No, it's not a failure.
No, it's not a failure.
My view on the Steam machine is negative. I believe it was a poor decision.
Imagine a new chocolate chip cookie created by Gaben. It looks so appealing that you think "Gaben is so talented at giving me games to play, he must be great at baking." He then hands you the treat, only to discover it’s a disappointing, bland raisin cookie. That’s exactly how I feel about the steam machine.
It's not really bad at all. What we're talking about is how they promoted it to look like a console, even though we understood it wasn't. In the end, we just ended up with a PC running Steam OS. It felt a bit disappointing.
Someone inquired about the steam machine back then, when valve was first discussing it. I believed it would never gain traction, and I remain confident in that view. Consoles, by their design, rely on millions of units sold, which drives game developers to focus on a specific hardware setup and optimize its performance. As @LittleCarrot correctly noted, they should have chosen one configuration and then worked hard to refine the operating system so it would attract a broad audience. Presently, the Steam Machine holds little appeal for PC gamers—more like an outdated Xbox controller with rusty, pointless buttons.
The Steam OS seemed to be the least useful part of the setup because it only allowed playing games on Steam, removing most of the other features that make a computer practical beyond gaming.
Sure, I can help with that. Would you like me to proceed with the Amazon gift card option?