You’re forgetting the other advantage of the switch is how cheap it is. If Microsoft can manage to make something that’s inbetween the price of a steam deck and a switch it could be pretty enticing.
Leave it to microsoft to join the party years late with a product that completely misses the point of what makes the original to their copy actually popular
What does Xbox even have that I couldn’t already play on my PC? Halo’s dead; there’s no reason to humor Xbox as a console anymore. Microsoft’s still-surviving exclusives are all mid; so really, why would I get one of these when I could just play on my PC, or pick up a Steam Deck to have access to my PC’s library?
Because Xbox deck wouldn’t be made by a tiny gambling company. It would be made by a massive corporation with footholds for tech already established in practically every country.
Valve only makes the deck available in a handful of countries while Xbox hardware is available pretty much everywhere, so I’d say it’s natural to assume a hypothetical dexbox would too
I don’t think this guy understands what innovation is. The Steam Deck and Wii aren’t particularly innovative. The Wii is a bit unusual, but pointer controls didn’t stick (though gyro controls have, in a minor way). The Steam Deck is just a regular handheld but with an x86 CPU.
I don’t think people are going to buy small consoles to play big games. And a powerful handheld is overkill to play small games. If people want to play small games, they use the phone they already have.
The handheld console sweet spot is slightly more powerful than the Switch. But the Switch’s selling power isn’t its hardware, but its library. Nintendo games have selling power. And even outside of that, the Switch has a surprisingly large library of third-party games like Skyrim and Doom. But if people really want a console that will do everything, they’ll get a Deck, because I know you won’t be able to do whatever you want on Microsoft’s handheld.
When the C-suite says “innovation” they tend to mean either “things other companies did that this company hasn’t done yet” or “obvious stuff that we should have done already but didn’t”.
Valve are the only ones confident enough in their systems to do that. Valve’s mindset seems to be that trying to lock people in is a losing strategy, long term. Instead they are just making sure that their offerings are better than anything else available. If done right, it has all the advantages of locking people in, with none of the downsides. It also combines with the perceived openness, which gains you a lot of credit with the geek community.
Microsoft are too reliant on lock-in to risk opening it up.
People pretty often completely understate the Vita’s popularity/lifespan. Less than the 3DS for sure, but early metrics were stupidly counting hardware sales when it was moving early to digital.
In Japan it stayed popular long after the USA stopped talking about it.
Add comment