Information to text ratio pretty low and assumes some background knowledge I don’t actually have about the current state of Steam hardware offerings but I gather it’s because they’ve introduced new, more expensive hardware and no longer wish to have a budget item whose price is too far off from it.
I think the Deck's capability to be relevant for years into the future depends entirely on whether PC game developers target it as a platform. Many of the top best selling video games from the past few years struggle on the deck even on low settings (Baldur's Gate 3, Oblivion Remastered are a couple I've tried with rough results). Of course there's still a massive PC backlog and ample lower spec games released each year.
Is anyone here aware of whether developers are using the Deck as a minimum spec and thus their technical constraints?
It was released February 2022, that's only almost 4 years ago. 4-5 years is a good target for a refresh, I'll be somewhat surprised if there's not a new one in 2027, but any more frequently doesn't really make sense as the important components aren't improving in price/capability fast enough, and the initial release was and still is very capable rather than woefully inadequate. The motivations for upgrading are also different from a phone or more general laptop. I think the most common ranking of priorities for improvement would be: having various games run at all (mostly a software problem, Steam Deck already supports hardware ray tracing that various games now require), similar price range, better active battery life, physically lighter, and last would be higher graphical fidelity/performance. The things further down can't compromise the things higher up. Battery life advances being slow is kind of the killer.
There's a point that they could prioritize selling to new owners over existing owners looking to upgrade, and having a more capable device would help with that, but I think the marginal increase is probably not very big. The Steam Deck estimated sales were at 4 million units earlier this year, but that's still a relatively small portion of the whole PC gaming market (132m monthly active users on steam alone by 2021). It has been a big success for them, but it still exceeded their expectations, so I think they also would be skeptical of any large marginal improvement of new owner sales for what would likely be a minor improvement on the important specs. There's also competition from Windows handhelds whose sales don't suggest a large market just wishing Valve had a slightly more capable device that they'd pay more for.
Part of the point and usefulness is having a stable target for developers to aim at, that they can test performance on. Also, most phones these days are roughly equivalent from the end-user perspective to ones from 2 or 3 years ago, the only difference is increased waste. So... no, no thank you.
Does anyone want to buy a phone every few years? No, I don't think they do.
You don't have to buy it with each iteration, but at the same time if I'm buying one, I don't want to buy hardware that's many generations behind current one.
If I build a new PC myself - I don't have such problem. With laptops - it's a bit behind (usually one generation for AMD with their APUs approach). I don't think anyone complains that there is a choice.
And somehow above doesn't prevent games being released that can scale according to the hardware and aren't tied to a specific hardware generation target. So I don't really see why this has to dictate handhelds to have way slower refresh cycle.
> And somehow above doesn't prevent games being released that can scale according to the hardware and aren't tied to a specific hardware generation target.
In theory, sure. In practice... just look at pretty much all software out there and you will be proven wrong. Every. Single. Time.
It's been just 2 years since the OLED release, I think we're closing in on a refresh. Unless a deck is a year away from a generational bump. A refresh could include the updated joysticks featured on the Steam controller, though.
Till then I'd think I'd do more good for Valve to focus on their steam app and store experience.
A counter argument - the Switch gave game devs a solid platform to target without being the latest and greatest without compromising the usability or fun factor
I've heard that argument before, but I don't buy it. Whole PC gaming is a counter argument. Let developers make games that scale according to hardware, instead of excusing things with weak specs.
Even in PC gaming, the performance target tends to be the lowest performing current gen console, not the best PC.
Which is a totally reasonable approach and has given my PC years of usefulness even though better equipment is out there.
The cutting edge of PCs is such a tiny minority of users, even amongst PC gamers it's still a fraction of users.
That was not always the case for PC gaming, on modest means in my teens I could at least keep up with graphics card releases. I don't bother with that now, because I don't have to and gain very little from doing so.
> Even in PC gaming, the performance target tends to be the lowest performing current gen console, not the best PC.
I would have said "even static websites don't care about older hardware". I am very happy that Valve doesn't refresh the SteamDeck every year exactly for that reason: developers can target "the SteamDeck" instead of "the latest 3 SteamDecks" and force me to buy one every 3 years.
Phones try to emulate PC refresh cycle. Is it healthy? You get new generation of CPUs / GPUs roughly once in two years. I'd say it's OK.
You can easily skip a generation and upgrade say once in 4 years or even less frequently. But at the same I think it's good that there is an option to get newer hardware at that cadence.
> You get new generation of CPUs / GPUs roughly once in two years. I'd say it's OK.
If you look at sustainability, it is obviously not okay.
And for what? Websites and mobile apps that get bulkier and less efficient slightly faster than the refresh cycle. I recently replaced my smartphone - not because I wanted to, but because the main app I use (like banking, nothing that should require a big CPU) were lagging so much that they were unusable. A banking app is supposed to print a few numbers to the screen, and yet it doesn't work on a 5 years old smartphone.
honestly at this point, phones and personal computers probably should move to a 2 year cadence. The R&D costs are going up and the performance benefits are decreasing.
I just assumed that Valve ran out of the APUs AMD made for Steam Deck LCD.
There were news/rumours that it was originally designed for Magic Leap 2 and Valve got the leftovers for cheap: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/steam-decks-... .
If they're going to spend a premium on ordering a new batch, they might as well order the APU for the OLED model they charge full price right?
Information to text ratio pretty low and assumes some background knowledge I don’t actually have about the current state of Steam hardware offerings but I gather it’s because they’ve introduced new, more expensive hardware and no longer wish to have a budget item whose price is too far off from it.
That’s the article’s assumption, although the new hardware has yet to announce its price so it’s yet to be seen how plausible the thesis is.
The more expensive hardware is Steam Deck OLED, available since about 2 years ago, it starts at $549
I am not a gamer, but if they made an 11-inch tablet, I would buy it to replace my ipad and macbook. I already have a portable keyboard I really like.
You can put their OS on a minisforum V3 and that's like ... exactly what you want?
I bought the steam deck because it was 420€. Now the cheapest one is at 570€. I would have never bought it at this price
The pricing anchor concept is very intuitive and once you hear about it it’s hard to stop seeing at play.
I think the Deck's capability to be relevant for years into the future depends entirely on whether PC game developers target it as a platform. Many of the top best selling video games from the past few years struggle on the deck even on low settings (Baldur's Gate 3, Oblivion Remastered are a couple I've tried with rough results). Of course there's still a massive PC backlog and ample lower spec games released each year.
Is anyone here aware of whether developers are using the Deck as a minimum spec and thus their technical constraints?
They should refresh Steam Deck more often still. Laptops and phones have more frequent refresh cadence, why not gaming devices.
May be it shouldn't be as frequent, but still more frequent than what it has now.
It was released February 2022, that's only almost 4 years ago. 4-5 years is a good target for a refresh, I'll be somewhat surprised if there's not a new one in 2027, but any more frequently doesn't really make sense as the important components aren't improving in price/capability fast enough, and the initial release was and still is very capable rather than woefully inadequate. The motivations for upgrading are also different from a phone or more general laptop. I think the most common ranking of priorities for improvement would be: having various games run at all (mostly a software problem, Steam Deck already supports hardware ray tracing that various games now require), similar price range, better active battery life, physically lighter, and last would be higher graphical fidelity/performance. The things further down can't compromise the things higher up. Battery life advances being slow is kind of the killer.
There's a point that they could prioritize selling to new owners over existing owners looking to upgrade, and having a more capable device would help with that, but I think the marginal increase is probably not very big. The Steam Deck estimated sales were at 4 million units earlier this year, but that's still a relatively small portion of the whole PC gaming market (132m monthly active users on steam alone by 2021). It has been a big success for them, but it still exceeded their expectations, so I think they also would be skeptical of any large marginal improvement of new owner sales for what would likely be a minor improvement on the important specs. There's also competition from Windows handhelds whose sales don't suggest a large market just wishing Valve had a slightly more capable device that they'd pay more for.
Part of the point and usefulness is having a stable target for developers to aim at, that they can test performance on. Also, most phones these days are roughly equivalent from the end-user perspective to ones from 2 or 3 years ago, the only difference is increased waste. So... no, no thank you.
Does anyone want to buy a phone every few years? No, I don't think they do.
You don't have to buy it with each iteration, but at the same time if I'm buying one, I don't want to buy hardware that's many generations behind current one.
If I build a new PC myself - I don't have such problem. With laptops - it's a bit behind (usually one generation for AMD with their APUs approach). I don't think anyone complains that there is a choice.
And somehow above doesn't prevent games being released that can scale according to the hardware and aren't tied to a specific hardware generation target. So I don't really see why this has to dictate handhelds to have way slower refresh cycle.
> And somehow above doesn't prevent games being released that can scale according to the hardware and aren't tied to a specific hardware generation target.
In theory, sure. In practice... just look at pretty much all software out there and you will be proven wrong. Every. Single. Time.
It's been just 2 years since the OLED release, I think we're closing in on a refresh. Unless a deck is a year away from a generational bump. A refresh could include the updated joysticks featured on the Steam controller, though.
Till then I'd think I'd do more good for Valve to focus on their steam app and store experience.
A counter argument - the Switch gave game devs a solid platform to target without being the latest and greatest without compromising the usability or fun factor
I've heard that argument before, but I don't buy it. Whole PC gaming is a counter argument. Let developers make games that scale according to hardware, instead of excusing things with weak specs.
You don't need to buy it, that doesn't matter. Sales numbers are more meaningful than anything. Consumers and developers have voted with their feet.
> Let developers make games that scale according to hardware
I'd love that, but I would argue that the evidence shows they don't do it.
Even in PC gaming, the performance target tends to be the lowest performing current gen console, not the best PC.
Which is a totally reasonable approach and has given my PC years of usefulness even though better equipment is out there.
The cutting edge of PCs is such a tiny minority of users, even amongst PC gamers it's still a fraction of users.
That was not always the case for PC gaming, on modest means in my teens I could at least keep up with graphics card releases. I don't bother with that now, because I don't have to and gain very little from doing so.
> Even in PC gaming, the performance target tends to be the lowest performing current gen console, not the best PC.
I would have said "even static websites don't care about older hardware". I am very happy that Valve doesn't refresh the SteamDeck every year exactly for that reason: developers can target "the SteamDeck" instead of "the latest 3 SteamDecks" and force me to buy one every 3 years.
I watched some behind the scenes videos about Valve’s Steam Frame development, and it doesn’t seem like they have a very big hardware team.
Why should they? Do you think the phone refresh cycle is a healthy one to emulate?
Phones try to emulate PC refresh cycle. Is it healthy? You get new generation of CPUs / GPUs roughly once in two years. I'd say it's OK.
You can easily skip a generation and upgrade say once in 4 years or even less frequently. But at the same I think it's good that there is an option to get newer hardware at that cadence.
> You get new generation of CPUs / GPUs roughly once in two years. I'd say it's OK.
If you look at sustainability, it is obviously not okay.
And for what? Websites and mobile apps that get bulkier and less efficient slightly faster than the refresh cycle. I recently replaced my smartphone - not because I wanted to, but because the main app I use (like banking, nothing that should require a big CPU) were lagging so much that they were unusable. A banking app is supposed to print a few numbers to the screen, and yet it doesn't work on a 5 years old smartphone.
honestly at this point, phones and personal computers probably should move to a 2 year cadence. The R&D costs are going up and the performance benefits are decreasing.
I thought PCs are already doing it. I think AMD releases new CPUs and GPUs roughly once in two years, unless I'm missing something.