I mean, Valve is wildly profitable. On a profit-per-employee basis, they beat out virtually every other company in existence, at a staggering $3.5M in profit earned per employee. The Steam Store is a money-printing machine, and takes very little in upkeep/support staff to stay profitable.

The Steam Deck was never a massive profit-seeking venture for them; It was a way to divest from Microsoft, (who had been rumbling about going the way of Google/Apple and forcing everyone to use their proprietary store, then skimming a portion of all sales made on said store), and to be able to bring the Steam storefront to people who otherwise wouldn’t be using Steam.

The only reason Microsoft backed off of their Microsoft Store idea was because Apple and Google got slapped in the EU, and forced to allow third-party app stores. And by that point, the Steam Deck was already in production, so there wasn’t much point in canceling it. Especially since, as I mentioned earlier, it expands the Steam Store’s reach, which is their real end goal.

The main thing I want, besides higher performance, is higher resolution to increase readability. Do something like what Apple did when they introduced their ultra high resolution monitors - present it as a standard resolution monitor to software, but then let the OS handle stuff like font rendering at full resolution and overlay it.

That way you don't cause a performance hit from games rendering more pixels than what's necessary for a small screen in 3D scenes, but the detail you do need is there to see. They should work with game engine developers and get the OS side support of it upstreamed to the Linux graphics stack (presumably the game mode window manager Gamescope would be the first place to build it into). It would work in parallel to the upscaling algorithm for the rest of the frame buffer.

Stuff like puzzle games and platformers, etc, could even have game engine support for tagging certain assets and object edges and symbols for higher resolution rendering, not just for fonts, so it's easier to see the important things. You could even do stuff like render faces specifically at higher resolution and do the rest at low res with upscaling.

This has been a major annoyance I've had too with gamers. It was never meant to play games at 240fps with ultra graphics. It's meant as a way to make "most" games playable on the road. A great low cost entry point, or something to compliment your big gaming rig. I don't need an upgrade because it does what it does great, plays most games on decent settings well enough for the duration of a flight or trip. If you want ultra graphics, you will have to pay ultra prices and probably do a big desktop. Even "Steam Deck 2" will still probably only do 30-45fps games on medium, just newer games will be a bit more playable.

This machine is incredible, it easily plays the backlog of 5000+ games I haven't played before but of which a lot are way cooler than a lot of AAA being published today because it predates many current bad game development practices. DOS, NES, SNES, Wii, GB, GBA, GAMECUBE, PSP, PS1, PS2, SEGACD, ... The list goes on. Steamdeck with Emudeck is a truly amazing experience. I don't need a steamdeck 2 anytime soon.

I wouldn't even call it "low power". More like mid

That's a fair ask IMO. Not wanting a newer shinier one, just one that fits you better.

I havent played it on steam Deck, usually on PC, but on console you can vastly improve the input lag with a few settings, mainly turning the vertical synchronisation off. Maybe it helps with the Deck too.

That's a fair reason IMO. However, knowing that it might be a few years out, then it becomes "is it worth the wait"

Same..I was thnking of getting one Q1 2026.. Might just wait it out I guess . maybe firmer date by then?

I'm not really sure what's not perfect with the OLED already, lol. Maybe a second USB-C port would be nice, so we could charge it while using a non-hub device, or use a cheap hub to add even more controllers? That's a minor, incremental improvement, though.

It could always be smaller/thinner/quieter, I guess, but I can't think of anything I'd really want to change with my Deck. I have lots of minor pain points with other tech, but I literally can't think of anything with the Deck, so I'm curious if you have any specifics, or if you're just trusting that Valve has put some real thought and research into this and will surprise us with design changes for the better that aren't obvious.

Ha!

Maybe they're saving the conclusions to all their trilogies for the steam deck 3.

...too bad we'll never get it though.

Your question depends on your definition of "can it run". To me, as a portable device I get 45 fps on the witcher on medium settings and that's very playable. If you want to use it as a desktop and expect that the next version will rival a 5000 series GPU, that's unrealistic.

What's really cool is that in a lot of cases you can just load up the game on steam in linux and it just downloads and uses the same proton layers that the deck does. I run arch and in my testing so far it works, hampered by the fact that my test box is a very old a10 amd apu

Battery doesn’t have as much of an upgrade path as people think - you add more cells / energy in the same space, and you get the cause of those Samsung phone fires. It more commonly comes from processor efficiency improvements, which is hard when that’s mostly the domain of whoever coded the Windows-based video game you’re playing.

If it helps: Look up TDP customizations for your favorite games to play on Deck.

This one I'm excited for. A Steam Machine would be great, and my biggest gripe with controller play on my desktop is the missing trackpads mean Steam Input didn't work. There are games that I choose to stream to/play on my Deck over using my 1440p 32" screen on my gaming rig because I don't have Steam Input on my desktop.

I love the thumbpads