• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Thats about what i’ve been saying… 200 dollars more, and you get a vastly superior product over the steam machine…Which seeing as the steam machine is a luxury good, and not a budget concious/performance per dollar build… I’m perfectly okay with suggestion spending an extra 200 dollars for something markedly superior.

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      Pretty sure Valve thinks the same. They’d rather their ‘consoles’ establish a performance floor than a ceiling. They don’t want to make hardware - they don’t want to make an OS, it’s just what’s required to compete with Microsoft (who’s actively threatening them since they announced the Windows Store for Windows 8 and Xbox game pass at the time)

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        and that performance floor is heavily reliant on FSR.

        Which is bad for everyone. We’re already seeing games that need FSR even at 1080p because of shit optimization. We don’t need this normalized and set as a standard.

    • rafoix@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Most of us can get a vastly superior product than the Steam Machine for the cost of a Steam Machine.

      • Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Most of us, sure, but we’re not the target market, and it’ll be bulkier, it’ll require more work to set up, it’ll be louder or hotter, it’ll have to be optimised for gaming rather than games being optimised for it - it will trade all of the steam machine’s selling points for raw power.