The Steam Deck has sold fewer than 1% the number of Switches sold, which tells me there is far more to selling a console than the technology. Well, that’s an obvious statement, but I think many of us tech people commonly under-appreciate all the “non-engineering” components to making a product successful.

I think “optimize the UX a bit” is what they did, and it falls very woefully short of what they need. Especially when it arguably has a far bigger and better library of titles.

I hope Valve doesn’t throw in the towel after the first round. The Steam Deck idea can be a killer one. It just needs a lot more UX polish and marketing.

I think they sold enough to justify its existence, even if it's not much comparing to console manufacturers

The Switch is the fifth best selling console of all time. That's not at all a fair comparison, especially given the difference in price point and how long the Switch has been on the market.

On the other hand, it's plausible that the Steam Deck could hit within 50% of Vita, the Wii U or Gamecube, which is amazing for Valve's second push into the console market, and immensely profitable, given Valve owns pretty much the only avenue with which people will be buying games for it and gets a 30% cut, on top of the Deck being significantly more expensive than any comparable console, now or historically.

I think it’s also not fair to compare it to commercially failed consoles like the Wii U or Game Cube.

I just picked the closest analog: a modern handheld that can be plugged into a TV.

In what universe can Wii U or Game Cube be considered "failed"? They were hugely successful. You need a much better definition of failure than "not number one".

Steam Deck is also very much not like those consoles.

When the Game Cube "fails" as a product, all the worlds Game Cubes become just cubes that you can't do anything interesting with.

If Steam Deck "fails", it becomes merely a funky form factor PC. Plug it into a monitor via USB-C and it's a full desktop computer. With a surprisingly okay price for that, too!

It just recently became available to purchase without a waitlist, they are still learning about hardware production, supply chains and other things they haven't done at the same scale before. Give it some time, especially when comparing to Nintendo who've been doing it for decades.

Huh? I don't even think there Are official Steam Deck sales numbers. The best I can find was that they shipped over 1 million last October, not sold. But that was actually not long after they BEGAN shipping units. Not only that, but we're comparing it to the Switch, which is one of THE best selling game consoles ever. However, in its first year, IIRC, it actually "only" sold around 10 million units. That suggests that in its first year, the Steam Deck sold at least around 10% of what the Switch sold (although the deck was a lot more supply constrained, so it may have been higher if not for that.)

Since Valve doesn't share actual numbers, or at least has not done so yet, it's really hard to judge, but I think you're painting a picture that is at least a bit too pessimistic. I don't know if Valve actually expected to outsell stalwart console vendors, but I would actually guess they DID outsell the PS Vita's first year. That's really not too bad for a foray into a saturated market with a somewhat niche and admittedly even somewhat immature product.

Steam Deck probably has a bright future, but I'm most interested to hear if they had any success breaking into the market in Asia, as it seemed like that was a big push for them and probably generally one of the hardest markets for Valve/Steam, for a variety of different reasons. I have to guess the sales numbers in North America are pretty good based on how quickly we went through the preorders.

The PS Vita is an apt point of comparison - a beautiful piece of hardware that performed fantastically (and in my opinion much more impressive for its time than the steam deck) - that is considered to have been a complete failure.

Steam Deck really is an interesting comparison. It must be frustrating that Valve releases Steam Deck to fanatical reception if you feel like PS Vita was a better product for it's time. Even though PS Vita may have been a great product, it's possibly one that simply was not at the right place or time. I really think that Sony needed to win, not just sell modestly.

A big and weird part of this is simply because Valve is different. Still a corporation, still flawed, but certainly, if nothing else, definitely different. They have an appeal almost reminiscent of how people once regarded Google a long time ago. They've gotten a solid reputation for playing the long game with respect to building their ecosystem, and in that regard, Deck feels like a product many years in the making: the Steam client and games library, Proton and DXVK, the overlay and other middleware libraries, the multiple iterations of SteamOS, and many more endeavors all came into the product that the Deck is today.

Meanwhile, PS Vita did not have the luxury of the depth of consumer goodwill that Valve has, even if Sony has many times the breadth of consumer goodwill; worse, it needed to bootstrap it's ecosystem, whereas Valve has committed to bringing it's entire existing ecosystem to Deck instead. Valve also had the luxury of not being a traditional video game console vendor, and thus I don't think it elicited as strong of a reaction in the "console wars" either: I do not think that people view it the same. And hell, I don't think Valve does either. It has an aggressive starting price, and thus definitely can compete, but it seems probably still profitable. At the higher end, it's priced more like a gaming laptop, and thus the enthusiast gear that you would expect. I think they landed themselves a nearly unloseable situation with Deck. Because it's basically just an extension of their existing Steam ecosystem, it's essentially a value-add at worst. I would bet it acts more complimentary to other consoles, and there are probably few Deck owners without at least one other game console.

As a competitor to Nintendo's gaming handhelds and as a successor to the PSP, it seems like consumers largely rejected the PS Vita. Maybe in an alternate universe where Sony took an entirely different approach to the ecosystem and marketing of the PS Vita, things could've gone very differently.

For what it's worth, I've never owned a console of any kind in my life, but I would really like to own a Steam Deck.

Though I could buy the Steam Deck now, I am eagerly waiting for Steam Deck 2 just to see if there are lessons-learned-improvements from the first iteration.

I smhave one and say its perfectly useable already - and would recommend getting one, even just to vote with your wallet for something nice.

> Though I could buy the Steam Deck now, I am eagerly waiting for Steam Deck 2 just to see if there are lessons-learned-improvements from the first iteration.

Just wait for the Steam Deck 3, where they'll solve all the problems that don't even exist yet on the Steam Deck 2. Or better yet, might just wait for the Steam Deck 5 just to make sure they've finally ironed out all the kinks.

It's Valve; you know there will never be a third iteration.

Not sure why you're so antagonistic. I don't know you or how you live your life, but as an unsolicited advice, perhaps you could have a moment of introspection. Cheers!

I will acknowledge my precious comment was a tad antagonistic, sorry.

I'm just saying, if it's something you want, it fits your needs today, and you've got the budget for it, just buy it. Don't wait for the "what if the next generation is better?", Because of course the next generation will probably be better, if it comes out. But this fits your needs well enough today, and it's something you want, and there will always be something newer supplanting whatever you buy in the future as well.

So if you're thinking you'll wait for the 2 because it'll be better than the original, why get the 2? Won't the 3 be better? And of course, the 4 will be better than the 3, so maybe you shouldn't buy the 3 but instead wait for the 4. But what if there's a 5th generation...

Why would I buy the iPhone of today, won't the one next year be faster? And the one the year after that be faster than next year? Why would I buy the one this year when there will probably be a better one available eventually?

I just never got this line of reasoning. Could you share why you'd wait for the 2, but not the 3?

Cheers!

It's a very strong pattern that the gap between version one and version two is much bigger than anywhere else, with much bigger flaws existing and being fixed.

I'm very surprised that you don't seem to be aware of this, and treat it purely as n versus n+1.

I don't think comparing new entry to the market with the OG pioneer is fair in any way, shape or form. Nintendo did get a 33 year head start.