I’ve been saying since the beginning of the RAM crisis that there was no way this was going to be under $999 since Valve wasn’t willing to make it a loss leader. Oh, the sweet validation. And more importantly: fuck AI. I’ll see you all when the Steam Frame is +$1,499 USD.
post
I think I’m in. It’s expensive but I want an htpc/gaming machine in my Mancave. I don’t know how anyone could have expected $600 price tags in this crap ai fueled market.
So how do we feel about these prices?
We feel that they are happy they already have a gaming rig.
RIP to anyone who bought a home after 2019 and anyone who bought anything gaming after Rampocalypse
I am totally open to other people having different stances, but at least for myself, worth it.
I already have an OLED Deck with a 1 TB drive... lost my old pc in lets summarily call it a series of unforunate events, been daily driving the Deck with a dock thingy and M+KB as my main PC for a few years now.
So, I can get the 512 GB + controller bundle, and just swap the drives, reflash em with appropriate OS.
$1128 for a 'pc' that can run RDR2 and Cyberpunk 77 at pretty darn good graphical settings, at 1440p, at or over 60 fps average? And fancy pantsy controller?
Good enough, my eyes are starting to go a bit anyways lol, 4K is very likely wasted on me, and I'd love to have a Steam Deck that's basically easier to hold and lighter, as a control option.
That'd be a steal, imo, looking at it in PC pricing terms... which is the way I'm looking at it, because that's the way I'll mostly be using it.
Also I can dress it up as a companion cube.
Ratman loves companion cube, cannot stop testing, needs to keep testing.
They are exactly what I originally thought, 1-1.5 and and I kind of don't really know how you couldn't see this coming. I think it's fair given the external factors. It's a pre built so add 20% to the "parts list" and you get cool features.
For reference I currently run bazzite on a 6700k/2080 ti and also have a steam deck.
I don't think it's bad for what they are specs wise, with the current distorted components market. I do think however that the price is higher than what the target audience will be willing/able to afford to pay which is a shame.
It won't do as well as it should have; I hope that doesn't put valve off the concept. The idea is right, it was just very bad timing for this particular launch.
I feel like it's gonna sell out either way. Not interested, myself. I'm waiting to see the price of the frame, though, to decide whether I get that or the pimax crystal light.
Let’s wait to see the perfs? From my understanding of the specs I don’t regret building my new pc earlier this year.
The performance benchmarks will be the best determining factor of buying or not.
Gamers Nexus has a whole thurough benchmark video out.
TLDW; the Steam Machine is very expensive for what it can do. Unfortunately that's just reality because the components cost about as much today...
Its actually not that expensive, for what it can do, and that's from the Steve directly, in that video.
He does a price comparison to nearest equivalent parts you can actually currently buy for a DIY PC.
He ends up with $979 for the DIY vs $1050 for the 512gb Steam Machine, a 7% difference.
There are currently, right now, many, many prebuilt PCs that cost this amount or more, with worse hardware.
... and also, this video here, from ETA Prime,.that I linked, that is this post, that apparently no one is actually watching, is also full of game test benchmarks, though not as much crazy specific technical.shit as Steve gets into.
It outperforms a PS5 Pro on say, RDR2.
1440p, high/ultra settings, no fsr upscaling, gets ~75 fps in complex/open areas, significantly better inside of rooms/houses/buildings.
And, as stated in the main post body... the Steam Machine is going to support FSR4 upscaling either on launch or very soon afterward, so you could use that, not lose much graphical fidelity, and get more frames.
A PS5 Pro cannot run RDR2 at a stable 60 fps, at 1440p.
It has to be locked to 30 fps to run 4K, which it does via upscaling, and a checkerboard rendering technique, which makes it not actually the same 4K as a PC would render, but w/e.
To get 60fps, it has to be locked at basically 1080p, though I think technically it is doing dynamic resolution scaling, so maybe effectively a slightly higher average resolution than that, maybe 1/4 or 1/2 way to 1440p.
A PS5 Pro costs $900.
If you think a PS6 is going to cost less than a PS5 Pro, you are wrong.
EDIT:
Now you can argue that a PS5 Pro, part of why it costs so much, is the 2TB SSD, vs the 512GB Steam Machine.
But, the PS5 Pro is the only PS5 variant with an RDNA 3 GPU, so its going to perform substantially better than the other PS5 variants with RDNA 2.
Right now, a 512 GB nvme ssd goes for about $200, a 2TB goes for about $300.
So basically you could say that a more fair price/performance comparison would be to knock $100 off of the PS5 Pro's price, to $800, presuming a hypothetical PS5 Pro Lite variant, or something like that.
In that case, you're paying $250 more for... what, something like 35% higher framerates, if you just resolution locked this hypothetical PS5 Pro Lite to a consistent 1440p, and had it use its already existing upscaling on basically auto mode?

all 25 comments