Why hasn't anyone else made one to compete that's cheap? Because, Mr.Author...No one else can make their money back by selling software.
The Switch certainly predates the Deck, and they definitely make their money back on software, but being forced solely into the Nintendo ecosystem is off-putting. Only Microsoft is a likely candidate to make a handheld that uses their Game Pass, and I would bet they aren't really needing to push subscriptions at the moment.
The Switch isn't that expensive to make, the chip, memory, and storage are all budget af.
I just looked it up, and it looks like Nintendo likely makes $40-$80 per Switch (estimated based on part costs). A decent profit, considering software (a big money maker) is just gravy at that point.
Why are you trying to compare a computer to a walled garden Nintendo switch? Hell, you're making my argument for me.
I can't believe I have to rehash this again. A Switch is a computer. My point wasn't that it's somehow better, but Nintendo already did exactly what you said: made a handheld portable computer with built-in screen that can play games locally and is sold at a loss only to recoup those losses with software sales.
The Deck can do more than the Switch, but that doesn't make the Switch less of a computer.
Nintendo hardwares are sold for profit
You say it's off putting as if the Switch doesn't have dozens on dozens on dozens of quality 1st and 2nd party titles. Also, no one is being forced into the Nintendo ecosystem. It's a Nintendo product, and you buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. It's not anti-gamer. That being said, apples and oranges to compare the switch to the deck.
Right, but the original statement was whether other companies have made a competing and profitable "Deck," and the Switch is already such a device. Portable, plays games locally, has a thriving software ecosystem...
Whether those games within that ecosystem are "quality" or not is irrelevant. Both platforms have examples of good and bad games. My point was that if you buy a Switch, you are forced into their ecosystem. On the Deck, you do not have such a limitation (with a bit of effort, you can access anything a regular Linux machine can). Nobody is coerced in, sure, but that wasn't the point I was making.
So where you see apples and oranges, I see a small, dry apple vs. a big, juicy apple. A better analogy might be Apple vs Windows.
No, the Switch is not such a device.
The article is very obviously about PCs. The Switch is not a PC.
Just because the switch runs a proprietary OS does not mean it isn't a personal computing device. It can run Linux, it has a CPU and memory, it runs software, its a personal computer for sure.
Yes, it does. It cannot possibly be described as a PC if the end user can't install arbitrary software without restriction.
Calling a Switch a PC isn't slightly incorrect. It's complete and utter horseshit.
The ability install "arbitrary software without restriction" is what defines a PC? Now that is complete and utter horseshit. A Chromebook isn't a PC? A laptop with account restrictions to prevent the end user from installing software isn't a PC? A desktop running an immutable linux distro isn't a PC? Quit your bullshit. A PC is a computing device with a CPU and Memory, meant to be used by several people or less at a time, everything else is superfluous.
A chromebook runs arbitrary software without any sort of hacks. Before this was the case, Chromebooks were very obviously not PCs. So do immutable OSes.
Account restrictions are the owner of the hardware "running arbitrary software" to control what someone else can do and completely irrelevant.
There is no scenario where you can call a Switch a PC, any more than you can call a phone a PC, an ATM a PC, or a pregnancy test with a chip in it a PC. It's not a misunderstanding; it's a lie.
Honestly, I think you are just using a very specific (and pretty inaccurate) definition of a personal computer. Also, a strangely specific usage of "arbitrary". All of the cases I mentioned (chromebooks, immutable distros, enterprise windows with administrative restrictions) intentionally lock out the user from running software the hardware could otherwise support.
Saying a device that the manufacturer artificially locks out users from installing non approved software is somehow related to the definition of a PC is simply a lie.
You can install Linux on smart phones, so by your definition, a phone is a PC. You can install Linux on first gen switches without modifying the hardware, so by your definition, first generation switches are PC's. You can even install Linux on modern switches just by soldering on a special chip, so "modified switches" are PCs.
ATM's often run Windows as the base OS ffs, of course you could call them a PC. As you said;
the owner of the hardware "running arbitrary software" to control what someone else can do is completely irrelevant.
If account restrictions are the "owner of the hardware" preventing the end user from "running arbitrary software", then all that means is Nintendo owns your switch. Not that the switch is incapable of running arbitrary software.
Your strange definition of PC simply does not hold up to scrutiny. I get that you are trying to say that "because a Switch is a device manufactured for the express purpose of running games only accessible through Nintendo's official channels, it is a far different user experience than what we think of as a traditional desktop". But to say it isn't a personal computer, when it is a personal device that runs software using a processor, ram, storage, a graphical processor, all connected by a central print circuit board is simply absurd.
If you jailbreak the Switch, you can do all of those things. But by your definition, because I can't arbitrarily install Windows software on an Apple computer, it is not a PC.
Just because it's not easy doesn't mean the Switch isn't a personal computer. It is a device you can personally own that takes bits and bytes and performs computations with them that results in things like saving a game (data storage), internet communication (network computing), and video rendering (video stream computation).
You can't "jailbreak" any current switch without replacing hardware.
You can install Windows software on a Mac.
Calling a switch a PC is a lie. It's not ambiguous, and it's not a gray area. It's a malicious, bold faced lie.
...malicious...
Bruh, are you for real? Lol.
Words have meaning. I'm sorry you don't like the definition of Personal Computer. Go write to the dictionary committees about it. You are emphatically wrong.
You are a fucking idiot lmaooo, at least it's entertaining seeing you properly roasted for your clear fucking misunderstandings and defence of closed down personal computing hardware. Bravo I'm sure some Nintendo corporate stooge is smiling at you for justifying locking down bought hardware to a closed ecosystem with outrageous prices for games. Why the fuck are you even using federated social media if you love locked down controlled ecosystems?
How is saying "the switch isn't a viable alternative to the steam deck because it's not a PC and can't do anywhere close to the bare minimum to be a PC" promoting a locked down ecosystem?
A console cannot be called a PC or replace a PC. It is a lesser category of product.
A console cannot be called a PC or replace a PC. It is a lesser category of product.
They can and are, lol, the definition for PC is surrounding the hardware. Whether or not the producer of said hardware has included software locks or hardware locks to prevent you from modifying the operating system on the device does not change that distinction, it only provides justification for closed ecosystems and locking down hardware a consumer has purchased, creating a monopoly over what that hardware can access. Hence why you are being called out for supporting said practices whether you set out with that intention or not. All of the devices you called out run on standard architectures for their computing resources which have drivers and kernels built in more than a couple operating systems already. If the software or hardware locks were not there, these devices would be capable of fitting into the narrowly scoped definition of PC you crafted. As others have pointed out the first gen switch can be loaded with Linux, as can a newer switch once you bypass the hardware lock. As can the ATM which runs windows server. Xboxs/Play Stations could run linux or windows as we have kernels built for ARM architecture, yet they are locked down. Allowing companies to redefine their devices allows them to skirt antitrust laws and parroting those same talking points only serves to reduce your ability to use/recycle hardware you have previously purchased.
You have a weird definition of platform "ecosystem". How is buying a computing device (gaming or otherwise) that locks you down to only running software purchased from the manufacturer's store not forcing you into their ecosystem?
I guess if you mean no one is forcing you to buy a switch sure. But if you own a switch, you have to procure software through Nintendo. That's being locked into an ecosystem by definition.
Bingo,I think people forget Valve went out of their way to make their profit margin razor thin, or at a slight loss because they know the benefit of having a device that basically assures a new paying user will be added in their Steam ecosystem. It's based on Nintendo's walled garden philosophy after all, just refined really well on PC.
It's not a walled garden though, Valve made no attempts to lock anything down. You can install something like Heroic Game Launcher on the Steam Deck and play Epic Game Store or GOG games too.
Yeah, it's based on the philosophy, but it doesn't strictly follow the philosophy.
While this is true and works out that way, it's either put in a bit of work to get a game to run (I have epic games borderlands 2 handsome Jack collection and it crashes a lot on me) or use the store that has all the games and controller settings set up specifically to the deck. Having the option is great, but using steam is still easiest and makes any deck owners default purchase store choice for a game as steam. To the point where if I had to pay $25 for a game on steam vs $20 on epic or any other, I'd just go ahead and get the steam version if I intended to play it on my deck.
No, but they did make it very easy to buy Steam games and installing HGL or any other launcher is going to be both inconvenient and require a level of investigation that most people don't care to bother with when they can just hit "buy" on the store.
Why do you say that? Heroic games launcher already exist on Flathub and is super easy to use
I mean it's a whole thing of even knowing how to install it, much less configuring Proton, adding it to Steam Launcher, etc.
It's really not that hard and there are plenty of guides available. If you are unable to visit the "store" (discovery), download a program and finally run it, then maybe you should just keep using Steam and not complicate things.
I feel like if you are smart enough to know that Heroic Launcher exists then you could figure out how to do a google search on how to install it. It's not like Windows "just works" every time
You're missing the point entirely and I'm not sure if it's just intentional.
No I just think you're exaggerating the problem and had a bad take on it. In my opinion Steam is harder to install on Windows than Heroic Launcher is to install on SteamOS.
Messing with Proton isn't required and I am sure most games will figure out how to add a shortcut to Steam.
No I think you're just woefully ignorant of why people buy consoles in the first place, and why the Steam Deck even exists.
You literally said
installing HGL or any other launcher is going to be both inconvenient and require a level of investigation that most people don't care to bother with when they can just hit "buy" on the store.
This reads to me that think Valve are going to make installing shit harder. I'm arguing that at the moment it's easy to do and Linux is an open platform. Nothing like a walled garden
This reads to me that think Valve are going to make installing shit harder.
No that's not what I meant
Alright, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I think Valve has done a fantastic job with the Steam Deck and I love it's openess. The Steam Deck made me aware of how good Linux has become and is the reason I ditched Windows on my desktop computer
No I think you're just woefully ignorant of why people buy consoles in the first place, and why the Steam Deck even exists.
Valve also made a really thought out and well designed product, which I think is pretty rare these days. The instant hibernation feature is just one example of why the Steam Deck is so much better than the competition
It's funny. I thought I would just play through my SO's gargantuan library for a long while, but I'm pretty sure I've spent more on new games than I did on the Steam Deck itself at this point. So, yeah. They made the right call.
Why hasn't anyone else made one to compete that's cheap? Because, Mr.Author...No one else can make their money back by selling software.
The Switch certainly predates the Deck, and they definitely make their money back on software, but being forced solely into the Nintendo ecosystem is off-putting. Only Microsoft is a likely candidate to make a handheld that uses their Game Pass, and I would bet they aren't really needing to push subscriptions at the moment.
The Switch isn't that expensive to make, the chip, memory, and storage are all budget af.
I just looked it up, and it looks like Nintendo likely makes $40-$80 per Switch (estimated based on part costs). A decent profit, considering software (a big money maker) is just gravy at that point.
Why are you trying to compare a computer to a walled garden Nintendo switch? Hell, you're making my argument for me.
I can't believe I have to rehash this again. A Switch is a computer. My point wasn't that it's somehow better, but Nintendo already did exactly what you said: made a handheld portable computer with built-in screen that can play games locally and is sold at a loss only to recoup those losses with software sales.
The Deck can do more than the Switch, but that doesn't make the Switch less of a computer.
Nintendo hardwares are sold for profit
You say it's off putting as if the Switch doesn't have dozens on dozens on dozens of quality 1st and 2nd party titles. Also, no one is being forced into the Nintendo ecosystem. It's a Nintendo product, and you buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. It's not anti-gamer. That being said, apples and oranges to compare the switch to the deck.
Right, but the original statement was whether other companies have made a competing and profitable "Deck," and the Switch is already such a device. Portable, plays games locally, has a thriving software ecosystem...
Whether those games within that ecosystem are "quality" or not is irrelevant. Both platforms have examples of good and bad games. My point was that if you buy a Switch, you are forced into their ecosystem. On the Deck, you do not have such a limitation (with a bit of effort, you can access anything a regular Linux machine can). Nobody is coerced in, sure, but that wasn't the point I was making.
So where you see apples and oranges, I see a small, dry apple vs. a big, juicy apple. A better analogy might be Apple vs Windows.
No, the Switch is not such a device.
The article is very obviously about PCs. The Switch is not a PC.
Just because the switch runs a proprietary OS does not mean it isn't a personal computing device. It can run Linux, it has a CPU and memory, it runs software, its a personal computer for sure.
Yes, it does. It cannot possibly be described as a PC if the end user can't install arbitrary software without restriction.
Calling a Switch a PC isn't slightly incorrect. It's complete and utter horseshit.
The ability install "arbitrary software without restriction" is what defines a PC? Now that is complete and utter horseshit. A Chromebook isn't a PC? A laptop with account restrictions to prevent the end user from installing software isn't a PC? A desktop running an immutable linux distro isn't a PC? Quit your bullshit. A PC is a computing device with a CPU and Memory, meant to be used by several people or less at a time, everything else is superfluous.
A chromebook runs arbitrary software without any sort of hacks. Before this was the case, Chromebooks were very obviously not PCs. So do immutable OSes.
Account restrictions are the owner of the hardware "running arbitrary software" to control what someone else can do and completely irrelevant.
There is no scenario where you can call a Switch a PC, any more than you can call a phone a PC, an ATM a PC, or a pregnancy test with a chip in it a PC. It's not a misunderstanding; it's a lie.
Honestly, I think you are just using a very specific (and pretty inaccurate) definition of a personal computer. Also, a strangely specific usage of "arbitrary". All of the cases I mentioned (chromebooks, immutable distros, enterprise windows with administrative restrictions) intentionally lock out the user from running software the hardware could otherwise support.
Saying a device that the manufacturer artificially locks out users from installing non approved software is somehow related to the definition of a PC is simply a lie.
You can install Linux on smart phones, so by your definition, a phone is a PC. You can install Linux on first gen switches without modifying the hardware, so by your definition, first generation switches are PC's. You can even install Linux on modern switches just by soldering on a special chip, so "modified switches" are PCs.
ATM's often run Windows as the base OS ffs, of course you could call them a PC. As you said;
If account restrictions are the "owner of the hardware" preventing the end user from "running arbitrary software", then all that means is Nintendo owns your switch. Not that the switch is incapable of running arbitrary software.
Your strange definition of PC simply does not hold up to scrutiny. I get that you are trying to say that "because a Switch is a device manufactured for the express purpose of running games only accessible through Nintendo's official channels, it is a far different user experience than what we think of as a traditional desktop". But to say it isn't a personal computer, when it is a personal device that runs software using a processor, ram, storage, a graphical processor, all connected by a central print circuit board is simply absurd.
If you jailbreak the Switch, you can do all of those things. But by your definition, because I can't arbitrarily install Windows software on an Apple computer, it is not a PC.
Just because it's not easy doesn't mean the Switch isn't a personal computer. It is a device you can personally own that takes bits and bytes and performs computations with them that results in things like saving a game (data storage), internet communication (network computing), and video rendering (video stream computation).
You can't "jailbreak" any current switch without replacing hardware.
You can install Windows software on a Mac.
Calling a switch a PC is a lie. It's not ambiguous, and it's not a gray area. It's a malicious, bold faced lie.
Bruh, are you for real? Lol.
Words have meaning. I'm sorry you don't like the definition of Personal Computer. Go write to the dictionary committees about it. You are emphatically wrong.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/personal-computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
You are a fucking idiot lmaooo, at least it's entertaining seeing you properly roasted for your clear fucking misunderstandings and defence of closed down personal computing hardware. Bravo I'm sure some Nintendo corporate stooge is smiling at you for justifying locking down bought hardware to a closed ecosystem with outrageous prices for games. Why the fuck are you even using federated social media if you love locked down controlled ecosystems?
How is saying "the switch isn't a viable alternative to the steam deck because it's not a PC and can't do anywhere close to the bare minimum to be a PC" promoting a locked down ecosystem?
A console cannot be called a PC or replace a PC. It is a lesser category of product.
They can and are, lol, the definition for PC is surrounding the hardware. Whether or not the producer of said hardware has included software locks or hardware locks to prevent you from modifying the operating system on the device does not change that distinction, it only provides justification for closed ecosystems and locking down hardware a consumer has purchased, creating a monopoly over what that hardware can access. Hence why you are being called out for supporting said practices whether you set out with that intention or not. All of the devices you called out run on standard architectures for their computing resources which have drivers and kernels built in more than a couple operating systems already. If the software or hardware locks were not there, these devices would be capable of fitting into the narrowly scoped definition of PC you crafted. As others have pointed out the first gen switch can be loaded with Linux, as can a newer switch once you bypass the hardware lock. As can the ATM which runs windows server. Xboxs/Play Stations could run linux or windows as we have kernels built for ARM architecture, yet they are locked down. Allowing companies to redefine their devices allows them to skirt antitrust laws and parroting those same talking points only serves to reduce your ability to use/recycle hardware you have previously purchased.
You have a weird definition of platform "ecosystem". How is buying a computing device (gaming or otherwise) that locks you down to only running software purchased from the manufacturer's store not forcing you into their ecosystem?
I guess if you mean no one is forcing you to buy a switch sure. But if you own a switch, you have to procure software through Nintendo. That's being locked into an ecosystem by definition.
Bingo,I think people forget Valve went out of their way to make their profit margin razor thin, or at a slight loss because they know the benefit of having a device that basically assures a new paying user will be added in their Steam ecosystem. It's based on Nintendo's walled garden philosophy after all, just refined really well on PC.
It's not a walled garden though, Valve made no attempts to lock anything down. You can install something like Heroic Game Launcher on the Steam Deck and play Epic Game Store or GOG games too.
Yeah, it's based on the philosophy, but it doesn't strictly follow the philosophy.
While this is true and works out that way, it's either put in a bit of work to get a game to run (I have epic games borderlands 2 handsome Jack collection and it crashes a lot on me) or use the store that has all the games and controller settings set up specifically to the deck. Having the option is great, but using steam is still easiest and makes any deck owners default purchase store choice for a game as steam. To the point where if I had to pay $25 for a game on steam vs $20 on epic or any other, I'd just go ahead and get the steam version if I intended to play it on my deck.
No, but they did make it very easy to buy Steam games and installing HGL or any other launcher is going to be both inconvenient and require a level of investigation that most people don't care to bother with when they can just hit "buy" on the store.
Why do you say that? Heroic games launcher already exist on Flathub and is super easy to use
I mean it's a whole thing of even knowing how to install it, much less configuring Proton, adding it to Steam Launcher, etc.
It's really not that hard and there are plenty of guides available. If you are unable to visit the "store" (discovery), download a program and finally run it, then maybe you should just keep using Steam and not complicate things.
I feel like if you are smart enough to know that Heroic Launcher exists then you could figure out how to do a google search on how to install it. It's not like Windows "just works" every time
You're missing the point entirely and I'm not sure if it's just intentional.
No I just think you're exaggerating the problem and had a bad take on it. In my opinion Steam is harder to install on Windows than Heroic Launcher is to install on SteamOS.
Messing with Proton isn't required and I am sure most games will figure out how to add a shortcut to Steam.
No I think you're just woefully ignorant of why people buy consoles in the first place, and why the Steam Deck even exists.
You literally said
This reads to me that think Valve are going to make installing shit harder. I'm arguing that at the moment it's easy to do and Linux is an open platform. Nothing like a walled garden
No that's not what I meant
Alright, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I think Valve has done a fantastic job with the Steam Deck and I love it's openess. The Steam Deck made me aware of how good Linux has become and is the reason I ditched Windows on my desktop computer
No I think you're just woefully ignorant of why people buy consoles in the first place, and why the Steam Deck even exists.
Valve also made a really thought out and well designed product, which I think is pretty rare these days. The instant hibernation feature is just one example of why the Steam Deck is so much better than the competition
It's funny. I thought I would just play through my SO's gargantuan library for a long while, but I'm pretty sure I've spent more on new games than I did on the Steam Deck itself at this point. So, yeah. They made the right call.