Buying things at their retail price and using them in a way the manufacturer didn’t intend is not shitty, nor abuse.
Most of the business models that enable subsidized pricing for consumer products, on the other hand rely on artificially restricting how people can use those products, which is shitty and abusive.
Most of the business models that enable subsidized pricing for consumer products, on the other hand rely on artificially restricting how people can use those products, which is shitty and abusive.
Which they agree with, that’s kind of the point though, unfortunately the customer see’s the PS5 for 600, and the steam machine for 1000+, and assume steam is the one doing something unethical, when the reality is valve is literally selling a PC. that you are allowed to install windows or a different linux distro on… play games from GOG or whatever on etc… which means valve has to make a bit of profit or at least break even in order not to be bankrupted by people buying a bunch of steam machines and no games.
I think you said that people who do things like build a cluster of PS3s because they’re a lot of compute for the money are shitty, and that they’re abusing the fact that Sony priced them low in the hope that people who bought them would also buy games. I disagree with that position.
If you meant something else, perhaps we don’t disagree.
My first thought was scalpers. But other than that, I agree with you. I think it would be good to limit sales to 1 or 2 units to prevent that and to give people that want to pay games a chance to buy one, then the people that want to cluster them or whatever can get their fix later. If someone wants to buy just one and modify it to do damn near anything, more power to them.
Consoles make an attempt to be a locked ecosystem - which is why they can subsidize it - because they know if you buy it your buying their games for it.
Then I’m misunderstanding this part. The PS3 compute cluster incident commented below is what came to mind.
But in the current climate I image that if the Steam machine was heavily subsidized that there would be a subset of people abusing that by doing something like purchasing, harvesting, and immediately reselling its parts.
Duh - people are shitty and would abuse it.
Buying things at their retail price and using them in a way the manufacturer didn’t intend is not shitty, nor abuse.
Most of the business models that enable subsidized pricing for consumer products, on the other hand rely on artificially restricting how people can use those products, which is shitty and abusive.
Which they agree with, that’s kind of the point though, unfortunately the customer see’s the PS5 for 600, and the steam machine for 1000+, and assume steam is the one doing something unethical, when the reality is valve is literally selling a PC. that you are allowed to install windows or a different linux distro on… play games from GOG or whatever on etc… which means valve has to make a bit of profit or at least break even in order not to be bankrupted by people buying a bunch of steam machines and no games.
Huh – what do you think I said or why I said it?
I think you said that people who do things like build a cluster of PS3s because they’re a lot of compute for the money are shitty, and that they’re abusing the fact that Sony priced them low in the hope that people who bought them would also buy games. I disagree with that position.
If you meant something else, perhaps we don’t disagree.
My first thought was scalpers. But other than that, I agree with you. I think it would be good to limit sales to 1 or 2 units to prevent that and to give people that want to pay games a chance to buy one, then the people that want to cluster them or whatever can get their fix later. If someone wants to buy just one and modify it to do damn near anything, more power to them.
Not much to abuse. The same way that the subsidizing of consoles doesn’t open it up for abuse per se
Valve would just lose money on a lot of sales, as they can’t get a guaranteed recoup of the subsidy in the same way that Sony or Nintendo do
I mean sort of, if it was heavily subsidised, people would just buy a bunch of them and make a server farm or something like that
US air force and PS3s anyone
Consoles make an attempt to be a locked ecosystem - which is why they can subsidize it - because they know if you buy it your buying their games for it.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying
Then I’m misunderstanding this part. The PS3 compute cluster incident commented below is what came to mind.
But in the current climate I image that if the Steam machine was heavily subsidized that there would be a subset of people abusing that by doing something like purchasing, harvesting, and immediately reselling its parts.