• Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Only after they closed their system, which they did because they were losing money to every single enterprise in the world who wanted a cluster and PS3 were the cheapest option.

      • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The PS3 was using a rare CPU that you could only get from it or from some enterprise dealer at a much higher price. The Steam Machine is a standard x86 computer that can’t match the ubiquitous ThinkCentres in price/performance.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          If it’s sold at a loss like a console it would beat the price/performance of any other x86 chip on the market, which is why they can’t sell it at a loss, ergo my point.

          • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Thry could absolutely do that. Valve makes a cut off every Steam game sold. If anything, it’d be MORE viable for them than any other console maker given the wider library

            • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              You’re completely missing the point. People can buy steam machines and use them as a PC without ever opening steam, or worse, use them as servers or parts of a cluster. If Steam Machines were sold at a loss they would , by definition, be cheaper than equivalent hardware, so companies would buy 10k of them to put into a warehouse to run stuff because it would be cheaper than buying the same thing from other places. This is what happened to the PS3, non-blocked systems can’t be sold at a loss because you can’t guarantee that whoever is buying it will use them for your intended purpose.

            • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              If they’re sold at a loss, by definition they have to be cheaper than anything sold at a gain with the same performance.

                • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  And then we could make money having people riding her. If you’re going to start a hypothetical scenario of Valve still being able to make money selling at a loss you can’t be angry that people are replying on the basis your premise is true.

                  • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    You’re the one that brought up Valve selling at a loss because you think anything under $800 would be selling at a loss. I’m telling you it is not.