluster out of 1,760 PS3s in 2010 which I believe saw some actual use. So more than just publicity stunting.