They're NOT cheaper. There is exactly one cheaper PC handheld, and it's the base model of the LCD variant of the Deck.
And the reason for that is that Valve went out of its way to sign a console maker-style large scale deal with AMD. And even then, that model of the Deck has a much worse screen, worse CPU and GPU and presumably much cheaper controls (it does ship with twice as much storage, though).
They are, as the article says, competitive in price and specs, and I'm sure some next-gen iterations of PC handhelds will outperform the Switch 2 very clearly pretty soon, let alone by the end of its life. Right now I'd say the Switch 2 has a little bit of an edge, with dedicated ports selectively cherry picking visual features, instead of having to run full fat PC ports meant for current-gen GPUs at thumbnail resolutions in potato mode.
We don’t really know this. It is possible that the CPU will be trash. Nintendo’s devices don’t really support genres that require CPU power (4X, tycoon, city-builder, RTS, MMO etc.).
While we don’t have detailed info on the Switch 2 CPU, the original Switch CPU was three generations behind at the time of the console’s release.
Best we can tell this is an embedded Ampere GPU with some ARM CPU. The Switch had a slightly weird but very functional CPU for its time. It was a quad core thing with one core reserved for the OS, which was a bit weird in a landscape where every other console could do eight threads, but the cores were clocked pretty fast by comparison.
It's kinda weird to visualize it as a genre thing, though. I mean, Civ VII not only has a Switch 2 port, it has a Switch 1 port, too. CPU usage in gaming is a... weird and complicated thing. Unless one is a systems engineer working on the specific hardware I wouldn't make too many assumptions about how these things go.
If you primarily play CPU bound strategy games, you can very much make conclusive statements about CPU performance. For example, Cities in Motion 1 (from the studio that created Cities: Skylines), released in 2010, can bring a modern CPU to its knees if you use modded maps, free look and say a 1440p monitor (the graphics don’t actually matter). Even a simple looking game like The Final Earth 2 can bring your FPS to a crawl due to CPU bottlenecks (even modern CPUs) in the late game with large maps. I will note that The Final Earth 2 has an Android version, but that doesn’t mean the game (which I’ve played on Android) isn’t fundamentally limited by CPU performance.
It very much is a genre thing. Can you show me a game like Transport Fever 2 on the Switch? Cities: Skylines?
The OG switch CPU was completely outdated when released and provides extremely poor performance.
The switch was released in 2017. It’s CPU, the cortex A57, was released in 2012. It was three generation behind the cortex A75 that was released in 2017.
The Switch CPU had very poor performance for 2017, it was 3 generations behind then current ARM/cortex releases.
It is very likely the CPU in the Switch 2 will also be subpar by modern standards.
I.e. You don’t know that the Steam Deck has a worse CPU and considering Nintendo’s history with CPUs, it is not impossible for the Switch 2 CPU to be noticeably worse than the Steam Deck.
Nobody was complaining about the Switch CPU. It was a pretty solid choice for the time. It outperformed the Xbox 360 somewhat, which is really all it needed to do to support last-gen ports. Like I said, the big annoyance that was specifically CPU-related from a dev perspective was the low thread count, which made cramming previous-gen multithreaded stuff into a fraction of the threads a bit of a mess.
The point of a console CPU is to run games, it's not raw compute. The Switch had what it needed for the scope of games it was running. On a handheld you also want it to be power efficient, which it was. In fact, the Switch didn't overclock the CPU on docked, just the GPU. Because it didn't need it. And we now know it did have some headroom to run faster, jailbroken Switches can be reliably clocked up a fair amount. Nintendo locked it that low because they found it was the right balance of power consumption and speed to support the rest of the components.
Memory bandwidth ended up being much more of a bottleneck on it. For a lot of the games you wanted to make on a Switch the CPU was not the limit you were bumping into. The memory and the GPU were more likely to be slowing you down before CPU cycles did.
The Switch CPU performs extremely poorly as far as gaming is concerned. Case in point, you cited Cities: Skylines, a quick web search suggests performance is terrible on the Switch and it seems to have been abandoned shortly after release.
While I don’t doubt the Switch 2 CPU will be sufficient for games released by Nintendo, from a broader gaming perspective (gaming is not only Nintendo), it is likely the Switch 2 CPU will also be subpar and will perform worse than the Steam Deck (which is a handheld and its CPU is also subject to efficiency requirements). Whether Nintendo users know/care/don’t care about this is irrelevant. We are talking about objective facts.
What "standards" are you comparing it to? The Switch 1 was behind home consoles, but that's not really a fair comparison. There was nothing similar on the market to appropriately compare it to, no "standard".
Five years later the Steam Deck outperformed the Switch, because of course hardware from five years later would. But the gap between the 2017 Switch and 2022 Deck is not so vast that you can definitively claim in advance to know that the 2025 Switch 2 definitely has to be worse. You don't know that and can't go claiming it as fact.
All we know so far is that the Switch 2 does beat the Deck in at least one major attribute: it has a 1080p120 screen, in contrast to the Deck's 800p60. And it is not unlikely to expect the rest of the hardware to reflect that.
OP claimed the Steam Deck’s CPU was definitely worse than the Switch 2 (this was an explicit, categorical statement).
Considering the Switch’s history (Cortex A57 used in the OG Switch being three generation behind in 2017), it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the Switch 2 CPU is likely to be extremely weak from a gaming perspective (I never brought up compute or synthetic benchmarks).
Exactly what hardware at a similarly competitive price point and form factor are you comparing it to when you say it's behind?
The Switch 1 didn't use the very best top of the line parts that money could buy, but if that's what you're fixating on then you're missing the fact that neither did the Steam Deck. The Switch made compromises to hit a $300 price point in 2017, and the Deck made compromises to hit a $400 price point in 2022.
Portable devices using ARM CPU cores, even ones for ~$350, like the Xiaomi F1 released in 2018. It came with a new Snapdragon 845 SoC that included an Adreno 630 GPU.
It didn’t have the form factor of the Switch, I will give you that. My point is that the Switch had a very weak CPU when compared to similar devices even in the same price band for its time.
So it's not a similar device. Comparing to phones is rather misleading, given that phones do not have active cooling and wouldn't actually be able to run the kinds of games the Switch hardware could without catching on fire in the process. They aren't gaming hardware.
It’s a portable gaming device. It is in the same market.
You can play complex strategy games that require strong CPUs like Project Highrise, The Final Earth 2, Mega Mall Story 2 on mobile.
You won’t be able to run The Final Earth 2 even with the standard mobile population limit on a Switch because it uses an ancient CPU and it’s a quad core.
Don’t limit yourself by Nintendo PR and marketing. The gaming world (portable or otherwise) is not limited to Nintendo.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de
on 06 Apr 18:39
nextcollapse
Betteridge wins again.
Handhelds are a niche in PC gaming. Especially in the whole gaming market.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 18:44
nextcollapse
There’s a lot here, and yes, the total addressable market for the Steam Deck is currently less than either Switch will sell in a single quarter, but the video game market is a very different thing now than it was in early 2017. The Switch was the only game in town; now it’s not. Live service games make up a significant amount of what the average consumer wants, and those customers largely play on PC for all sorts of reasons. The Switch 2 is no longer priced cheaply enough that it’s an easy purchase for your child to play with, abuse, and possibly break. The console market in general is in the most visible decline it’s ever been in, also for all sorts of reasons, and those handhelds from Sony and, at least, Microsoft are likely to just be handheld PCs as well.
Development on blockbuster system sellers has slowed way down, which comes hand in hand with there just not being as many of them, which makes buying yet another walled garden ecosystem less appealing. This walled garden has Pokemon and Mario Kart, so Nintendo’s not about to go bankrupt, but if we smash cut to 8 years from now and the Switch 2 sold more units than the Switch 1, I’d have to ask how on earth that happened, because it’s looking like just about an impossible outcome from where we stand now.
Also, there’s this quote:
But, although Microsoft has now been making Xbox consoles for over 20 years, it has consistently struggled to use that experience to make PC gaming more seamless, despite repeated attempts
Look, I’m no Microsoft fanboy. Windows 10 was an abomination that got me to switch to Linux, and Windows 11 is somehow even worse. The combination of Teams and Windows 11 has made my experience at work significantly worse than in years prior. However, credit where credit is due: Microsoft standardized controller inputs and glyphs in PC games about 20 years ago and created an incentive for it to be the same game that was made on consoles. It married more complex PC gaming designs with intuitive console gaming designs, and we no longer got bespoke “PC versions” and “console versions” of the same title that were actually dramatically different games. PC gaming today is better because of efforts taken from Microsoft, and that’s to say nothing of what other software solutions like DirectX have done before that.
Still, the reason a Microsoft handheld might succeed is because it does what the Steam Deck does without the limitations of incompatibility with kernel level anti cheat or bleeding edge software features like ray tracing (EDIT: also, Game Pass, the thing Microsoft is surely going to hammer home most). Personally, I don’t see a path for a Sony handheld to compete.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:10
nextcollapse
live service games make up a significant amount of what the average consumer wants, and those customers largely play on PC for all sorts of reasons
You are leaving out the elephant in the room: smartphones.
So, so, so many people game on smartphones. It’s technically the majority of the “gaming” market, especially live service games. A large segment of the population doesn’t even use PCs and does the majority of their computer stuff on smartphones or tablets, and that fraction seems to be getting bigger. Point being the future of the Windows PC market is no guarantee.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:12
nextcollapse
I don’t think the people gaming on smart phones are the same demographic that would compete with the Switch 2 or a handheld PC. It’s not a lot of data, but take a look at how poorly Apple’s initiative for AAA games on iPhone has been going. There are more problems with that market than just library. The PC market has been slowly and steadily growing for decades while the console market has shrunk.
I am vastly oversimplifying a lot, but… Perhaps mobile gaming, on aggregate, is too shitty for its own good? It really looks that way whenever I sample the popular ones.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 20:56
collapse
I suspect it’s more that the time people can and do spend playing phone games has just about zero overlap with PC games. You play phone games while on the bus or on the toilet, you play PC games while at home behind your desk.
I think a huge reason so many people with a Steam Deck also have a Switch is that the Switch had a 5 year head start. Hades did really well on Switch, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing that version of the game if they had a Steam Deck, and the same applies to Doom, The Witcher 3, etc. I have a Switch and a Steam Deck, but I haven’t used one of those machines in years.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 02:16
collapse
Some people spend a lot of time, money in mobile games.
Occam’s Razor. I think it’s just the “default device” and placed in front of their eyes, so it’s what most people choose?
Really wild to go from this vibe at the end of the seventh generation of consoles to the one we’re at now. For me, and many other people that like high quality gaming experiences, mobile games have completely vanished.
“In a sense, Nintendo is the victim of its own strategic foresight. With the Switch, it was the first to spot that the narrowing gap in processing power between mobile and at-home devices had enabled a unification of handheld and home gaming experiences.”
I was out after this. This is patently wrong. Crucially, Nintendo capitalised on the failure of the vita using the exact same strategy but with a caveat: 3rd party memory cards.
The PSVita had the power to play former gen games in a compact format and MUCH better connectivity than the switch. It failed on the stupid memory cards. Nintendo did not. That’s pretty much it. Sony had the AAA handheld market with the PSP and blew it. I’d be very surprised if something like this wasn’t uttered by an MBA regard in sony’s corpo structure:
“If we divide our playerbase between handheld and dedicated living room console too much it will damage our business”.
So instead of capitalising on a massive library of games that could easily have been ported to a handheld format (the PS4 had 1,4TFlops, we’ve surpased that on mobile before the PS5 launched) SONY decided to double down on AAA and subsequently in live service games, and here we are…
If someone can create a handheld AAA console is a team lead by mark cerny with the support of AMD. To this day I don’t know how we end up with PS portal instead…
So here we are, Sony carved out a niche (AAA and fidelity) from the Nintendo handheld success, and just decided to sit on their hands with it. There was exactly 0 foresight from Nintendo. They knew from the beginning the living room was lost to either MS or Sony to begin with.
Nintendo got to the Switch via the Wii U and through the realization that they could package similar hardware with affordable off-the-shelf parts and still drive a TV output that was competitive with their "one-gen-old-with-a-gimmick" model for home consoles.
It was NOT a handheld with AAA games, it was a home console you could take with you. That is how they got to a point where all the journalists, reviewers and users that spent the Vita's lifetime wondering who wanted to play Uncharted on a portable were over the moon with a handheld Zelda instead.
So yeah, turns out the read the article has is actually far closer to what happened than yours, I'm sorry to say.
Yes, that’s why they took an ARM based Tegra (like the vita with the powerVR from imagination tech) unlike the in-house wiiu tech… Why look at evidence when we can ignore it and just BS to defend my fav plastic box maker…
Also, the WiiU is basically the PSP remote play in one package, 6y later…
C’mon man, do Nintendo fanboys really have to ape Apple fanboys for everything. Next thing you’re going to tell me how palworld should be sued to the ground…
They took the Tegra because it was sitting in some Nvidia warehouse and they could get it for cheap, or at least get it manufactured for cheap. At least that's what the grapevine says about how that came together. It does fit Nintendo's MO of repurposing older, affordable parts in new ways.
I always get a kick of being called a Nintendo fanboy. For one thing, I don't fanboy. Kids fanboy, and I haven't been one of those in ages. I don't root for operating systems or hardware. I don't even root for sports teams.
For another, back when I was a kid I was a Sega kid. My first Nintendo console was a Gamecube. I was an adult at that point. As a teenager I had a Saturn. I stand by that choice to this day. Better game library than the Dreamcast. Fight me.
But that doesn't change what happened. The Wii U bombed extremely hard, but there was certainly something to the idea of flipping screens. The Switch is ultimately a tweaked Nvidia Shield and little else. The R&D around it clearly went into seamlessly switching the output from handheld to TV and the controllers from attached to detached. And you know what? They killed it on that front. People don't give enough thought to how insane it is that the Switch not only seamlessly changes outputs when docked, but it also overclocks its GPU in real time and switches video modes to flip resolution, typically in less time than it takes the display to detect the new input and show it onscreen.
It's extremely well tuned, too. If you hear devs talk about it, in most cases it takes very little tuning to match docked and handheld performance because the automatic overclock is designed to match the resolution scale.
The Switch didn't succeed (and the Wii U didn't fail) at random. Similar as some of the concepts at play are, the devil is in the detail. Nintendo sucks at many things, but they got this right. Competitors stepping into this hybrid handheld space ignore those details at their peril, and that includes the Switch 2.
At least that’s what the grapevine says about how that came together.
This is when I stopped reading because this is demonstrably false. The 214 scratches the Cortex 53 cores and is semi-custom hardware. That also ignores the obvious deal to cheapen the Tegras, which was basically handing NVIDIA the Chinese market on a silver platter, which Nintendo really didn’t cater at all…
AMD had nothing low power/long battery to offer but the jaguar at the time, so Nintendo had to deal with one of the most hated companies in order to get a competitive mobile chip, rather than doing it in-house with licensed off the shelf ARM chips like before. They took a page from SONY and went with a custom GPU based solution, but lacking a solid hardware department (AMD did a lot of the heavy lifting over the years) they just went with NVIDIA because there was almost no other game in town at that price (see Chinese market above, no one else was trying to get into streaming for the Chinese market and needed a strong game library).
That’s it
Edit: regarding output switching… You must be using an apple phone and never heard of MHL… Jesus… It’s like with Apple fans, shit exists for a decade but they honestly think it was Apple that came up with it. M8, and let’s not start with the joycons, they are pretty shit, prone to failure and the design is so garbage that even Nintendo spent R&D not to use that trash sliding mechanism again…
I would recommend continuing to read, then. Or re-reading. None of the detail you provided contradicts what I said at any point.
In fact, the ultimate takeaway is exactly the same. Feel free to substitute all that detail at the point where you "stopped reading" and keep going from there. It's as good a response as you're going to get from me.
Although, since you're going to be anal about the historical detail, it's incorrect that Nintendo "didn't cater at all" the Chinese market, they had a presence there through the iQue brand all the way up to the 3DS and these days they ship the Switch there directly through Tencent. I wasn't in the room to know what the deal with Nvidia was. I have to assume the Shield ports were both low hanging fruit and some part of it, but I seriously doubt it was a fundamental part of the deal to not compete with them there, considering that it took them like two years after the Switch launch and just one after they stopped running their own operation to partner up with Tencent. You'd think "handing the Chinese market on a silver platter" would include some noncompete clause to prevent that scenario.
In any event, we seem to agree that Nvidia was the most affordable partner that could meet the spec without making the hardware themselves. So... yeah, like I said, feel free to get to the actual point if you want to carry on from there.
The Vita had far more problems than just memory cards. You came very close to identifying what the real problem was, Sony couldn't sustain supporting two separate platforms at once. And conversely, Nintendo unifying onto a single platform was what saved the Switch.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:08
nextcollapse
Is the switch 2 even competitive?
It’s a hall pass to an ecosystem. It’s barely hardware.
You mean as opposed to the Steam branded Steam PC running the Steam OS that boots straight into Steam?
Broadfern@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:27
nextcollapse
Theoretically you can spin up a used thinkpad from a yard sale and run steam. Nintendo doesn’t (legally) run on anything that’s not Nintendo branded ¯_(ツ)_/¯
And theoretically you can install Windows on a Steam Deck. Not making something specifically unsupported doesn't mean you're not building your business model around the default use case.
For the record, Nintendo games can be legally run on an emulator, much as Nintendo may protest this. It's a pain in the ass to do so without technically breaking any regulation, but it sure isn't impossible, and the act of running the software elsewhere isn't illegal.
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Apr 13:04
collapse
Yes but the act of dumping a game or acquiring it in any capacity is illegal (circumventing DRM measures) as well as running the game (which also requires circumventing DRM measures)
I will acknowledge that when it's tested in court. And I mean internationally.
The notion that copyright is absolute as long as the content is hidden behind any and all DRM is nonsensical, as is the assumption that literally any function not enabled to the user on purpose is illegal to use. I suspect the reason nobody has had to really defend that softmodding their console and dumping their owned keys and carts is legal is that no game maker, Nintendo included, wants to see how that goes in any way that would set a precedent.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 19:03
collapse
I mean the hardware is at least decent. And they aren’t shitting out another one because they aren’t seeing the generation improvement in performance they wanted (its coming). If I buy a Steam Deck, I at least get capable hardware.
Nintendo last several generations of hardware are born anemic. They start behind where even close to the cutting edge is. Nintendo has long since gave up pushing any kind of interesting boundary with its hardware.
I can’t just download “SwitchOS” and throw it on some non-anemic hardware to get a decent experience.
As much as people want to project onto Steam the idea that its a walled garden, its not. It is a cultivated garden, but its not walled off. You can enter and leave freely.
I legitimately thought you were talking about Nintendo hardware there for a while.
As far as we can tell the Switch 2 seems like it's a bit ahead of the Deck, which is on the low end of the current batch of PC handhelds anyway. I don't think the quality of hardware is the differentiating factor here, one way or the other. I also don't think "anemic" was what the Switch felt like at launch. It was somewhere between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One, which was only slightly inadequate for a home console and incredibly bulky for a handheld in 2017. "Not pushing any interesting boundary" is somewhere between extremely opinionated and outright incorrect, quite frankly.
I have to say, it's a bit surprising to see all the hostility from... I don't know who this is. PC master race bros? Steam fanboys? You'd think that last group at least would have some fondness for the Switch, given it effectively invented the entire segment of modern hybrid handhelds. Not that I have a horse in that race, there are pros and cons of both, I own both and I think both are pretty great. The Deck effectively replaced the Switch on my rotation, then it got replaced by a Windows handheld and I assume the mix will lean slightly more towards the console end when then Switch 2 comes out, then swing back when newer PC handhelds come out. I am fine with that.
I find the last point interesting, though. What IS a "cultivated garden" platform? I don't know that I think of Steam in those terms at all. Steam is a software platform that just happens to be tied to someone else's hardware and OS and seems very unhappy about it. From the perspective of a PC user I think Steam's dominance is a problem. For one thing because my storefront of choice is GOG (screw DRM, thanks) and for another because the entire point of an open platform is competition. From the perspective of a console user Steam is... well, not that. It's a PC gaming thing, so I don't see it as direct competition in the fist place. Which I guess is why I'm more weirded out than anything else to see people taking sides this aggressively.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 19:48
collapse
What are you on about with the switch having higher specs?
“Not pushing any interesting boundary” is somewhere between extremely opinionated and outright incorrect, quite frankly.
I mean its not. Nintendo, in ancient history, did actually push boundaries around hardware. Most console makers did. The switch did not represent that. The completely transformed their approach to hardware, to shift to weaker, cheaper hardware so that they don’t push themselves out of reach for their target market: children.
The steam deck was a real advance in that regard. The handhelds that have followed have also pushed further. That’s not at all what the Switch2 is. Its behind the starting point for things that were available a few years ago.
The hostility is that Nintendo products have developed from actually capable, latest capabilities things, to a ticket you need to have punched to play a brand of games. The franchised is being carried by fan-boy-ism, not anything that they are doing that are objectively good, or that advance the industry. Its annoying also, that they are constantly being white knighted.
It seems like you are mostly concerned about grinding your axe against steam.
I'm confused. The article you linked seems to very clearly agree with me:
In terms of performance, the Switch 2 is clearly more powerful than the Steam Deck before we even start talking about cooperation with NVIDIA, DLSS upscaling, and tighter game optimizations possible when developing for a fixed console hardware platform.
I mean, yeah, that tracks and is verifiable. It's a more power hungry APU (although admittedly on a larger node), it has more cores on both the CPU and GPU side, a higher resolution and framerate screen. Storage seems to fall somewhere between the cheaper and more expensive Deck models and, while it has less memory it's also... you know, a console, so there's presumably less overhead and the RAM itself is a bit faster, which is very relevant to APUs. The Switch 2 is built on Ampere, while the Deck is on RDNA 2. Both launched in 2020, but I think it's not controversial to say that Nvidia had the edge on both features and performance for that gen.
It is absolutely true that Nintendo traditionally latched on to older, less performant components paired with hardware investment elsewhere, but the Switch was a huge outlier there. If you consider it against handhelds it stood alone as the single most powerful one. Granted, the Vita was the closest comparison and that was a whole generation behind, but I can't stress enough how outclassed it is against the original Switch. The need to push a TV display from a mobile chipset ended up making the Switch a genuinely beefy handheld.
The Switch 2 is interesting because besides iterating on that requirement it also seems like a very deliberate response to the Deck and PC handhelds. It seems intentionally designed to be competitive against the current set of those. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Nintendo pushed the price and performance up a bit specifically for that reason, frankly. It seems egnineered specifically to not feel outdated at launch, even if it will presumably be outclassed again in a couple of years.
And for the record, I'm not "white knighting" Nintendo. They're famously ruthless, litigious and quirky bordering on unreasonableness. Not white knighting (or grinding an axe against) Valve, either. They're also ruthless and quirky bordering on unreasonableness, although clearly much, much better at PR with core gamers. I am actively hostile towards Nintendo's approach to a number of things (primarily emulation) and to Valve's approach to a number of things (primarily their gig economy approach to game development and their monopolistic tendencies). Not rooting for one of them doesn't mean I'm rooting against either of them, or that I don't acknowledge the things they do well or poorly.
mesamunefire@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:13
nextcollapse
I mean most games coming to switch outside of Nintendo themselves is already on or coming to steam deck.
Nowadays consoles don’t really matter. Which is good for the users.
I mean, the PC market has grown, don't get me wrong. Consoles use to be the only thing that mattered and that's no longer the case. You can't afford to ignore PCs anymore.
But consoles still drive a majority of revenue for a majority of games, to my knowledge. And the Switch is a huge market by itself.
More importantly, PC gamers should be extremely invested in console gaming continuing to exist. Console gaming is a big reason PC gaming is viable. They provide a static hardware target that can be used as a default, which then makes it the baseline for PC ports. With no PS5 the only games that make sense to build for PCs are targeting integrated graphics and lowest-common-denominator CPUs. That's why PC games in the 2000s used to look like World of Warcraft even though PCs could do Crysis.
Consoles also standardized a lot of control, networking and other services for games. You don't want a PC-only gaming market.
mesamunefire@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:59
nextcollapse
But if we are talking about pure revenue, mobile game blows both PC and console out of the water.
I suppose saying that consoles don’t matter altogether is disingenuous to the conversation. They matter less now should be the correct statement.
gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
on 06 Apr 20:01
nextcollapse
With no PS5 the only games that make sense to build for PCs are targeting integrated graphics and lowest-common-denominator CPUs.
Are we just ignoring all of the PC-exclusive games PS5 players will never get to play? And the games that were PC-exclusive until their success prompted a console port? The PC catalog dwarfs the PS5 catalog by hundreds of modern titles, and thousands if you count retro games. Steam (just one of the PC software distribution platforms) added over 14,000 games in the last year and there are fewer than 3,500 PS5 games in total. I can tell you that "targeting integrated graphics and lowest-common-denominator CPUs" has never really been a priority in the PC space; you can see this trend even before consoles like the SNES existed.
That's why PC games in the 2000s used to look like World of Warcraft even though PCs could do Crysis.
A lot of PCs couldn't do Crisis. It was a hardware seller because a lot of people significantly upgraded just to play it. Games in the 2000s looked like that because highly-detailed 3D polygonal models used too many resources (mostly CPU at the time). It made more sense, for developer and user, to limit the polygon count for everyone's sake.
Even in the modern day, World of Warcraft is an MMO and the textures and other assets are deliberately less detailed to optimize performance, so this isn't really a fair comparison and doesn't really demonstrate that consoles prop up the PC market (especially since WoW wasn't available for consoles during the peak of its success and was also a hardware seller due to that exclusivity). It's like comparing Plants vs. Zombies and Half-Life 2, or Destiny and Alien: Isolation.
A lot of PCs can't do a lot of games. That is precisely the point.
If you look at the Steam hardware survey at any given point in time, mass market GPUs are typically mid-range parts two to three generations old. And even then, those are still the most popular small fractions of a very fragmented market.
The average PC is an old-ass laptop used by a broke-ass student. Presumably that still is a factor on why CounterStrike, of all things, is Steam's biggest game. It sure was a factor on why WoW or The Sims were persistent PC hits despite looking way below the expectations of contemporary PC hardware.
The beginning of competent console ports in the Xbox 360 era revolutionized that. Suddenly there was a standard PC controller that had parity to mainstream consoles and a close-enough architecture running games on a reliably stable hardware. Suddenly you didn't need to target PC games solely to the minimum common denominator PC, the minimum common denominator was a console that was somewhat above average compared to low-end PCs.
In that scenario you can just let people with high-end hardware crank up resolution, framerate and easily scalable options while allowing for some downward scaling as well. And if that cuts off some integrated graphics on old laptops... well, consoles will more than make up the slack.
Sure, there are PC exclusives because they rely on PC-specific controls or are trying to do some tech-demoy stuff or because they're tiny indies with no money for ports or licensing fees, or because they're made in a region where consoles aren't popular or supported or commercially viable.
But the mainstream segment of gaming we're discussing here? Consoles made the PC as a competitive, platform-agnostic gaming machine.
gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
on 06 Apr 20:44
collapse
The average PC is an old-ass laptop used by a broke-ass student. Presumably that still is a factor on why CounterStrike, of all things, is Steam's biggest game.
It's because of the high percentage of players from developing countries, countries where high-end electronics aren't accessible, or countries with weak economies. Russia, Brazil, etc.
It sure was a factor on why WoW or The Sims were persistent PC hits despite looking way below the expectations of contemporary PC hardware.
When Sims 4 came out, people upgraded. They cancelled Sims 5 so Sims 4 remains, with largely the same specs. That's not something consoles can change. WoW is similar, which is why there's no WoW for PS5.
The beginning of competent console ports in the Xbox 360 era revolutionized that. Suddenly there was a standard PC controller that had parity to mainstream consoles and a close-enough architecture running games on a reliably stable hardware.
That's because Microsoft owns Windows and Xbox, not because Xbox revolutionized gaming. They had the ownership of 2 platforms with significant lock-in. It's like if Nintendo owned both the Switch and PlayStation (which they almost did lol).
Sure, there are PC exclusives because they rely on PC-specific controls or are trying to do some tech-demoy stuff or because they're tiny indies with no money for ports or licensing fees, or because they're made in a region where consoles aren't popular or supported or commercially viable.
So there are 14,000 titles new to Steam in the last year and your conclusion is that they are all either keyboard-only, tech demos, indies, or from a poor nation? Wild. You just said that the Xbox controller opened up a new world over 10 years ago and yet you also believe that these new games just aren't usable with a controller?
You are all over the place here. I'm not doing quotes, either, it's an obnoxious way to argue online.
In no particular order: No, it's not just developing countries on older hardware (although there ARE significant markets where high end hardware is less popular, and they matter). Microsoft doesn't own Windows, Valve owns Windows, at least on gaming, as evidenced by the long string of failed attempts from Microsoft to establish their own store on Windows PCs. The standard controller was part of that, but it wasn't all of it. And yes, most of the 14000 titles on PC are tiny indies that sold next to zero (or actually zero) copies.
Valve runs steam as a gig economy app, there are very few guardrails and instead very strong algorithmic discoverability management tools. Steam has shovelware for the same reason Google Play has shovelware, Steam is just WAY better at surfacing things specifically to gamers.
Incidentally, most of these new games support controllers because the newly standardized Xinput just works. Valve has a whole extra controller translation layer because everything else kinda doesn't and they wanted full compatibility, not just Xbox compatibility because the blood feud between Gaben and Microsoft will never end, I suppose. None of that changes that it was the advent of XInput and Xbox 360 controller compatibility that unlocked direct ports, along with consoles gradually becoming standardized PCs.
gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
on 07 Apr 00:00
collapse
No, it's not just developing countries on older hardware
I was talking about Counter Strike specifically, because you used it as an example.
Microsoft doesn't own Windows
They literally do. Look it up. Windows is developed and maintained by Microsoft. They own all trademarks and intellectual property related to Windows.
Valve runs steam as a gig economy app, there are very few guardrails and instead very strong algorithmic discoverability management tools. Steam has shovelware for the same reason Google Play has shovelware, Steam is just WAY better at surfacing things specifically to gamers.
I never disputed this, but you are arguing that PC games are all shit for some reason or another unless they're ported either from or to PS5.
Incidentally, most of these new games support controllers because the newly standardized Xinput just works.
Newly standardized? Xinput was created in 2005. It has "just worked" for ages, because it is officially supported by Microsoft through Windows. Because they own Xbox, Xinput, and Windows.
Valve has a whole extra controller translation layer because everything else kinda doesn't and they wanted full compatibility
So that they can support other controllers that aren't Xbox...
You're talking out of your ass here and not even paying attention to context which you yourself brought up. Not to mention you aren't even aware of why Xbox had such stellar support (Microsoft is one of the largest tech companies in the world and own the PC OS with the largest market share by a longshot) and how that support translated to the modern rise of PC gaming.
I never disputed this, but you are arguing that PC games are all shit for some reason or another unless they're ported either from or to PS5.
Wait, that's what you think you're arguing against?
No wonder this conversation is so loopy, then.
The fact that consoles are a huge asset for PC gaming doesn't mean, and is nowhere near the same as, saying that "PC games are shit unless ported directly from the PS5". Your straw man is not just subtly misrepresenting my point, it's having some entirely unrelated conversation in a different room with a different person.
Consoles get to be a massive asset for PC games without... well, whatever that statement is supposed to imply. PC games benefit a LOT from having a set target for mainstream hardware be a fixed point for five to ten years. They benefitted strongly from access to a large volume of affordable, standardized, compatible controllers (these days things have been that way long enough that the standards aren't going anywhere, but it was a massive deal in 2005, which is the period we're talking about, despite your surprise that we're talking about it). And yes, the target for PC-only gaming today would be both different and significantly less pleasant without those things. The shift to a more PC-centric market already made it so that ten-year-old games dominate the landscape.
It's not just CounterStrike. It's Fortnite, Overwatch, GTA 5, Minecraft, Roblox. PC gaming's characteristics encourage those types of forever games targeting widely accessible hardware. Consoles existing in parallel open the door to additional viability for AAA releases targeting higher end specs. Not that you wouldn't get any of those without consoles, but for the past 20 years consoles have been a big reason that's a whole genre instead a one-in-a-generation thing you'd get when an engine company wanted to flex its tech muscle for potential engine licensors and accidentally made a game in the process.
CallateCoyote@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 19:58
nextcollapse
There’s some overlap in customers, sure but the vast majority of people who buy a Switch 2 aren’t the types who would buy a Deck. Switch 2 will sell tens of millions more units to a mainstream consumer. And that’s fine. Deck can still be a successful product in its own right as long as Valve is making a profit off of it through Steam software sales.
The Deck is targeted squarely at enthusiasts. While it's a fantastic product for that niche, anyone who thinks it's going to capture a market the size of Nintendo's any time soon is living in a fanboy bubble.
Hell, right now Valve isn't even capable of manufacturing half as many Decks as Nintendo will manufacture Switch 2s. They literally can't sell that number because they can't produce that number.
thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Apr 21:19
nextcollapse
Maybe it’s from huffing too much copium; but I think that Valve’s eventual Steam Deck successor will probably have mainstream console levels of appeal.
By that point in time, compatibility should be nigh-sorted (thanks to all the hard work currently happening), and users won’t need to interact with the Linux desktop mode at all. It would be completely transparent, and only enthusiasts and power-users would ever want interact with it.
The biggest thing going for the SteamOS platform is the immense library that it brings forward; no other console can compete with — even with full backwards compatibility (which even the Switch2 is struggling with).
nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
on 06 Apr 21:55
nextcollapse
Probably not the Steam Deck successor alone, but the PC handheld ecosystem as a whole might be able to get there at some point (preferably mostly running Linux).
Though it’s kind of insane how much progress was already made over one generation: It went from a Kickstarter grift (Smach-Z), to the Steam Deck, to multiple competitors already.
Eventually, perhaps. I do not claim to have a crystal ball powerful enough to peer decades into the future. But right now, for this generation, I can say we're a long way from that point just yet.
What is it about backwards compatibility that the Switch 2 is having issues with? I thought it was all games that brought their own hardware, or depended on a feature that the new Switch doesn’t have (IR camera on the Joycon for example)
thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Apr 23:59
nextcollapse
From my understanding, even though they both run Nvidia-designed ARM processors - there are enough differences between the two SOCs that a direct 1:1 translation is not possible for all titles, and those will need to go through an emulation layer.
Additionally, there are certain titles won’t be compatible due to hardware changes (Ring Fit Adventure for example, and probably all of the LABO stuff?).
Even if you own a Steam Deck, Nintendo has some attractive value. Nintendo essentially has a monopoly on at least 3 genres of videogame. The entire library of Steam doesn’t really have a casual racing game that can go toe-to-toe with Mario Kart. The same can be said for almost any Mario game. Even if a Steam Deck had the games, you’d need 2 decks or an extra controller to get the Switch-style experience. Valve isn’t really trying to compete with the Switch on its own turf.
This is very true. It's not just that Nintendo makes good games, it's that a lot of their games are wildly unlike anything else on the market. The reason I'm losing my mind over a Kirby Air Ride sequel is because there hasn't been any other game like the original from 2003. I've waited 22 years for another game that could scratch that itch.
magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Apr 14:54
collapse
The steam deck can play literally any Mario Kart except for MK World…
Considering this console comes after the Deck and the other handhelds, shouldn’t be the other way around?
Btw to answer the question:
Few exclusive titles (for now)
Not great performance to some last year triple A game (like cyberpunk 2077)
The damn price of the games
The answer is: Yes. Any decently performing handheld right now is a better alternative. RIGHT NOW. In a year, with more exclusive titles and ( let’s hope) better game prices, who knows.
Yeah. I’m 100% who Nintendo is trying to lure with this launch, and honestly I’m a little ticked off about it–I’ve really wanted Metroid Prime 4 for a long time, but now it’s coming out and I have to choose between playing an inferior version or shelling out over $500 to play the good version. ($450 for the system, $80 for the game, and compatible SD cards in sizes larger than the internal storage of the new system don’t even exist yet.) So I’m inclined to wait, and see if there are enough good games to justify the Switch 2 purchase eventually, but they’re going to count that as poor initial sales for Prime 4. It might kill the franchise. Replaying some of my switch titles with upgraded performance might have been enough to motivate me to make the move, but they’re also going to charge extra for that. That’s…not great. Nickle-and-diming on top of a much more expensive system with even more expensive games is just ugly.
It definitely has me thinking about getting a PC handheld instead. A lot of what I was picturing was second-screen gaming while watching TV or YouTube, and the Deck is definitely a competitor in that space. There are a bunch of people saying that “oh, the reason you buy a Nintendo system is to play Nintendo exclusives,” which, yeah, that is a selling point, but for the original switch, just being a portable system that played modern games was also a selling point. That second factor is absolutely going up against the Deck, and frankly losing, because Steam has everything. Switch 2 has to go all in on the exclusives, and that’s a much tougher sell, especially since they don’t have the gold mine of good games nobody had played that they had from the Wii U to pad the release schedule.
Maybe they’ll amaze me, but I see them being very unhappy with the revenue from this console in a couple of years, and casting about for stupid shit to blame. And I think they’re gonna blame Metroid. It’s not Metroid, guys. Metroid is great. It’s the pricing.
Hazelnutcookiez@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 06 Apr 22:49
nextcollapse
Do people actually think its a competitor? This is just news sites trying to make something up for clicks surly.
A surprising number of people in this very comment section seem to.
CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 03:34
nextcollapse
At the time I’m writing this there are 78 comments in this comment section. I haven’t read all of them, so let’s just assume that every single one of those comments represents a unique individual who believes that the Switch 2 and the Steam Deck (and related) are direct competitors.
Given the nature of this platform and community that number is not even remotely surprising. It’s also an utterly insignificant number of people.
The overlap between people who would buy a Switch 2 and people who would buy a Steam Deck is a tiny sliver of a Venn diagram. Those are two largely separate categories of gamer.
I think this more people mistaking people expressing their preferences for a system and extrapolating that to meaning market share predictions.
Reword the question to do you believe Steam Deck will overtake Nintendo market share and you’d get different answers. Same with if you ask someone why is Linux better than Windows versus do you believe Linux can overtake Windows market share?
I find people on the internet have a hard time differentiating between people who are expressing preferences and people predicting market share shifts. People just see oh this person doesn’t like Nintendo or Windows and must believe Steam Deck or Linux is going to be more popular.
CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world
on 08 Apr 02:17
collapse
I typed out the below as a response to you, then reread what you wrote. We might be making the same point just with different words. Hopefully I’m not coming across as overly adversarial.
I think most people on social media, including lemmy, exist in an echo chamber that amplifies specific views to the point that it becomes easy to think those views are much more broadly held then they actually are.
Changing the question around like you suggest might help some people realize that, but I also think that there are a lot of people who think that the views expressed in their slice of social media are actually indicative of broader trends.
I also don’t think I’m immune to this effect, but I do feel somewhat compelled to point out specific instances of it when I notice it.
What I wrote might have been confusing, but I was trying say that places like lemmy may have view points that express preferences that aren’t representative of the mainstream. Like how there may be more positive Linux comments on average per user.
But, that it doesn’t necessarily mean the people expressing those views believe them to be representative of the mainstream. It is more just them expressing their thoughts.
However, people I found across social media can mistake what are simply individual opinions as general proclamations, and immediately jump to “Oh this person is claiming that their view point is one most people hold. What a bold claim.” When all they were saying was I like turtles as opposed to most people like turtles.
Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
on 07 Apr 04:53
nextcollapse
All of these comments here are also on lemmy so I don’t think that’s a comparable sample.
I’d say its more people stating why they prefer the Steam Deck over the Switch than actually believing the Steam Deck would overtake the Switch. Challenge them to a bet and you’d see very few take it.
I think it is people mistaking people’s preferences for market share predictions.
Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Apr 00:51
nextcollapse
I gave away my switch to a coworker because i didn’t really like it to buy a steam deck. So i’d say for me yes they where competitors. I use a lenovo legion go now.
Hazelnutcookiez@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Apr 00:54
collapse
I feel like that’s more of a preference than a competitor/competition though.
Depends on what you are after. Plenty of people are just looking to game, without anything specific in mind. Also plenty of people might see the real difference, want both, but only have the money for one. In these cases I would say that they are competitors as the buyer is contemplating which of the two to buy.
Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Apr 14:24
nextcollapse
Honestly for me it came down to where i prefer to buy my games. Steam games will follow me for the forseeable future and switch games will not. I gave my coworker my nintendo account too with over $500 of games on it and i was like that’s it. That’s enough sunk cost that i will lose.
magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Apr 14:53
collapse
You can go on random comment section on internet, and people are starting new “console war” for Steam Deck vs Nintendo Switch.
melfie@lemmings.world
on 06 Apr 23:16
nextcollapse
Steam Deck will not be able to compete with Switch 2 for first party titles since it can barely emulate Switch games at a decent frame rate. Will likely need a proper gaming PC to emulate S2 first party titles. For all other games, Steam Deck wins because the games don’t cost $80, vastly bigger selection, mods work, etc.
No they’re aren’t competitors. I’d wager a significant portion (probably the majority even) of Switch users have never heard of the Steam Deck or even less so the other handhelds.
Steam Deck has it’s fans but like everything in life just because you love it doesn’t mean the majority of people have any clue about it.
magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Apr 14:41
collapse
I think to the “early adopter” crowd, the people like me who where huffing Nintendo “NX” leaks back in 2016, the more “core” audience of people from the ages of late teens to however old James Rolfe is now.
Those people will probably buy a steam deck before a switch 2. There are a lot of them.
Though not as many people as there are like my ex-sister-in-law and her new bf who put together have four kids. The Linux PC I built them to make sure their kids had a good puter is enough trouble, even with me to help. I don’t see them even considering them for their kids.
That being said I also think many of those people will stick to their current console until they release a cost reduced “switch 2 lite”.
Buying a new $450 console for every kids plus $80 games is fucking brutal and most parents won’t put up with that shit when a used switch lite is like $100-150.
I see this hitting their initial sales a lot more than their sales over the new consoles life span, especially as people who chose steam deck, and the parents who waited, slowly grab a switch 2 during sales/price drops.
The real question is: Do I care? And the answer is no. No I do not.
commander@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 03:42
nextcollapse
No. They aren’t available widespread enough off the Internet, not marketed enough, too heavy. Maybe a hypothetical future Switch 2 and Switch Lite
Etterra@discuss.online
on 07 Apr 04:06
nextcollapse
It largely depends on what you want out of a game system. Currently, no not really. Nintendo is a closed environment with no alternative platforms for the games, and their games are very family friendly and widely popular. Steam Deck is just a portable option for PC games, and therefore has to share its customer base with PC gamers.
Switch 1 emulation on the Steam Deck already has much worse performance than a Switch, given the overhead of emulation. There is no possible way it can run Switch 2 games.
I wouldn’t say much worse performance, really depends on the game you’re trying to run. Based on what I’ve seen online ToTK is maybe slightly worse depending on the place you’re at while a lot of other games match or even exceed switch 1 performance. Combine that with all the dumb shit Nintendo is doing around upgrade packs and making you pay to get better performance and I’d rather go with the free option, since it’s gonna keep being worked on and get better and better. As for Switch 2 games that definitely might be a bit more rough at first but all we can really do with those is speculate until the console is out. Might take a bit for emulation to become available readily for those games but again with all the dumb things Nintendo is doing right now I’d rather wait then reward them for it. Plus by then there might be a new Steam Deck Gen or more PC handhelds from other companies that can compete with the Switch 2.
I think we should be asking the question the otherway around as some games on PC handhelds could be cheaper and possibly run better, but that’s just my opinion
WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 05:53
nextcollapse
A lot of people are saying they’re not really competition judging off sale numbers but I’d say they are, just PC handhelds aren’t that big of competition. They still are taking away sales as I doubt people with a steam deck are also gonna own a switch or switch 2 unless they already had one before the steam deck came out or are well enough off to afford both and don’t want to deal with emulating. I definitely get Lemmy and myself are a biased audience but I think arguing they’re not competition at all is wrong, they’re just not very big competition compared to Nintendo.
Imagine if you could go on the Nintendo store and buy a game you couldn’t even run, or had to check a third party website to see if it ran acceptably and let you use all the buttons.
WraithGear@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 07:19
nextcollapse
How is that different from any other computer buying from steam, ever? In the history of all computer games? A steam deck is a hand held computer with a community large enough, and system specs stable enough to have a rating on potentially any PC, and most Nintendo games in existence. Compared to nintendo’s walled garden. Your comparing apples to oranges.
My comment is germane to the post comparing the two devices in an aspect that exemplifies how they can’t be compared, and tries to spin it as a negative, while attempting to bury its positive.
The fact you say that the switch is not like any other computer is both true in the sense that i already argued, and false in that it IS yet just another computer, but with a walled garden.
If there was any a comment that was irrelevant, it would be yours.
If you try to buy a game on Deck that you couldn’t run on Deck, there will be very clear warning about it, one you can’t miss. At least it was last time I checked. And to be honest, I’m pretty sure the list of games like that is now almost exclusively consists of competitive shooters, and you wouldn’t even think of buying it on Deck anyway.
You can even get every achievement in a game, and return it for a full refund, granted you can beat the game in under two hours. Someone did it with resident evil 3 remake: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp8a5EjAcGs
samuelwankenobi@lemm.ee
on 07 Apr 07:21
nextcollapse
Think about what the parent is going to buy their kids a easy to use Nintendo console or the Steam deck that doesn’t run every game you can buy on it because it’s really a pc
Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
on 07 Apr 09:29
nextcollapse
If you try to buy a game on the deck that isn’t verified to run there you get a warning. Meanwhile you have a limited selection on the switch of over priced games.
This is what cracks me up about this topic literally every time it comes up.
Everyone on highly tech savvy and linux loving lemmy not being able to wrap their heads around the idea that busy parents dont want to have to tech support their kids game console. They want to be able to tell Grandma “He has a switch 2 and wants the new pokemon game for his birthday”, they want to walk into stores and buy accessories that WILL fit and they dont want microtransaction laden shit. One of the FEW things I still respect about Nintendo is that their AAA in house releases are FULL games (for the price, they would fucking want to be).
The 6 to 12yo market alone is probably enough to make the switch worthwhile from a business perspective. The “just tech savvy enough to work facebook” crowd adds in the profit margins.
magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Apr 20:00
nextcollapse
Yes but that group by in large won’t be buying a switch 2 for at least a couple of years. $450 per console plus $80 a game is brutal, especially if you’re buying for more than one kid.
On the other hand a switch lite can be had for like $100 and used games aren’t too expensive either. So for the price of a switch 2 you could get all 3 kids a switch lite + a game. No fucking brainer.
The sort of people who bought a switch at launch, after drinking Nintendo NX leaks like kool-aid, aren’t as impressed this time around. They’re also getting really pissed off at Nintendo’s behavior towards the emulation scene.
Lots of those people, myself included, will be getting a steam deck. A lot of us will also probably end up buying a switch later on after sales/price drops/cheaper revisions. The same time most parents will be snatching them up.
Lifetime sales won’t be affected nearly as hard, but I don’t know that the first year will be as big as the OG switch’s.
That being said if M$ can figure out a good UI for windows portables W/ Xbox integration that might make things even harder for them.
I think you’re definitely right about the adoption speed, people wont be dumping their switches en masse to buy a 2.
The Deck definitely puts a dent in their sales but “i DoNt gEt wHy aNyOnE wOuld bUy a sWitCh” comments on Lemmy show just how skewed the demographics are on here. Its not aimed at us.
emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
on 08 Apr 17:58
collapse
Idiots who have never used a steam deck and are obviously scared by the word linux in this thread. You can easily use the steamdeck without ever leaving gaming mode and with absolutely no troubleshooting needed. Its as simple as browsing steam, pressing download, and pressing play. I would absolutely give it to a child with a few games preloaded, and they would be perfectly fine to use it. The UI is way more friendly than the switch one also. Everytime ive tried to play a game on switch with friends theres been some update that takes ages, the Ui is slow and clunky, and connecting joycons is an absolute pain. What troubleshooting do you think is necessary to run a game from steam lmao?
Honestly I prefer console to PC so much, even as a fediverse user, linux user, someone who has a degoogled phone and uses a home server instead of a cloud, because I just hate having to worry if games are compatible with my hardware, or if controllers are compatible with my game, or if graphical oddities in my game represent supernatural parts of the story or that I didn’t install the right NVidia driver. When it comes to games, which are leisure, I find I just can’t relax with PC games like I can with console games. As for emulation, I can’t enjoy my games like that at all becuse the worry that settings are wrong or emulation is wrong is just too much like work. So I love my switch and I’ll probably love my switch 2 one day.
Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 13:55
nextcollapse
Hello fellow kids, I, too, can not enjoy my steam deck video game PC. I prefer to pay my tithe to Nintendo, my best friend and surrogate parent. I love [Product].
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Apr 21:27
collapse
Isn’t that precisely the point of the steam deck, it provides a console-like target for game devs to develop against.
Yes, to an extent, which is positive. I don’t know too much about the steam deck side of things, but I don’t get the impression that it’s got enough PC market share to do that.
I have a steam controller and last time I used that (admittedly years ago when it was still pretty new) I found Steam Input really didn’t have good defaults at all, despite what they said. The only sort of good defaults had the drawback of just ignoring most of the device’s USPs. It was bad, and community profiles weren’t good either. Maybe it got better?
JakobFel@retrolemmy.com
on 07 Apr 11:11
nextcollapse
Easily. Aside from the first party titles, there’s literally no reason to get a Switch 2. Everything else is objectively better on a PC handheld (especially the Deck).
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 13:32
nextcollapse
Serious question. Do ANY of those have track pads? Because so far those seem to be something that only the deck has and I find them to be its most important feature.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 14:24
nextcollapse
There are thousands of games that come out every year, even after filtering out the asset flips and hentai games. A handful of those will have kernel-level anti cheat that make them incompatible by design. Fewer still will be pushing minimum specs that are too hefty for the Steam Deck to handle. So the thousands of remaining games are your use case for the Steam Deck, which tends to be cheaper than its competition and comes with a better OS. A device like those Android ones are fine for emulation, but you’re not playing newer releases on it, and newer releases are far, far, far more than just AAA games with hefty system requirements; it’s also Mouse: P.I. for Hire, Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves, Warside, Descenders Next, Dispatch, and on and on.
The Ally, Legion, Claw and Win 4 are all more expensive than the Steam Deck. The Odin 2 and Pocket 5 are not, but they don’t run steam, so you can definitely not play all the same games as the steam deck
This is exactly why we have these issues like we’re dealing with with the Switch 2. Console gamers are only focused on hardware and exclusivity, they’re not focused on the operating system of the device, the build quality of the product itself (including the ergonomics), nor do they care about the company that produces it beyond their basic fanboy tendencies.
Steam Deck’s competitors might have slightly better hardware or a higher resolution, but none of them are right to repair friendly. None of them have custom software literally designed for the product, and none of them have the sort of ergonomics that the Steam Deck has. Not to mention the fact that Valve is an American company, which might not be important to everybody, but it is important to me. They’re also a company that has proven themselves to be largely consumer-friendly.
While I’m not dissing anybody who does make the choice to go for an Ally or a Legion Go, the problem I have is that those devices are literally just another hardware company jumping on a band wagon. The Steam Deck completely revolutionized the way that we play on PC. Sure, it took inspiration from the original Switch. There’s no question about that. But that doesn’t mean that Valve was just jumping on a band wagon the way that ASUS and Lenovo are doing.
Valve literally spent years working with Linux developers on software that makes Linux gaming truly viable in order to create devices that allow you to run virtually any game on a handheld that you fully own, are allowed to put any game on (including games from other launchers, which they didn’t have to allow) and you’re fully allowed to self-repair it if any issues arise. Meanwhile, companies like ASUS and Lenovo treat their customers more like smartphone suckers customers, not to mention the fact that they went the cheap and easy route of just using Windows, which isn’t optimized for a device like these. And guess what? Lenovo is bending the knee to the Steam Deck supremacy by allowing you to get a version with SteamOS in the future. That alone proves that Valve is one step ahead of their competition.
To summarize all that I said, the reason the Steam Deck is so good is not just the hardware, it’s not just the screen, it’s the fact that it’s a very capable device at the hardware level, combined with very, very good software and a very consumer-friendly company behind it all.
Yep! When you open the Steam menu, you can access a full-featured desktop mode. It makes the device virtually limitless outside of the software issues you mentioned. And I agree entirely that it’s ridiculous to see these companies ignoring Linux the way they do.
I picked up a Nintendo Switch because of it being a handheld. I wouldn’t have picked one up otherwise, since I had skipped generations of Nintendo consoles preferring Sony due to Nintendo games being too high. But, with the Steam Deck where I don’t even need to repurchase “Deck versions” of games the handheld component isn’t a selling point of the Switch to me anymore.
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Apr 11:36
nextcollapse
Saved you a click: “nO thEyre DiffErANT dEmoGraphiCS”
Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 13:53
collapse
Gotta huff that copium. We need to pay 80 dollars for a ‘key card’
Yes? That’s the analogy. Did they flip it in the article maybe
FooBarrington@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 22:18
collapse
Trick question, there’s no “a pants”
CidVicious@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Apr 22:19
nextcollapse
Well, the steam deck sold something like 6 million, and the switch sold 150 million, so…probably not? But on a more anecdotal level I know a lot of people for whom the Steam Deck took the place of their Switch.
joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
on 08 Apr 01:07
nextcollapse
Yes, when combined with the switch 1
I keep retyping what I want to say, but I think my feelings come down to:
There are 150 million switch 1’s in the wild, that’s going to continue to be a massive pull for developers when porting new games.
Many families may already have the switch 1, are the exclusives enough of a pull to encourage those people to upgrade?
I do think the switch 2 will do just fine, but I also think there are a lot of people who loved their switch 1 who might look at the games they played, and look at upgrading to a steamdeck instead of the switch 2.
Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca
on 08 Apr 02:02
nextcollapse
carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
on 08 Apr 11:11
nextcollapse
I really truly don’t think so. While there is some overlap, I would never give my 5 yo a steam deck and tell them to just figure it out. And on a steam deck, I’d be really sad to not have any Mario kart, Zelda, etc…
I don’t see the problem with having both- they fill different niches.
emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
on 08 Apr 17:51
nextcollapse
Steam deck is definitely just as easy to use as the switch for playing and downloading basic games from the storefront. A 5 year old could absolutely use it easily with some games preloaded.
inverted_deflector@startrek.website
on 08 Apr 18:33
collapse
Its not specifically hard but its also not just as easy to use. I say this as someone whos been gaming on linux for over a decade now. You still run into issues here and there with proton(often a devs fault for bad code) and there is genuinely a lot more going on and tweakable on the steamdeck.
Steamdeck is a great device but Nintendo is good at making simple systems
emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
on 08 Apr 19:58
collapse
The steam deck has way more potential, but CAN be just as simplr as only ever launching and downloading games through gaming mode. The parent downloads 5stean deck verified games and then all the kid has to do is use the joystick to switch between them. But then it also has the potential to be a learning experience or teaching tool as the kid grows. But the steamos gaming mode is dead simple to navigate and a child could definitely use it.
ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 09 Apr 07:23
collapse
I don’t see the problem with having both- they fill different niches.
Money. Steam Deck OLED costs in my country €700, Switch OLED €350-360 and the Switch 2 will be around the €560-600.
steam deck, I’d be really sad to not have any Mario kart, Zelda, etc…
I’m so close on purchasing a Steam Deck OLED to game in weekends or in bed after full 5 days behind a desk job. But I’m always worried that these games won’t work well with emulations. I’ve been researching like crazy but keep reading different things.
And spending €700 with uncertainty is not my favorite thing to do.
carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 10:49
nextcollapse
I really doubt switch 2 games will emulate at all or well for quite some time.
I get the money argument. In that case, get the one that does more for you now now, and save up for the other one later. You don’t need them all at once.
I waited a year before getting the first switch, and almost 2 years for a ps4. I think I waited at least a year for all the other PlayStations too save the 5.
Getting something at launch isn’t all that great- bugs, limited games, max prices, etc… a year or so later and you get bundles and deals and lots of game choices.
I don’t have a deck- but a few of my friends do and I’ve played with it a bit- it’s great and I want one at some point, but I can wait for #2 to come out and then go on sale before I dive in.
Haha, I am researching like crazy as well. So far I came to the conclusion that I have 3 options:
get a Steam Deck
get a Lenovo Legion Go (more power but less battery life)
wait and see what will Lenovo Legion Go 2 be like
So far I’m waiting. My current Switch isn’t going anywhere, but going forward I’m not going to spend much on games there.
midori_matcha@lemmy.world
on 08 Apr 15:55
nextcollapse
Nintendo consoles are locked down, solely designed to force you to spend top dollar on the latest Bing-Bing-Wahoo games and late capitalism subscriptions so you can play with children and manchildren alike. You get the choice to buy BingKart Horizon for $80-90, or buy the old Switch 1 games again, full price, because they didn’t want to bother releasing a 5MB update to unlock the framerates and resolution in the original ones. Nintendo wants more money, fuck you, pay more.
Steam Deck is effectively a gaming PC crammed into a handheld. It uses an open OS that you don’t have to root, so you can install almost every game humanity has ever made, including all the previous Bing-Bing-Wahoos. You can get any of these games for FREE (if you’re smart), or just wait for a fire sale held several times a year. We can vaguely count on someone eventually developing an emulator to work with Switch 2 games one day, saving everyone money in the long run, because those angel developers that operate against the wishes of corporate gaming cartel oppressors are the closest thing we have to Santa Claus and Jesus doing a fusion dance. The Steam Deck is how we forgive Gaben for never releasing HL3. Exclusively played by giga-manchildren.
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world
on 08 Apr 17:56
nextcollapse
Shit no, its a different market. The switch was designed by committee to extract the maximum amount of money possible from the consumer. The Steam Deck is geared toward PC enthusiasts and built and designed by those same people. They aren’t even in the same ball park.
Within an enthusiast bubble, PC handhelds are a big deal, but they do not exist in the same universe as Nintendo consoles.
I keep hearing this shit and it seems like stupid wishful thinking, because in a locked-down universe where Switch 2 is not a shitty proposition for way too much cash compared to getting a PC with 10k+ PC games from the get go and also emulating anything you wish because it’s your hardware and it’s just bits - in that universe, Polygon is a much needed pool of experts that people go to for advice instead of a source of stupid ragebait titles telling them a log of shit is the new snickers.
Nintendo will not have true competition in handhelds until its peers in the console space get involved.
Yeah, sure, fuck you Polygon
MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
on 11 Apr 09:36
collapse
If all of its games were available elsewhere, there would be a lot less switch users
threaded - newest
They’re cheaper which is insane. We could see a boom if third party manufacturers hop on steamOS now
They're NOT cheaper. There is exactly one cheaper PC handheld, and it's the base model of the LCD variant of the Deck.
And the reason for that is that Valve went out of its way to sign a console maker-style large scale deal with AMD. And even then, that model of the Deck has a much worse screen, worse CPU and GPU and presumably much cheaper controls (it does ship with twice as much storage, though).
They are, as the article says, competitive in price and specs, and I'm sure some next-gen iterations of PC handhelds will outperform the Switch 2 very clearly pretty soon, let alone by the end of its life. Right now I'd say the Switch 2 has a little bit of an edge, with dedicated ports selectively cherry picking visual features, instead of having to run full fat PC ports meant for current-gen GPUs at thumbnail resolutions in potato mode.
We don’t really know this. It is possible that the CPU will be trash. Nintendo’s devices don’t really support genres that require CPU power (4X, tycoon, city-builder, RTS, MMO etc.).
While we don’t have detailed info on the Switch 2 CPU, the original Switch CPU was three generations behind at the time of the console’s release.
Best we can tell this is an embedded Ampere GPU with some ARM CPU. The Switch had a slightly weird but very functional CPU for its time. It was a quad core thing with one core reserved for the OS, which was a bit weird in a landscape where every other console could do eight threads, but the cores were clocked pretty fast by comparison.
It's kinda weird to visualize it as a genre thing, though. I mean, Civ VII not only has a Switch 2 port, it has a Switch 1 port, too. CPU usage in gaming is a... weird and complicated thing. Unless one is a systems engineer working on the specific hardware I wouldn't make too many assumptions about how these things go.
If you primarily play CPU bound strategy games, you can very much make conclusive statements about CPU performance. For example, Cities in Motion 1 (from the studio that created Cities: Skylines), released in 2010, can bring a modern CPU to its knees if you use modded maps, free look and say a 1440p monitor (the graphics don’t actually matter). Even a simple looking game like The Final Earth 2 can bring your FPS to a crawl due to CPU bottlenecks (even modern CPUs) in the late game with large maps. I will note that The Final Earth 2 has an Android version, but that doesn’t mean the game (which I’ve played on Android) isn’t fundamentally limited by CPU performance.
It very much is a genre thing. Can you show me a game like Transport Fever 2 on the Switch? Cities: Skylines?
The OG switch CPU was completely outdated when released and provides extremely poor performance.
The switch was released in 2017. It’s CPU, the cortex A57, was released in 2012. It was three generation behind the cortex A75 that was released in 2017.
I mean...
https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/cities-skylines-nintendo-switch-edition-switch/
So you’re saying it’s identical to the PC version in terms of scope and capabilities?
Have you ever played Cities: Skylines on PC?
And claiming that the Cortex A57 was a capable CPU in 2017 is not serious.
Well, it runs like crap, for sure, but that's not the bar that you set here.
Now that I think about it, what are you saying? Your point seems a bit muddled.
The Switch CPU had very poor performance for 2017, it was 3 generations behind then current ARM/cortex releases.
It is very likely the CPU in the Switch 2 will also be subpar by modern standards.
I.e. You don’t know that the Steam Deck has a worse CPU and considering Nintendo’s history with CPUs, it is not impossible for the Switch 2 CPU to be noticeably worse than the Steam Deck.
What is "par" here?
Nobody was complaining about the Switch CPU. It was a pretty solid choice for the time. It outperformed the Xbox 360 somewhat, which is really all it needed to do to support last-gen ports. Like I said, the big annoyance that was specifically CPU-related from a dev perspective was the low thread count, which made cramming previous-gen multithreaded stuff into a fraction of the threads a bit of a mess.
The point of a console CPU is to run games, it's not raw compute. The Switch had what it needed for the scope of games it was running. On a handheld you also want it to be power efficient, which it was. In fact, the Switch didn't overclock the CPU on docked, just the GPU. Because it didn't need it. And we now know it did have some headroom to run faster, jailbroken Switches can be reliably clocked up a fair amount. Nintendo locked it that low because they found it was the right balance of power consumption and speed to support the rest of the components.
Memory bandwidth ended up being much more of a bottleneck on it. For a lot of the games you wanted to make on a Switch the CPU was not the limit you were bumping into. The memory and the GPU were more likely to be slowing you down before CPU cycles did.
The Switch CPU performs extremely poorly as far as gaming is concerned. Case in point, you cited Cities: Skylines, a quick web search suggests performance is terrible on the Switch and it seems to have been abandoned shortly after release.
While I don’t doubt the Switch 2 CPU will be sufficient for games released by Nintendo, from a broader gaming perspective (gaming is not only Nintendo), it is likely the Switch 2 CPU will also be subpar and will perform worse than the Steam Deck (which is a handheld and its CPU is also subject to efficiency requirements). Whether Nintendo users know/care/don’t care about this is irrelevant. We are talking about objective facts.
I swear, every time into one of these the Dunning-Kruger gets me.
I know it's coming, but it gets me anyway.
Keep telling yourself that!
You don’t know anything about the Switch 2’s CPU and you just assumed it will be better because “trust me bro”.
And you have the gall to call other people stupid (note that I never insulted you) and in such passive-aggressive way too.
What "standards" are you comparing it to? The Switch 1 was behind home consoles, but that's not really a fair comparison. There was nothing similar on the market to appropriately compare it to, no "standard".
Five years later the Steam Deck outperformed the Switch, because of course hardware from five years later would. But the gap between the 2017 Switch and 2022 Deck is not so vast that you can definitively claim in advance to know that the 2025 Switch 2 definitely has to be worse. You don't know that and can't go claiming it as fact.
All we know so far is that the Switch 2 does beat the Deck in at least one major attribute: it has a 1080p120 screen, in contrast to the Deck's 800p60. And it is not unlikely to expect the rest of the hardware to reflect that.
OP claimed the Steam Deck’s CPU was definitely worse than the Switch 2 (this was an explicit, categorical statement).
Considering the Switch’s history (Cortex A57 used in the OG Switch being three generation behind in 2017), it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the Switch 2 CPU is likely to be extremely weak from a gaming perspective (I never brought up compute or synthetic benchmarks).
Exactly what hardware at a similarly competitive price point and form factor are you comparing it to when you say it's behind?
The Switch 1 didn't use the very best top of the line parts that money could buy, but if that's what you're fixating on then you're missing the fact that neither did the Steam Deck. The Switch made compromises to hit a $300 price point in 2017, and the Deck made compromises to hit a $400 price point in 2022.
Portable devices using ARM CPU cores, even ones for ~$350, like the Xiaomi F1 released in 2018. It came with a new Snapdragon 845 SoC that included an Adreno 630 GPU.
It didn’t have the form factor of the Switch, I will give you that. My point is that the Switch had a very weak CPU when compared to similar devices even in the same price band for its time.
So it's not a similar device. Comparing to phones is rather misleading, given that phones do not have active cooling and wouldn't actually be able to run the kinds of games the Switch hardware could without catching on fire in the process. They aren't gaming hardware.
It’s a portable gaming device. It is in the same market.
You can play complex strategy games that require strong CPUs like Project Highrise, The Final Earth 2, Mega Mall Story 2 on mobile.
You won’t be able to run The Final Earth 2 even with the standard mobile population limit on a Switch because it uses an ancient CPU and it’s a quad core.
Don’t limit yourself by Nintendo PR and marketing. The gaming world (portable or otherwise) is not limited to Nintendo.
Betteridge wins again.
Handhelds are a niche in PC gaming. Especially in the whole gaming market.
There’s a lot here, and yes, the total addressable market for the Steam Deck is currently less than either Switch will sell in a single quarter, but the video game market is a very different thing now than it was in early 2017. The Switch was the only game in town; now it’s not. Live service games make up a significant amount of what the average consumer wants, and those customers largely play on PC for all sorts of reasons. The Switch 2 is no longer priced cheaply enough that it’s an easy purchase for your child to play with, abuse, and possibly break. The console market in general is in the most visible decline it’s ever been in, also for all sorts of reasons, and those handhelds from Sony and, at least, Microsoft are likely to just be handheld PCs as well.
Development on blockbuster system sellers has slowed way down, which comes hand in hand with there just not being as many of them, which makes buying yet another walled garden ecosystem less appealing. This walled garden has Pokemon and Mario Kart, so Nintendo’s not about to go bankrupt, but if we smash cut to 8 years from now and the Switch 2 sold more units than the Switch 1, I’d have to ask how on earth that happened, because it’s looking like just about an impossible outcome from where we stand now.
Also, there’s this quote:
Look, I’m no Microsoft fanboy. Windows 10 was an abomination that got me to switch to Linux, and Windows 11 is somehow even worse. The combination of Teams and Windows 11 has made my experience at work significantly worse than in years prior. However, credit where credit is due: Microsoft standardized controller inputs and glyphs in PC games about 20 years ago and created an incentive for it to be the same game that was made on consoles. It married more complex PC gaming designs with intuitive console gaming designs, and we no longer got bespoke “PC versions” and “console versions” of the same title that were actually dramatically different games. PC gaming today is better because of efforts taken from Microsoft, and that’s to say nothing of what other software solutions like DirectX have done before that.
Still, the reason a Microsoft handheld might succeed is because it does what the Steam Deck does without the limitations of incompatibility with kernel level anti cheat or bleeding edge software features like ray tracing (EDIT: also, Game Pass, the thing Microsoft is surely going to hammer home most). Personally, I don’t see a path for a Sony handheld to compete.
You are leaving out the elephant in the room: smartphones.
So, so, so many people game on smartphones. It’s technically the majority of the “gaming” market, especially live service games. A large segment of the population doesn’t even use PCs and does the majority of their computer stuff on smartphones or tablets, and that fraction seems to be getting bigger. Point being the future of the Windows PC market is no guarantee.
I don’t think the people gaming on smart phones are the same demographic that would compete with the Switch 2 or a handheld PC. It’s not a lot of data, but take a look at how poorly Apple’s initiative for AAA games on iPhone has been going. There are more problems with that market than just library. The PC market has been slowly and steadily growing for decades while the console market has shrunk.
.
Yeah, you and @ampersandrew@lemmy.world have a point.
I am vastly oversimplifying a lot, but… Perhaps mobile gaming, on aggregate, is too shitty for its own good? It really looks that way whenever I sample the popular ones.
I suspect it’s more that the time people can and do spend playing phone games has just about zero overlap with PC games. You play phone games while on the bus or on the toilet, you play PC games while at home behind your desk.
.
I think a huge reason so many people with a Steam Deck also have a Switch is that the Switch had a 5 year head start. Hades did really well on Switch, but I can’t imagine anyone choosing that version of the game if they had a Steam Deck, and the same applies to Doom, The Witcher 3, etc. I have a Switch and a Steam Deck, but I haven’t used one of those machines in years.
Some people spend a lot of time, money in mobile games.
Occam’s Razor. I think it’s just the “default device” and placed in front of their eyes, so it’s what most people choose?
Really wild to go from this vibe at the end of the seventh generation of consoles to the one we’re at now. For me, and many other people that like high quality gaming experiences, mobile games have completely vanished.
.
Direct input existed before xinput and works just fine
I was out after this. This is patently wrong. Crucially, Nintendo capitalised on the failure of the vita using the exact same strategy but with a caveat: 3rd party memory cards.
The PSVita had the power to play former gen games in a compact format and MUCH better connectivity than the switch. It failed on the stupid memory cards. Nintendo did not. That’s pretty much it. Sony had the AAA handheld market with the PSP and blew it. I’d be very surprised if something like this wasn’t uttered by an MBA regard in sony’s corpo structure:
“If we divide our playerbase between handheld and dedicated living room console too much it will damage our business”.
So instead of capitalising on a massive library of games that could easily have been ported to a handheld format (the PS4 had 1,4TFlops, we’ve surpased that on mobile before the PS5 launched) SONY decided to double down on AAA and subsequently in live service games, and here we are…
If someone can create a handheld AAA console is a team lead by mark cerny with the support of AMD. To this day I don’t know how we end up with PS portal instead…
So here we are, Sony carved out a niche (AAA and fidelity) from the Nintendo handheld success, and just decided to sit on their hands with it. There was exactly 0 foresight from Nintendo. They knew from the beginning the living room was lost to either MS or Sony to begin with.
Nah, this is pretty bad analysis.
Nintendo got to the Switch via the Wii U and through the realization that they could package similar hardware with affordable off-the-shelf parts and still drive a TV output that was competitive with their "one-gen-old-with-a-gimmick" model for home consoles.
It was NOT a handheld with AAA games, it was a home console you could take with you. That is how they got to a point where all the journalists, reviewers and users that spent the Vita's lifetime wondering who wanted to play Uncharted on a portable were over the moon with a handheld Zelda instead.
So yeah, turns out the read the article has is actually far closer to what happened than yours, I'm sorry to say.
Yes, that’s why they took an ARM based Tegra (like the vita with the powerVR from imagination tech) unlike the in-house wiiu tech… Why look at evidence when we can ignore it and just BS to defend my fav plastic box maker…
Also, the WiiU is basically the PSP remote play in one package, 6y later…
C’mon man, do Nintendo fanboys really have to ape Apple fanboys for everything. Next thing you’re going to tell me how palworld should be sued to the ground…
They took the Tegra because it was sitting in some Nvidia warehouse and they could get it for cheap, or at least get it manufactured for cheap. At least that's what the grapevine says about how that came together. It does fit Nintendo's MO of repurposing older, affordable parts in new ways.
I always get a kick of being called a Nintendo fanboy. For one thing, I don't fanboy. Kids fanboy, and I haven't been one of those in ages. I don't root for operating systems or hardware. I don't even root for sports teams.
For another, back when I was a kid I was a Sega kid. My first Nintendo console was a Gamecube. I was an adult at that point. As a teenager I had a Saturn. I stand by that choice to this day. Better game library than the Dreamcast. Fight me.
But that doesn't change what happened. The Wii U bombed extremely hard, but there was certainly something to the idea of flipping screens. The Switch is ultimately a tweaked Nvidia Shield and little else. The R&D around it clearly went into seamlessly switching the output from handheld to TV and the controllers from attached to detached. And you know what? They killed it on that front. People don't give enough thought to how insane it is that the Switch not only seamlessly changes outputs when docked, but it also overclocks its GPU in real time and switches video modes to flip resolution, typically in less time than it takes the display to detect the new input and show it onscreen.
It's extremely well tuned, too. If you hear devs talk about it, in most cases it takes very little tuning to match docked and handheld performance because the automatic overclock is designed to match the resolution scale.
The Switch didn't succeed (and the Wii U didn't fail) at random. Similar as some of the concepts at play are, the devil is in the detail. Nintendo sucks at many things, but they got this right. Competitors stepping into this hybrid handheld space ignore those details at their peril, and that includes the Switch 2.
This is when I stopped reading because this is demonstrably false. The 214 scratches the Cortex 53 cores and is semi-custom hardware. That also ignores the obvious deal to cheapen the Tegras, which was basically handing NVIDIA the Chinese market on a silver platter, which Nintendo really didn’t cater at all…
AMD had nothing low power/long battery to offer but the jaguar at the time, so Nintendo had to deal with one of the most hated companies in order to get a competitive mobile chip, rather than doing it in-house with licensed off the shelf ARM chips like before. They took a page from SONY and went with a custom GPU based solution, but lacking a solid hardware department (AMD did a lot of the heavy lifting over the years) they just went with NVIDIA because there was almost no other game in town at that price (see Chinese market above, no one else was trying to get into streaming for the Chinese market and needed a strong game library).
That’s it
Edit: regarding output switching… You must be using an apple phone and never heard of MHL… Jesus… It’s like with Apple fans, shit exists for a decade but they honestly think it was Apple that came up with it. M8, and let’s not start with the joycons, they are pretty shit, prone to failure and the design is so garbage that even Nintendo spent R&D not to use that trash sliding mechanism again…
I would recommend continuing to read, then. Or re-reading. None of the detail you provided contradicts what I said at any point.
In fact, the ultimate takeaway is exactly the same. Feel free to substitute all that detail at the point where you "stopped reading" and keep going from there. It's as good a response as you're going to get from me.
Although, since you're going to be anal about the historical detail, it's incorrect that Nintendo "didn't cater at all" the Chinese market, they had a presence there through the iQue brand all the way up to the 3DS and these days they ship the Switch there directly through Tencent. I wasn't in the room to know what the deal with Nvidia was. I have to assume the Shield ports were both low hanging fruit and some part of it, but I seriously doubt it was a fundamental part of the deal to not compete with them there, considering that it took them like two years after the Switch launch and just one after they stopped running their own operation to partner up with Tencent. You'd think "handing the Chinese market on a silver platter" would include some noncompete clause to prevent that scenario.
In any event, we seem to agree that Nvidia was the most affordable partner that could meet the spec without making the hardware themselves. So... yeah, like I said, feel free to get to the actual point if you want to carry on from there.
The Vita had far more problems than just memory cards. You came very close to identifying what the real problem was, Sony couldn't sustain supporting two separate platforms at once. And conversely, Nintendo unifying onto a single platform was what saved the Switch.
Is the switch 2 even competitive?
It’s a hall pass to an ecosystem. It’s barely hardware.
You mean as opposed to the Steam branded Steam PC running the Steam OS that boots straight into Steam?
Theoretically you can spin up a used thinkpad from a yard sale and run steam. Nintendo doesn’t (legally) run on anything that’s not Nintendo branded ¯_(ツ)_/¯
And theoretically you can install Windows on a Steam Deck. Not making something specifically unsupported doesn't mean you're not building your business model around the default use case.
For the record, Nintendo games can be legally run on an emulator, much as Nintendo may protest this. It's a pain in the ass to do so without technically breaking any regulation, but it sure isn't impossible, and the act of running the software elsewhere isn't illegal.
Yes but the act of dumping a game or acquiring it in any capacity is illegal (circumventing DRM measures) as well as running the game (which also requires circumventing DRM measures)
I will acknowledge that when it's tested in court. And I mean internationally.
The notion that copyright is absolute as long as the content is hidden behind any and all DRM is nonsensical, as is the assumption that literally any function not enabled to the user on purpose is illegal to use. I suspect the reason nobody has had to really defend that softmodding their console and dumping their owned keys and carts is legal is that no game maker, Nintendo included, wants to see how that goes in any way that would set a precedent.
I mean the hardware is at least decent. And they aren’t shitting out another one because they aren’t seeing the generation improvement in performance they wanted (its coming). If I buy a Steam Deck, I at least get capable hardware.
Nintendo last several generations of hardware are born anemic. They start behind where even close to the cutting edge is. Nintendo has long since gave up pushing any kind of interesting boundary with its hardware.
I can’t just download “SwitchOS” and throw it on some non-anemic hardware to get a decent experience.
As much as people want to project onto Steam the idea that its a walled garden, its not. It is a cultivated garden, but its not walled off. You can enter and leave freely.
I legitimately thought you were talking about Nintendo hardware there for a while.
As far as we can tell the Switch 2 seems like it's a bit ahead of the Deck, which is on the low end of the current batch of PC handhelds anyway. I don't think the quality of hardware is the differentiating factor here, one way or the other. I also don't think "anemic" was what the Switch felt like at launch. It was somewhere between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One, which was only slightly inadequate for a home console and incredibly bulky for a handheld in 2017. "Not pushing any interesting boundary" is somewhere between extremely opinionated and outright incorrect, quite frankly.
I have to say, it's a bit surprising to see all the hostility from... I don't know who this is. PC master race bros? Steam fanboys? You'd think that last group at least would have some fondness for the Switch, given it effectively invented the entire segment of modern hybrid handhelds. Not that I have a horse in that race, there are pros and cons of both, I own both and I think both are pretty great. The Deck effectively replaced the Switch on my rotation, then it got replaced by a Windows handheld and I assume the mix will lean slightly more towards the console end when then Switch 2 comes out, then swing back when newer PC handhelds come out. I am fine with that.
I find the last point interesting, though. What IS a "cultivated garden" platform? I don't know that I think of Steam in those terms at all. Steam is a software platform that just happens to be tied to someone else's hardware and OS and seems very unhappy about it. From the perspective of a PC user I think Steam's dominance is a problem. For one thing because my storefront of choice is GOG (screw DRM, thanks) and for another because the entire point of an open platform is competition. From the perspective of a console user Steam is... well, not that. It's a PC gaming thing, so I don't see it as direct competition in the fist place. Which I guess is why I'm more weirded out than anything else to see people taking sides this aggressively.
What are you on about with the switch having higher specs?
hothardware.com/news/switch-2-vs-steam-deck
I mean its not. Nintendo, in ancient history, did actually push boundaries around hardware. Most console makers did. The switch did not represent that. The completely transformed their approach to hardware, to shift to weaker, cheaper hardware so that they don’t push themselves out of reach for their target market: children.
The steam deck was a real advance in that regard. The handhelds that have followed have also pushed further. That’s not at all what the Switch2 is. Its behind the starting point for things that were available a few years ago.
The hostility is that Nintendo products have developed from actually capable, latest capabilities things, to a ticket you need to have punched to play a brand of games. The franchised is being carried by fan-boy-ism, not anything that they are doing that are objectively good, or that advance the industry. Its annoying also, that they are constantly being white knighted.
It seems like you are mostly concerned about grinding your axe against steam.
I'm confused. The article you linked seems to very clearly agree with me:
I mean, yeah, that tracks and is verifiable. It's a more power hungry APU (although admittedly on a larger node), it has more cores on both the CPU and GPU side, a higher resolution and framerate screen. Storage seems to fall somewhere between the cheaper and more expensive Deck models and, while it has less memory it's also... you know, a console, so there's presumably less overhead and the RAM itself is a bit faster, which is very relevant to APUs. The Switch 2 is built on Ampere, while the Deck is on RDNA 2. Both launched in 2020, but I think it's not controversial to say that Nvidia had the edge on both features and performance for that gen.
It is absolutely true that Nintendo traditionally latched on to older, less performant components paired with hardware investment elsewhere, but the Switch was a huge outlier there. If you consider it against handhelds it stood alone as the single most powerful one. Granted, the Vita was the closest comparison and that was a whole generation behind, but I can't stress enough how outclassed it is against the original Switch. The need to push a TV display from a mobile chipset ended up making the Switch a genuinely beefy handheld.
The Switch 2 is interesting because besides iterating on that requirement it also seems like a very deliberate response to the Deck and PC handhelds. It seems intentionally designed to be competitive against the current set of those. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Nintendo pushed the price and performance up a bit specifically for that reason, frankly. It seems egnineered specifically to not feel outdated at launch, even if it will presumably be outclassed again in a couple of years.
And for the record, I'm not "white knighting" Nintendo. They're famously ruthless, litigious and quirky bordering on unreasonableness. Not white knighting (or grinding an axe against) Valve, either. They're also ruthless and quirky bordering on unreasonableness, although clearly much, much better at PR with core gamers. I am actively hostile towards Nintendo's approach to a number of things (primarily emulation) and to Valve's approach to a number of things (primarily their gig economy approach to game development and their monopolistic tendencies). Not rooting for one of them doesn't mean I'm rooting against either of them, or that I don't acknowledge the things they do well or poorly.
I mean most games coming to switch outside of Nintendo themselves is already on or coming to steam deck.
Nowadays consoles don’t really matter. Which is good for the users.
This is objectively wrong.
I mean, the PC market has grown, don't get me wrong. Consoles use to be the only thing that mattered and that's no longer the case. You can't afford to ignore PCs anymore.
But consoles still drive a majority of revenue for a majority of games, to my knowledge. And the Switch is a huge market by itself.
More importantly, PC gamers should be extremely invested in console gaming continuing to exist. Console gaming is a big reason PC gaming is viable. They provide a static hardware target that can be used as a default, which then makes it the baseline for PC ports. With no PS5 the only games that make sense to build for PCs are targeting integrated graphics and lowest-common-denominator CPUs. That's why PC games in the 2000s used to look like World of Warcraft even though PCs could do Crysis.
Consoles also standardized a lot of control, networking and other services for games. You don't want a PC-only gaming market.
PC gaming is much bigger now.
One such article that discussed the revenue change. wccftech.com/pc-gaming-brought-in-significantly-h…
But if we are talking about pure revenue, mobile game blows both PC and console out of the water.
I suppose saying that consoles don’t matter altogether is disingenuous to the conversation. They matter less now should be the correct statement.
Are we just ignoring all of the PC-exclusive games PS5 players will never get to play? And the games that were PC-exclusive until their success prompted a console port? The PC catalog dwarfs the PS5 catalog by hundreds of modern titles, and thousands if you count retro games. Steam (just one of the PC software distribution platforms) added over 14,000 games in the last year and there are fewer than 3,500 PS5 games in total. I can tell you that "targeting integrated graphics and lowest-common-denominator CPUs" has never really been a priority in the PC space; you can see this trend even before consoles like the SNES existed.
A lot of PCs couldn't do Crisis. It was a hardware seller because a lot of people significantly upgraded just to play it. Games in the 2000s looked like that because highly-detailed 3D polygonal models used too many resources (mostly CPU at the time). It made more sense, for developer and user, to limit the polygon count for everyone's sake.
Even in the modern day, World of Warcraft is an MMO and the textures and other assets are deliberately less detailed to optimize performance, so this isn't really a fair comparison and doesn't really demonstrate that consoles prop up the PC market (especially since WoW wasn't available for consoles during the peak of its success and was also a hardware seller due to that exclusivity). It's like comparing Plants vs. Zombies and Half-Life 2, or Destiny and Alien: Isolation.
A lot of PCs can't do a lot of games. That is precisely the point.
If you look at the Steam hardware survey at any given point in time, mass market GPUs are typically mid-range parts two to three generations old. And even then, those are still the most popular small fractions of a very fragmented market.
The average PC is an old-ass laptop used by a broke-ass student. Presumably that still is a factor on why CounterStrike, of all things, is Steam's biggest game. It sure was a factor on why WoW or The Sims were persistent PC hits despite looking way below the expectations of contemporary PC hardware.
The beginning of competent console ports in the Xbox 360 era revolutionized that. Suddenly there was a standard PC controller that had parity to mainstream consoles and a close-enough architecture running games on a reliably stable hardware. Suddenly you didn't need to target PC games solely to the minimum common denominator PC, the minimum common denominator was a console that was somewhat above average compared to low-end PCs.
In that scenario you can just let people with high-end hardware crank up resolution, framerate and easily scalable options while allowing for some downward scaling as well. And if that cuts off some integrated graphics on old laptops... well, consoles will more than make up the slack.
Sure, there are PC exclusives because they rely on PC-specific controls or are trying to do some tech-demoy stuff or because they're tiny indies with no money for ports or licensing fees, or because they're made in a region where consoles aren't popular or supported or commercially viable.
But the mainstream segment of gaming we're discussing here? Consoles made the PC as a competitive, platform-agnostic gaming machine.
It's because of the high percentage of players from developing countries, countries where high-end electronics aren't accessible, or countries with weak economies. Russia, Brazil, etc.
When Sims 4 came out, people upgraded. They cancelled Sims 5 so Sims 4 remains, with largely the same specs. That's not something consoles can change. WoW is similar, which is why there's no WoW for PS5.
That's because Microsoft owns Windows and Xbox, not because Xbox revolutionized gaming. They had the ownership of 2 platforms with significant lock-in. It's like if Nintendo owned both the Switch and PlayStation (which they almost did lol).
So there are 14,000 titles new to Steam in the last year and your conclusion is that they are all either keyboard-only, tech demos, indies, or from a poor nation? Wild. You just said that the Xbox controller opened up a new world over 10 years ago and yet you also believe that these new games just aren't usable with a controller?
You are all over the place here. I'm not doing quotes, either, it's an obnoxious way to argue online.
In no particular order: No, it's not just developing countries on older hardware (although there ARE significant markets where high end hardware is less popular, and they matter). Microsoft doesn't own Windows, Valve owns Windows, at least on gaming, as evidenced by the long string of failed attempts from Microsoft to establish their own store on Windows PCs. The standard controller was part of that, but it wasn't all of it. And yes, most of the 14000 titles on PC are tiny indies that sold next to zero (or actually zero) copies.
Valve runs steam as a gig economy app, there are very few guardrails and instead very strong algorithmic discoverability management tools. Steam has shovelware for the same reason Google Play has shovelware, Steam is just WAY better at surfacing things specifically to gamers.
Incidentally, most of these new games support controllers because the newly standardized Xinput just works. Valve has a whole extra controller translation layer because everything else kinda doesn't and they wanted full compatibility, not just Xbox compatibility because the blood feud between Gaben and Microsoft will never end, I suppose. None of that changes that it was the advent of XInput and Xbox 360 controller compatibility that unlocked direct ports, along with consoles gradually becoming standardized PCs.
I was talking about Counter Strike specifically, because you used it as an example.
They literally do. Look it up. Windows is developed and maintained by Microsoft. They own all trademarks and intellectual property related to Windows.
I never disputed this, but you are arguing that PC games are all shit for some reason or another unless they're ported either from or to PS5.
Newly standardized? Xinput was created in 2005. It has "just worked" for ages, because it is officially supported by Microsoft through Windows. Because they own Xbox, Xinput, and Windows.
So that they can support other controllers that aren't Xbox...
You're talking out of your ass here and not even paying attention to context which you yourself brought up. Not to mention you aren't even aware of why Xbox had such stellar support (Microsoft is one of the largest tech companies in the world and own the PC OS with the largest market share by a longshot) and how that support translated to the modern rise of PC gaming.
Wait, that's what you think you're arguing against?
No wonder this conversation is so loopy, then.
The fact that consoles are a huge asset for PC gaming doesn't mean, and is nowhere near the same as, saying that "PC games are shit unless ported directly from the PS5". Your straw man is not just subtly misrepresenting my point, it's having some entirely unrelated conversation in a different room with a different person.
Consoles get to be a massive asset for PC games without... well, whatever that statement is supposed to imply. PC games benefit a LOT from having a set target for mainstream hardware be a fixed point for five to ten years. They benefitted strongly from access to a large volume of affordable, standardized, compatible controllers (these days things have been that way long enough that the standards aren't going anywhere, but it was a massive deal in 2005, which is the period we're talking about, despite your surprise that we're talking about it). And yes, the target for PC-only gaming today would be both different and significantly less pleasant without those things. The shift to a more PC-centric market already made it so that ten-year-old games dominate the landscape.
It's not just CounterStrike. It's Fortnite, Overwatch, GTA 5, Minecraft, Roblox. PC gaming's characteristics encourage those types of forever games targeting widely accessible hardware. Consoles existing in parallel open the door to additional viability for AAA releases targeting higher end specs. Not that you wouldn't get any of those without consoles, but for the past 20 years consoles have been a big reason that's a whole genre instead a one-in-a-generation thing you'd get when an engine company wanted to flex its tech muscle for potential engine licensors and accidentally made a game in the process.
You’re objectively wrong.
Skillful counterargument. Not sure how I'm coming back from that one.
Yes because Steamdeck games are cheaper
And a lot of people already have hundreds of them
They won’t be cheaper for long…
Sure they will, Steam has sales all the time
No, they are successors.
There’s some overlap in customers, sure but the vast majority of people who buy a Switch 2 aren’t the types who would buy a Deck. Switch 2 will sell tens of millions more units to a mainstream consumer. And that’s fine. Deck can still be a successful product in its own right as long as Valve is making a profit off of it through Steam software sales.
Yep they can both be in the same space.
After playing tens of games on the Switch people might want to play the tens of thousands of games on Steam.
The Deck is targeted squarely at enthusiasts. While it's a fantastic product for that niche, anyone who thinks it's going to capture a market the size of Nintendo's any time soon is living in a fanboy bubble.
Hell, right now Valve isn't even capable of manufacturing half as many Decks as Nintendo will manufacture Switch 2s. They literally can't sell that number because they can't produce that number.
Maybe it’s from huffing too much copium; but I think that Valve’s eventual Steam Deck successor will probably have mainstream console levels of appeal.
By that point in time, compatibility should be nigh-sorted (thanks to all the hard work currently happening), and users won’t need to interact with the Linux desktop mode at all. It would be completely transparent, and only enthusiasts and power-users would ever want interact with it.
The biggest thing going for the SteamOS platform is the immense library that it brings forward; no other console can compete with — even with full backwards compatibility (which even the Switch2 is struggling with).
Probably not the Steam Deck successor alone, but the PC handheld ecosystem as a whole might be able to get there at some point (preferably mostly running Linux).
Though it’s kind of insane how much progress was already made over one generation: It went from a Kickstarter grift (Smach-Z), to the Steam Deck, to multiple competitors already.
Eventually, perhaps. I do not claim to have a crystal ball powerful enough to peer decades into the future. But right now, for this generation, I can say we're a long way from that point just yet.
Yes, we need the Xbox handheld to fail, we don't want Windows to take Linux's best chance to grow.
What is it about backwards compatibility that the Switch 2 is having issues with? I thought it was all games that brought their own hardware, or depended on a feature that the new Switch doesn’t have (IR camera on the Joycon for example)
From my understanding, even though they both run Nvidia-designed ARM processors - there are enough differences between the two SOCs that a direct 1:1 translation is not possible for all titles, and those will need to go through an emulation layer.
Additionally, there are certain titles won’t be compatible due to hardware changes (Ring Fit Adventure for example, and probably all of the LABO stuff?).
For Ring Fit and Labo, they've clarified that those games aren't compatible with new JoyCons but can still be played with old JoyCons.
Nintendo published a list of games with compatibility issues. Says they are "continuing to improve compatibility, including by working with publishing and developing partners", which implies they're hoping to patch in fixes for affected games.
Also Lenovo is releasing a legion go that ships woth steam os. Thay will help push steam os development and adoptions.
For some actual numbers, Valve had sold ~4 million steam decks since it was released over 3 years ago.
Nintendo has sold ~150 million switches to date. And they sold nearly 18 million of them in its first full year (2017).
Even if you own a Steam Deck, Nintendo has some attractive value. Nintendo essentially has a monopoly on at least 3 genres of videogame. The entire library of Steam doesn’t really have a casual racing game that can go toe-to-toe with Mario Kart. The same can be said for almost any Mario game. Even if a Steam Deck had the games, you’d need 2 decks or an extra controller to get the Switch-style experience. Valve isn’t really trying to compete with the Switch on its own turf.
This is very true. It's not just that Nintendo makes good games, it's that a lot of their games are wildly unlike anything else on the market. The reason I'm losing my mind over a Kirby Air Ride sequel is because there hasn't been any other game like the original from 2003. I've waited 22 years for another game that could scratch that itch.
The steam deck can play literally any Mario Kart except for MK World…
Considering this console comes after the Deck and the other handhelds, shouldn’t be the other way around?
Btw to answer the question:
Few exclusive titles (for now)
Not great performance to some last year triple A game (like cyberpunk 2077)
The damn price of the games
The answer is: Yes. Any decently performing handheld right now is a better alternative. RIGHT NOW. In a year, with more exclusive titles and ( let’s hope) better game prices, who knows.
Yeah. I’m 100% who Nintendo is trying to lure with this launch, and honestly I’m a little ticked off about it–I’ve really wanted Metroid Prime 4 for a long time, but now it’s coming out and I have to choose between playing an inferior version or shelling out over $500 to play the good version. ($450 for the system, $80 for the game, and compatible SD cards in sizes larger than the internal storage of the new system don’t even exist yet.) So I’m inclined to wait, and see if there are enough good games to justify the Switch 2 purchase eventually, but they’re going to count that as poor initial sales for Prime 4. It might kill the franchise. Replaying some of my switch titles with upgraded performance might have been enough to motivate me to make the move, but they’re also going to charge extra for that. That’s…not great. Nickle-and-diming on top of a much more expensive system with even more expensive games is just ugly.
It definitely has me thinking about getting a PC handheld instead. A lot of what I was picturing was second-screen gaming while watching TV or YouTube, and the Deck is definitely a competitor in that space. There are a bunch of people saying that “oh, the reason you buy a Nintendo system is to play Nintendo exclusives,” which, yeah, that is a selling point, but for the original switch, just being a portable system that played modern games was also a selling point. That second factor is absolutely going up against the Deck, and frankly losing, because Steam has everything. Switch 2 has to go all in on the exclusives, and that’s a much tougher sell, especially since they don’t have the gold mine of good games nobody had played that they had from the Wii U to pad the release schedule.
Maybe they’ll amaze me, but I see them being very unhappy with the revenue from this console in a couple of years, and casting about for stupid shit to blame. And I think they’re gonna blame Metroid. It’s not Metroid, guys. Metroid is great. It’s the pricing.
Do people actually think its a competitor? This is just news sites trying to make something up for clicks surly.
A surprising number of people in this very comment section seem to.
At the time I’m writing this there are 78 comments in this comment section. I haven’t read all of them, so let’s just assume that every single one of those comments represents a unique individual who believes that the Switch 2 and the Steam Deck (and related) are direct competitors.
Given the nature of this platform and community that number is not even remotely surprising. It’s also an utterly insignificant number of people.
The overlap between people who would buy a Switch 2 and people who would buy a Steam Deck is a tiny sliver of a Venn diagram. Those are two largely separate categories of gamer.
I think this more people mistaking people expressing their preferences for a system and extrapolating that to meaning market share predictions.
Reword the question to do you believe Steam Deck will overtake Nintendo market share and you’d get different answers. Same with if you ask someone why is Linux better than Windows versus do you believe Linux can overtake Windows market share?
I find people on the internet have a hard time differentiating between people who are expressing preferences and people predicting market share shifts. People just see oh this person doesn’t like Nintendo or Windows and must believe Steam Deck or Linux is going to be more popular.
I typed out the below as a response to you, then reread what you wrote. We might be making the same point just with different words. Hopefully I’m not coming across as overly adversarial.
What I wrote might have been confusing, but I was trying say that places like lemmy may have view points that express preferences that aren’t representative of the mainstream. Like how there may be more positive Linux comments on average per user.
But, that it doesn’t necessarily mean the people expressing those views believe them to be representative of the mainstream. It is more just them expressing their thoughts.
However, people I found across social media can mistake what are simply individual opinions as general proclamations, and immediately jump to “Oh this person is claiming that their view point is one most people hold. What a bold claim.” When all they were saying was I like turtles as opposed to most people like turtles.
All of these comments here are also on lemmy so I don’t think that’s a comparable sample.
I’d say its more people stating why they prefer the Steam Deck over the Switch than actually believing the Steam Deck would overtake the Switch. Challenge them to a bet and you’d see very few take it.
I think it is people mistaking people’s preferences for market share predictions.
I gave away my switch to a coworker because i didn’t really like it to buy a steam deck. So i’d say for me yes they where competitors. I use a lenovo legion go now.
I feel like that’s more of a preference than a competitor/competition though.
Depends on what you are after. Plenty of people are just looking to game, without anything specific in mind. Also plenty of people might see the real difference, want both, but only have the money for one. In these cases I would say that they are competitors as the buyer is contemplating which of the two to buy.
Honestly for me it came down to where i prefer to buy my games. Steam games will follow me for the forseeable future and switch games will not. I gave my coworker my nintendo account too with over $500 of games on it and i was like that’s it. That’s enough sunk cost that i will lose.
What’s the difference?
You can go on random comment section on internet, and people are starting new “console war” for Steam Deck vs Nintendo Switch.
Steam Deck will not be able to compete with Switch 2 for first party titles since it can barely emulate Switch games at a decent frame rate. Will likely need a proper gaming PC to emulate S2 first party titles. For all other games, Steam Deck wins because the games don’t cost $80, vastly bigger selection, mods work, etc.
No they’re aren’t competitors. I’d wager a significant portion (probably the majority even) of Switch users have never heard of the Steam Deck or even less so the other handhelds.
Steam Deck has it’s fans but like everything in life just because you love it doesn’t mean the majority of people have any clue about it.
I think to the “early adopter” crowd, the people like me who where huffing Nintendo “NX” leaks back in 2016, the more “core” audience of people from the ages of late teens to however old James Rolfe is now.
Those people will probably buy a steam deck before a switch 2. There are a lot of them.
Though not as many people as there are like my ex-sister-in-law and her new bf who put together have four kids. The Linux PC I built them to make sure their kids had a good puter is enough trouble, even with me to help. I don’t see them even considering them for their kids.
That being said I also think many of those people will stick to their current console until they release a cost reduced “switch 2 lite”.
Buying a new $450 console for every kids plus $80 games is fucking brutal and most parents won’t put up with that shit when a used switch lite is like $100-150.
I see this hitting their initial sales a lot more than their sales over the new consoles life span, especially as people who chose steam deck, and the parents who waited, slowly grab a switch 2 during sales/price drops.
The real question is: Do I care? And the answer is no. No I do not.
No. They aren’t available widespread enough off the Internet, not marketed enough, too heavy. Maybe a hypothetical future Switch 2 and Switch Lite
It largely depends on what you want out of a game system. Currently, no not really. Nintendo is a closed environment with no alternative platforms for the games, and their games are very family friendly and widely popular. Steam Deck is just a portable option for PC games, and therefore has to share its customer base with PC gamers.
I mean with emulation you can play a lot of Switch games on the steam deck so that does let you get around the closed ecosystem.
Switch 1 emulation on the Steam Deck already has much worse performance than a Switch, given the overhead of emulation. There is no possible way it can run Switch 2 games.
I wouldn’t say much worse performance, really depends on the game you’re trying to run. Based on what I’ve seen online ToTK is maybe slightly worse depending on the place you’re at while a lot of other games match or even exceed switch 1 performance. Combine that with all the dumb shit Nintendo is doing around upgrade packs and making you pay to get better performance and I’d rather go with the free option, since it’s gonna keep being worked on and get better and better. As for Switch 2 games that definitely might be a bit more rough at first but all we can really do with those is speculate until the console is out. Might take a bit for emulation to become available readily for those games but again with all the dumb things Nintendo is doing right now I’d rather wait then reward them for it. Plus by then there might be a new Steam Deck Gen or more PC handhelds from other companies that can compete with the Switch 2.
I think we should be asking the question the otherway around as some games on PC handhelds could be cheaper and possibly run better, but that’s just my opinion
A lot of people are saying they’re not really competition judging off sale numbers but I’d say they are, just PC handhelds aren’t that big of competition. They still are taking away sales as I doubt people with a steam deck are also gonna own a switch or switch 2 unless they already had one before the steam deck came out or are well enough off to afford both and don’t want to deal with emulating. I definitely get Lemmy and myself are a biased audience but I think arguing they’re not competition at all is wrong, they’re just not very big competition compared to Nintendo.
I’d much rather buy a Steam Deck and run Switch emulation on it, knowing I can buy games a whole lot cheaper on Steam sales.
Imagine if you could go on the Nintendo store and buy a game you couldn’t even run, or had to check a third party website to see if it ran acceptably and let you use all the buttons.
How is that different from any other computer buying from steam, ever? In the history of all computer games? A steam deck is a hand held computer with a community large enough, and system specs stable enough to have a rating on potentially any PC, and most Nintendo games in existence. Compared to nintendo’s walled garden. Your comparing apples to oranges.
It’s not different. Nintendo’s target group just don’t want to bother with it.
To begin with, Nintendo Switch isn’t “any other computer” where you can “buy from Steam”, so this question seems irrelevant to this discussion.
My comment is germane to the post comparing the two devices in an aspect that exemplifies how they can’t be compared, and tries to spin it as a negative, while attempting to bury its positive.
The fact you say that the switch is not like any other computer is both true in the sense that i already argued, and false in that it IS yet just another computer, but with a walled garden.
If there was any a comment that was irrelevant, it would be yours.
If you try to buy a game on Deck that you couldn’t run on Deck, there will be very clear warning about it, one you can’t miss. At least it was last time I checked. And to be honest, I’m pretty sure the list of games like that is now almost exclusively consists of competitive shooters, and you wouldn’t even think of buying it on Deck anyway.
Steam also has like the most generous return policy for video games ever
You can even get every achievement in a game, and return it for a full refund, granted you can beat the game in under two hours. Someone did it with resident evil 3 remake: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp8a5EjAcGs
Think about what the parent is going to buy their kids a easy to use Nintendo console or the Steam deck that doesn’t run every game you can buy on it because it’s really a pc
If you try to buy a game on the deck that isn’t verified to run there you get a warning. Meanwhile you have a limited selection on the switch of over priced games.
Deck runs every game that you can easily buy on deck, and then some that you can’t
This is what cracks me up about this topic literally every time it comes up.
Everyone on highly tech savvy and linux loving lemmy not being able to wrap their heads around the idea that busy parents dont want to have to tech support their kids game console. They want to be able to tell Grandma “He has a switch 2 and wants the new pokemon game for his birthday”, they want to walk into stores and buy accessories that WILL fit and they dont want microtransaction laden shit. One of the FEW things I still respect about Nintendo is that their AAA in house releases are FULL games (for the price, they would fucking want to be).
The 6 to 12yo market alone is probably enough to make the switch worthwhile from a business perspective. The “just tech savvy enough to work facebook” crowd adds in the profit margins.
Yes but that group by in large won’t be buying a switch 2 for at least a couple of years. $450 per console plus $80 a game is brutal, especially if you’re buying for more than one kid.
On the other hand a switch lite can be had for like $100 and used games aren’t too expensive either. So for the price of a switch 2 you could get all 3 kids a switch lite + a game. No fucking brainer.
The sort of people who bought a switch at launch, after drinking Nintendo NX leaks like kool-aid, aren’t as impressed this time around. They’re also getting really pissed off at Nintendo’s behavior towards the emulation scene.
Lots of those people, myself included, will be getting a steam deck. A lot of us will also probably end up buying a switch later on after sales/price drops/cheaper revisions. The same time most parents will be snatching them up.
Lifetime sales won’t be affected nearly as hard, but I don’t know that the first year will be as big as the OG switch’s.
That being said if M$ can figure out a good UI for windows portables W/ Xbox integration that might make things even harder for them.
I think you’re definitely right about the adoption speed, people wont be dumping their switches en masse to buy a 2.
The Deck definitely puts a dent in their sales but “i DoNt gEt wHy aNyOnE wOuld bUy a sWitCh” comments on Lemmy show just how skewed the demographics are on here. Its not aimed at us.
Idiots who have never used a steam deck and are obviously scared by the word linux in this thread. You can easily use the steamdeck without ever leaving gaming mode and with absolutely no troubleshooting needed. Its as simple as browsing steam, pressing download, and pressing play. I would absolutely give it to a child with a few games preloaded, and they would be perfectly fine to use it. The UI is way more friendly than the switch one also. Everytime ive tried to play a game on switch with friends theres been some update that takes ages, the Ui is slow and clunky, and connecting joycons is an absolute pain. What troubleshooting do you think is necessary to run a game from steam lmao?
Honestly I prefer console to PC so much, even as a fediverse user, linux user, someone who has a degoogled phone and uses a home server instead of a cloud, because I just hate having to worry if games are compatible with my hardware, or if controllers are compatible with my game, or if graphical oddities in my game represent supernatural parts of the story or that I didn’t install the right NVidia driver. When it comes to games, which are leisure, I find I just can’t relax with PC games like I can with console games. As for emulation, I can’t enjoy my games like that at all becuse the worry that settings are wrong or emulation is wrong is just too much like work. So I love my switch and I’ll probably love my switch 2 one day.
Hello fellow kids, I, too, can not enjoy my steam deck video game PC. I prefer to pay my tithe to Nintendo, my best friend and surrogate parent. I love [Product].
Isn’t that precisely the point of the steam deck, it provides a console-like target for game devs to develop against.
Yes, to an extent, which is positive. I don’t know too much about the steam deck side of things, but I don’t get the impression that it’s got enough PC market share to do that. I have a steam controller and last time I used that (admittedly years ago when it was still pretty new) I found Steam Input really didn’t have good defaults at all, despite what they said. The only sort of good defaults had the drawback of just ignoring most of the device’s USPs. It was bad, and community profiles weren’t good either. Maybe it got better?
Easily. Aside from the first party titles, there’s literally no reason to get a Switch 2. Everything else is objectively better on a PC handheld (especially the Deck).
.
Serious question. Do ANY of those have track pads? Because so far those seem to be something that only the deck has and I find them to be its most important feature.
.
There are thousands of games that come out every year, even after filtering out the asset flips and hentai games. A handful of those will have kernel-level anti cheat that make them incompatible by design. Fewer still will be pushing minimum specs that are too hefty for the Steam Deck to handle. So the thousands of remaining games are your use case for the Steam Deck, which tends to be cheaper than its competition and comes with a better OS. A device like those Android ones are fine for emulation, but you’re not playing newer releases on it, and newer releases are far, far, far more than just AAA games with hefty system requirements; it’s also Mouse: P.I. for Hire, Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves, Warside, Descenders Next, Dispatch, and on and on.
Reparability? Robustness? Software support? Community support?
It isn’t all about comparing performance numbers.
The Ally, Legion, Claw and Win 4 are all more expensive than the Steam Deck. The Odin 2 and Pocket 5 are not, but they don’t run steam, so you can definitely not play all the same games as the steam deck
This is exactly why we have these issues like we’re dealing with with the Switch 2. Console gamers are only focused on hardware and exclusivity, they’re not focused on the operating system of the device, the build quality of the product itself (including the ergonomics), nor do they care about the company that produces it beyond their basic fanboy tendencies.
Steam Deck’s competitors might have slightly better hardware or a higher resolution, but none of them are right to repair friendly. None of them have custom software literally designed for the product, and none of them have the sort of ergonomics that the Steam Deck has. Not to mention the fact that Valve is an American company, which might not be important to everybody, but it is important to me. They’re also a company that has proven themselves to be largely consumer-friendly.
While I’m not dissing anybody who does make the choice to go for an Ally or a Legion Go, the problem I have is that those devices are literally just another hardware company jumping on a band wagon. The Steam Deck completely revolutionized the way that we play on PC. Sure, it took inspiration from the original Switch. There’s no question about that. But that doesn’t mean that Valve was just jumping on a band wagon the way that ASUS and Lenovo are doing.
Valve literally spent years working with Linux developers on software that makes Linux gaming truly viable in order to create devices that allow you to run virtually any game on a handheld that you fully own, are allowed to put any game on (including games from other launchers, which they didn’t have to allow) and you’re fully allowed to self-repair it if any issues arise. Meanwhile, companies like ASUS and Lenovo treat their customers more like smartphone
suckerscustomers, not to mention the fact that they went the cheap and easy route of just using Windows, which isn’t optimized for a device like these. And guess what? Lenovo is bending the knee to the Steam Deck supremacy by allowing you to get a version with SteamOS in the future. That alone proves that Valve is one step ahead of their competition.To summarize all that I said, the reason the Steam Deck is so good is not just the hardware, it’s not just the screen, it’s the fact that it’s a very capable device at the hardware level, combined with very, very good software and a very consumer-friendly company behind it all.
.
You don’t lose functionality, you can use SteamOS like a laptop as well. Desktop mode literally puts you in a KDE Plasma desktop environment.
.
Yep! When you open the Steam menu, you can access a full-featured desktop mode. It makes the device virtually limitless outside of the software issues you mentioned. And I agree entirely that it’s ridiculous to see these companies ignoring Linux the way they do.
Hopefully you enjoy your second try of SteamOS!
It’s way too big for kids too.
I picked up a Nintendo Switch because of it being a handheld. I wouldn’t have picked one up otherwise, since I had skipped generations of Nintendo consoles preferring Sony due to Nintendo games being too high. But, with the Steam Deck where I don’t even need to repurchase “Deck versions” of games the handheld component isn’t a selling point of the Switch to me anymore.
Saved you a click: “nO thEyre DiffErANT dEmoGraphiCS”
Gotta huff that copium. We need to pay 80 dollars for a ‘key card’
Is a pants really a competitor for clothing?
Wouldn’t the switch (locked down) be pants and pc handhelds (anything) be clothing?
Yes? That’s the analogy. Did they flip it in the article maybe
Trick question, there’s no “a pants”
Well, the steam deck sold something like 6 million, and the switch sold 150 million, so…probably not? But on a more anecdotal level I know a lot of people for whom the Steam Deck took the place of their Switch.
Yes, when combined with the switch 1
I keep retyping what I want to say, but I think my feelings come down to:
I do think the switch 2 will do just fine, but I also think there are a lot of people who loved their switch 1 who might look at the games they played, and look at upgrading to a steamdeck instead of the switch 2.
No they are not mutually exclusive
Mine actually emulates switch games.
I really truly don’t think so. While there is some overlap, I would never give my 5 yo a steam deck and tell them to just figure it out. And on a steam deck, I’d be really sad to not have any Mario kart, Zelda, etc…
I don’t see the problem with having both- they fill different niches.
Steam deck is definitely just as easy to use as the switch for playing and downloading basic games from the storefront. A 5 year old could absolutely use it easily with some games preloaded.
Its not specifically hard but its also not just as easy to use. I say this as someone whos been gaming on linux for over a decade now. You still run into issues here and there with proton(often a devs fault for bad code) and there is genuinely a lot more going on and tweakable on the steamdeck.
Steamdeck is a great device but Nintendo is good at making simple systems
The steam deck has way more potential, but CAN be just as simplr as only ever launching and downloading games through gaming mode. The parent downloads 5stean deck verified games and then all the kid has to do is use the joystick to switch between them. But then it also has the potential to be a learning experience or teaching tool as the kid grows. But the steamos gaming mode is dead simple to navigate and a child could definitely use it.
Money. Steam Deck OLED costs in my country €700, Switch OLED €350-360 and the Switch 2 will be around the €560-600.
I’m so close on purchasing a Steam Deck OLED to game in weekends or in bed after full 5 days behind a desk job. But I’m always worried that these games won’t work well with emulations. I’ve been researching like crazy but keep reading different things.
And spending €700 with uncertainty is not my favorite thing to do.
I really doubt switch 2 games will emulate at all or well for quite some time.
I get the money argument. In that case, get the one that does more for you now now, and save up for the other one later. You don’t need them all at once.
I waited a year before getting the first switch, and almost 2 years for a ps4. I think I waited at least a year for all the other PlayStations too save the 5.
Getting something at launch isn’t all that great- bugs, limited games, max prices, etc… a year or so later and you get bundles and deals and lots of game choices.
I don’t have a deck- but a few of my friends do and I’ve played with it a bit- it’s great and I want one at some point, but I can wait for #2 to come out and then go on sale before I dive in.
Haha, I am researching like crazy as well. So far I came to the conclusion that I have 3 options:
So far I’m waiting. My current Switch isn’t going anywhere, but going forward I’m not going to spend much on games there.
Nintendo consoles are locked down, solely designed to force you to spend top dollar on the latest Bing-Bing-Wahoo games and late capitalism subscriptions so you can play with children and manchildren alike. You get the choice to buy BingKart Horizon for $80-90, or buy the old Switch 1 games again, full price, because they didn’t want to bother releasing a 5MB update to unlock the framerates and resolution in the original ones. Nintendo wants more money, fuck you, pay more.
Steam Deck is effectively a gaming PC crammed into a handheld. It uses an open OS that you don’t have to root, so you can install almost every game humanity has ever made, including all the previous Bing-Bing-Wahoos. You can get any of these games for FREE (if you’re smart), or just wait for a fire sale held several times a year. We can vaguely count on someone eventually developing an emulator to work with Switch 2 games one day, saving everyone money in the long run, because those angel developers that operate against the wishes of corporate gaming cartel oppressors are the closest thing we have to Santa Claus and Jesus doing a fusion dance. The Steam Deck is how we forgive Gaben for never releasing HL3. Exclusively played by giga-manchildren.
Shit no, its a different market. The switch was designed by committee to extract the maximum amount of money possible from the consumer. The Steam Deck is geared toward PC enthusiasts and built and designed by those same people. They aren’t even in the same ball park.
I keep hearing this shit and it seems like stupid wishful thinking, because in a locked-down universe where Switch 2 is not a shitty proposition for way too much cash compared to getting a PC with 10k+ PC games from the get go and also emulating anything you wish because it’s your hardware and it’s just bits - in that universe, Polygon is a much needed pool of experts that people go to for advice instead of a source of stupid ragebait titles telling them a log of shit is the new snickers.
Yeah, sure, fuck you Polygon
If all of its games were available elsewhere, there would be a lot less switch users