Why hasn’t anyone else made one to compete that’s cheap? Because, Mr.Author…No one else can make their money back by selling software.
Bingo,I think people forget Valve went out of their way to make their profit margin razor thin, or at a slight loss because they know the benefit of having a device that basically assures a new paying user will be added in their Steam ecosystem. It’s based on Nintendo’s walled garden philosophy after all, just refined really well on PC.
It’s not a walled garden though, Valve made no attempts to lock anything down. You can install something like Heroic Game Launcher on the Steam Deck and play Epic Game Store or GOG games too.
While this is true and works out that way, it’s either put in a bit of work to get a game to run (I have epic games borderlands 2 handsome Jack collection and it crashes a lot on me) or use the store that has all the games and controller settings set up specifically to the deck. Having the option is great, but using steam is still easiest and makes any deck owners default purchase store choice for a game as steam. To the point where if I had to pay $25 for a game on steam vs $20 on epic or any other, I’d just go ahead and get the steam version if I intended to play it on my deck.
The Switch certainly predates the Deck, and they definitely make their money back on software, but being forced solely into the Nintendo ecosystem is off-putting. Only Microsoft is a likely candidate to make a handheld that uses their Game Pass, and I would bet they aren’t really needing to push subscriptions at the moment.
You say it’s off putting as if the Switch doesn’t have dozens on dozens on dozens of quality 1st and 2nd party titles. Also, no one is being forced into the Nintendo ecosystem. It’s a Nintendo product, and you buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. It’s not anti-gamer. That being said, apples and oranges to compare the switch to the deck.
Right, but the original statement was whether other companies have made a competing and profitable “Deck,” and the Switch is already such a device. Portable, plays games locally, has a thriving software ecosystem…
Whether those games within that ecosystem are “quality” or not is irrelevant. Both platforms have examples of good and bad games. My point was that if you buy a Switch, you are forced into their ecosystem. On the Deck, you do not have such a limitation (with a bit of effort, you can access anything a regular Linux machine can). Nobody is coerced in, sure, but that wasn’t the point I was making.
So where you see apples and oranges, I see a small, dry apple vs. a big, juicy apple. A better analogy might be Apple vs Windows.
You have a weird definition of platform “ecosystem”. How is buying a computing device (gaming or otherwise) that locks you down to only running software purchased from the manufacturer’s store not forcing you into their ecosystem?
I guess if you mean no one is forcing you to buy a switch sure. But if you own a switch, you have to procure software through Nintendo. That’s being locked into an ecosystem by definition.
Why are you trying to compare a computer to a walled garden Nintendo switch? Hell, you’re making my argument for me.
I can’t believe I have to rehash this again. A Switch is a computer. My point wasn’t that it’s somehow better, but Nintendo already did exactly what you said: made a handheld portable computer with built-in screen that can play games locally and is sold at a loss only to recoup those losses with software sales.
The Deck can do more than the Switch, but that doesn’t make the Switch less of a computer.
The Switch isn’t that expensive to make, the chip, memory, and storage are all budget af.
