Think GPD are a trustworthy company to buy devices from? Well, with the Steam Deck now here, they appear desperate.
Recently, they started taking various Steam Deck videos from YouTube creators, sticking them together with a look at their own devices and not crediting any of the people who put the work into those videos. On top of that, GPD has been attaching a "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" license to the videos, again, without permission from the original creators.
It's not a good look, and some of those creators have started fighting back.
When pulling them up on it on Twitter, I expected some sort of reply (even a snarky one to my obvious bait) or just to do the honourable thing to correctly get permission for using videos from other people. At the very least slapping in a link to the channels they're pinching things from in the description / a pinned comment for people to see. Did any of that happen? No. Instead, here's the official response from GPD:
I've never personally used one of their devices, and would have happily taken a look at any point with Linux installed onto one. Even some direct Steam Deck comparisons. Now though? This is not painting a good picture of GPD as a company.
Here's my video explainer:
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
This is the same company that previously tried to steer people towards them instead of Valve, because the Steam Deck was going to be a "closed system" that would not allow third-party stuff and wouldn't play pirated games because of SteamOS — something that's just laughable really.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: setzer22Valve is selling the deck at a loss because they can afford it,I honestly doubt that.
This isn't a console that can make up for selling at a loss with absurd stuff like costs-to-play-online or generally overpriced games.
Nor is it going to bring it tons of new customers - I'd bet that 99% of buyers are Steam customers anyway.
Nail meet hammer...
My thoughts exactly, Not at all convinced the likes of M$/Sony sell them at a loss either.
Until any company release actual BOM of the devices it's all pure speculation/rumor.
0 Likes
Quoting: setzer22But my point is that many people seem to agree that Valve is selling the lowest tier at a loss.
It's still speculation, No info regards actual pricing has been released from Valve.
I certainly not disputing that they may be barely profiting on some.
Most know that what price for materials that are seen to joe average can and often is very different to what an individual company will be paying.
2 Likes, Who?
Philadelphus Apr 7, 2022
Quoting: pete910Not sure why that's such an incredible claim, the concept of a loss leader has been around—as in, documented that people and companies have done this exact thing—for at least half a century.Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: setzer22Valve is selling the deck at a loss because they can afford it,I honestly doubt that.
This isn't a console that can make up for selling at a loss with absurd stuff like costs-to-play-online or generally overpriced games.
Nor is it going to bring it tons of new customers - I'd bet that 99% of buyers are Steam customers anyway.
Nail meet hammer...
My thoughts exactly, Not at all convinced the likes of M$/Sony sell them at a loss either.
Until any company release actual BOM of the devices it's all pure speculation/rumor.
But hey, show me a list of components that produce a device with the same features and specs as the Steam Deck and which cost less than $400 and I'll believe it.
0 Likes
Quoting: PhiladelphusNot sure why that's such an incredible claim, the concept of a loss leader has been around—as in, documented that people and companies have done this exact thing—for at least half a century.
Ok...
Quoting: PhiladelphusBut hey, show me a list of components that produce a device with the same features and specs as the Steam Deck and which cost less than $400 and I'll believe it.
... but volume discount has been around—as in, documented that people and companies have done this exact thing—for millennia.
I don't think anybody says that selling below cost is an incredible claim. It's just that we don't know for sure, and probably never will.
1 Likes, Who?
areamanplaysgame Apr 7, 2022
LOL. Their marketing department is the troll who shows up in every Steam discussion where anyone mentions Linux.
What a bunch of assholes.
What a bunch of assholes.
1 Likes, Who?
I just can't believe that a so-called "company" is acting in such a way. What a bunch of immature amateurs.
0 Likes
Philadelphus Apr 8, 2022
Quoting: EikeTrue, I neglected that fact. But since it has been around so long, presumably we could look at history to make some sort of educated guess, right? Like, if I can put together a list of components that matches the Steam Deck for $500, is it reasonable to suppose that Valve have managed to shave >20% off the price to get it below $400? Or is the problem that there are so many components going into the Deck (all with their own independent economies-of-scale) that it's just impossible to make any sort of informed estimate about what Valve might (or might not) be able to achieve?Quoting: PhiladelphusBut hey, show me a list of components that produce a device with the same features and specs as the Steam Deck and which cost less than $400 and I'll believe it.
... but volume discount has been around—as in, documented that people and companies have done this exact thing—for millennia.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: PhiladelphusBut since it has been around so long, presumably we could look at history to make some sort of educated guess, right?
I really don't know. I mean, I don't know the answer, and I don't even know if we can make an educated guess or if we would be miles from reality. What are you paying if you buy 100.000 instead of 1, or if you got kind of a electronic part subscription?!? Don't ask me. :) I'd guess public information would be sparse.
0 Likes
Philadelphus Apr 8, 2022
Yeah, I suppose that's true. We'll just have to hope Valve releases such information, or someone leaks it or something.
Personally, I guess I'm basing my impression that they're not making money on the lower tier units from the fact that all three SKUs are identical in performance; the only differences are the SSD and the etched glass on the high-end model (and technically the included case, but from what I've seen of it—while nice—it can't be costing them more than a few bucks extra). But it surely can't cost them an extra $150 dollars to go from 64 to 256 GB and then another $150 to go from 256 to 512 GB, right? Like, there's no way the rest of the system costs, say $350 dollars, then the 64 GB SSD costs $50 and the 256 SSD costs $200, right?* (Admittedly, it's hard to guess how much the etched glass screen costs compared to the default.) So it seems to me that the price differences must be from something other than the pure cost of parts, and to me the most logical explanation is that they're actually making money on just the high-end (or maybe the middle-tier) models, and losing it on the low-end ones as a loss-leader (betting that they'll make up the price difference in Steam sales). I dunno, I could be completely off-base with this assessment. That's just how it seems to me.
*Unless that's how SSD prices actually are at that form factor; it has been years since I last bought one.
Personally, I guess I'm basing my impression that they're not making money on the lower tier units from the fact that all three SKUs are identical in performance; the only differences are the SSD and the etched glass on the high-end model (and technically the included case, but from what I've seen of it—while nice—it can't be costing them more than a few bucks extra). But it surely can't cost them an extra $150 dollars to go from 64 to 256 GB and then another $150 to go from 256 to 512 GB, right? Like, there's no way the rest of the system costs, say $350 dollars, then the 64 GB SSD costs $50 and the 256 SSD costs $200, right?* (Admittedly, it's hard to guess how much the etched glass screen costs compared to the default.) So it seems to me that the price differences must be from something other than the pure cost of parts, and to me the most logical explanation is that they're actually making money on just the high-end (or maybe the middle-tier) models, and losing it on the low-end ones as a loss-leader (betting that they'll make up the price difference in Steam sales). I dunno, I could be completely off-base with this assessment. That's just how it seems to me.
*Unless that's how SSD prices actually are at that form factor; it has been years since I last bought one.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: PhiladelphusQuoting: EikeTrue, I neglected that fact. But since it has been around so long, presumably we could look at history to make some sort of educated guess, right? Like, if I can put together a list of components that matches the Steam Deck for $500, is it reasonable to suppose that Valve have managed to shave >20% off the price to get it below $400? Or is the problem that there are so many components going into the Deck (all with their own independent economies-of-scale) that it's just impossible to make any sort of informed estimate about what Valve might (or might not) be able to achieve?Quoting: PhiladelphusBut hey, show me a list of components that produce a device with the same features and specs as the Steam Deck and which cost less than $400 and I'll believe it.
... but volume discount has been around—as in, documented that people and companies have done this exact thing—for millennia.
Why does a glass for storing self made jelly cost more then a glass of jelly? What does the jelly production cost? How much discount does the factory get on glasses? Are they selling the jelly at a loss?
Remember that consumer hardware is distributed with a lot of risk-management, postproduction and middlemen.
Packaging (even if sold as *bulk), multiple deliveries from factory to warehouse to warehouse to warehouse. Storage. Big resellers might jump some middlemen, yet they have their own infrastructure to care about.
Factory-to factory delivery with minimal storage is a lot cheaper then that. Also, Valve have taken over support for the chips, which was probably part of the bargain.
Considering the APU, you need to also factor in that this is a new platform for AMD so having a big customer to scale up a production line and proving the value for this will pay of for them twice. Contrary to their much more custom work for other consoles, this is a platform they can sell to multiple customers.
GPD, Aya etc. probably don't get continous factory-to-factory delivery. They buy the hardware in bulks and each bulk gets a new contract... They are probably not producing their units continuously, instead buying time-frames at some contractor. Every time that contractor changes context, things need to be rearranged, which costs a LOT of money. Valve maintain flow, only increasing production and further optimizing the workflow.
So they get the hardware a LOT cheaper and also production is a lot cheaper for them. This all comes with a lot of risk, because the money they need to put into that whole pipeline is immense and it will only pay out if demand keeps up. So, even if we knew how much Valve pays for the hardware, you can't really factor in the risk they take and companies like Aya and GPD simply don't/can't.
Last edited by const on 9 April 2022 at 10:00 am UTC
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me