Valve has officially released information on the pricing of their new Linux gaming PC, the Steam Machine. Like the new Steam Controller, this is a second crack at a concept they dabbled in years prior. I speculated about how the device could usher in a PC-forward shakeup in the gaming industry, but much of what I said there was overly optimistic, in retrospect. One of the major factors that has creeped in since then is the memory shortage that the AI boom is responsible for. Gaming hardware prices have rapidly shot up across the board, with all of the major manufacturers feeling the squeeze and adjusting their console MSRPs to offset it. Valve themselves recently followed suit, with their high-end Steam Deck model now getting uncomfortably close to the $1,000 threshold. With that precedent set, there was simply no way the Steam Machine was going to come in with a sub-$1,000 price tag. I think that much of the appeal of the Steam Machine hinges on its affordability, and it’s not looking so great when compared to the consoles currently on the market. So yeah, I’m going to pretty much retract and backtrack on everything I had to say after its initial announcement. Contrary to the naivety of my younger self, I don’t think any kind of shakeup or revolution is on the horizon. At this price point, I’m struggling to figure out who the Steam Machine could possibly even be for.
Valve’s box is definitely clean and aesthetically pleasing, but it costs more than any console on the market, including “Pro” options. But performance-wise, it seems closer to the base PS5 than the PS5 Pro, which still manages to undercut it with a $900 price tag (which is in itself an insane increase from the $700 tag it initially launched with). The lowest-end option for the Steam Machine does not even include a controller in the box, something that every major console has consistently included since the NES days. Much of the pricing comes down to Sony’s ability to subsidize the console pricing and sell them at a loss, since they are all-but guaranteed to reach profitability after a few game sales. Valve could have risked something similar, but the open nature of PCs means that a hardware sale does not guarantee game sales on the Steam storefront. While the Steam experience is front and center, users still have the option of using other stores, or using the device for non-gaming purposes entirely, which could result in a percentage of sales being net losses. Console manufacturers have the advantage in that all of the software they will run is sold through their own approved channels that gives them a cut of the profits (piracy notwithstanding). I can understand why they didn’t opt to subsidize the price, but it unfortunately seems to take them out of direct competition with traditional consoles, instead positioning them against other gaming PCs. The comparisons come out a bit more favorable for the Steam Machine here, but not by a huge margin. And the PC demographic tends to value very different things from the console audience. It could function as a decent starter gaming PC; a gateway for console players to enter the PC ecosystem, or for lapsed PC gamers to get back into it with a fresh system that’s easy to get up and running with minimal tinkering. It also offers upgradability, and a console-like OS that works well from both a desktop and couch. But PC gamers likely already have hardware that matches or exceeds its specs, and console gamers will likely scoff at the price tag. It’s hard for me to see it being placed in anything other than an uncomfortable no man’s land.
A major point that may still stand from my initial thoughts is the potential of Valve incentivizing publishers to optimize their games for the Steam Machine, assuming it reaches enough of an install base to be worth it. If its specs are a performance target for forthcoming big games, that’s good news for me. I’ve felt for a while that the pursuit of higher-end graphics and fidelity is reaching more and more diminishing returns, and that we need to stabilize towards more reasonable specs for the good of consumers’ wallets. AAA development budgets are ballooning to absurd degrees, and hardware prices are probably going to remain insane for quite some time. So I imagine that making sure that the scope of games falls within the bounds of what consumers can still afford is good for the industry. We have a pretty comfortable power range at the moment that provides basically everything I could personally ask for. Nintendo Switch 2 brings up the lower end and provides portability with performance somewhere between a PS4 and Xbox Series S. PS5 Pro currently tops the range for those wanting 4K 60fps from a console. High-end PCs are of course able to render games at much higher frame rates and crisper fidelity, but at price ranges that soar far above what the average consumer is willing or able to pay in order to participate in the hobby. Solely targeting the hardcore enthusiast side of the spectrum is simply not sustainable, as there just isn’t a large enough install base to make AAA games profitable off of them alone. So the games need to target the hardware that most people actually own and use. Optional 8K texture packs and extra effects for the people that can run them are great to justify their investment; but scalability and options for lower end machines will always make for a more accessible game. If games are optimized for the Steam Machine, there’s a very good chance that I’ll have no issues running them on my GabeCube. The industry’s narrow focus on realism and graphical fidelity is a topic I plan to cover in depth soon, but suffice to say I’m an advocate for prioritizing more reasonable specs and leveraging art direction instead of pure detail. And a more consistent spectrum of available power levels is a good thing, in my eyes.
I was extremely lucky with the timing of when I got the PC that would become my GabeCube. It’s decently powered and runs new releases at modest-but-enjoyable settings. I snatched it for a discount at around $780 (including taxes). Performance-wise, it’s within the ballpark of the official Steam Machine (around a 10% difference in favor of the Steam Machine, in most cases), so I have no reason to buy the official offering at this time. But that purchase was before the memory crisis, and you’d be hard pressed to find a similar deal these days. So if what I've got is desirable, the Steam Machine may actually be one of the more reasonable options on the market.
I’m still hopeful for a more open, PC-based standard for gaming. I think going in that direction is good for preservation and gives players more options for where and how they play their games. But the Steam Machine’s pricing has certainly put a damper on that potential; I could be completely off the mark, but I don’t really think this will be the device to usher in any kind of wider change. Whatever becomes of XBOX’s Project Helix will be interesting to see, especially when compared against the Steam Machine. And Valve seems to be slowly opening up SteamOS for use on other devices, so we could see more options from various manufacturers as time goes on. But with the current state of the tech economy, I can’t really muster any excitement. Valve is probably upset about the circumstances and is trying to make the best of it, but it’ll be interesting to see how this all pans out in the coming months. I could have seen this being a great launch if the circumstances outside of their control were different, but I unfortunately wouldn’t be surprised if this fizzled out in a manner similar to the old Steam Machine initiative from 2015. This time, it would be for entirely different reasons, but I can’t help but worry that the launch has been cut down at the knees before it even got a chance to stand up.