I don't think anyone has ever expected or suggested that analog stick would not be included or do not belong on the Steam Deck, including Valve. The idea that Valve is against analog stick or attempted to not include them in the first place is ludicrous and the points you make about this are completely moot lol.
I mean, it's easier homework if I only have to scroll up. You said what you said. Valve said what they said.
The weird part is we've ended up in the same place as the original Steam Controller. From being the "everything controller" that will support all types of games on a TV to being... well, not the right controller for games with controller support and clearly not as good as a mouse and keyboard for everything else, but hey, you could play stuff this way if you really wanted to.
Which is obviously not a great value proposition. "Hey, here's a slightly worse way to play a few of your games on a TV instead of at your desk" was never going to revolutionize gaming.
Oh, and by the way, I let this pass earlier because we weren't focusing on it, but for the Steam Deck specifically, the idea that the touchpads are "irreplaceable" and completely change the game when compared to other devices is also kind of confusing because...
... well, there's a touchscreen right there.
Not all games play well with touch inputs, but when you pile that on top of everything else the slice of games where the touchpads are an irreplaceable, indispensable requirement is vanishingly small.
I don't have a problem with people liking weird or inconvenient controls, mind you. It's just that I really would have prefered a version of the Deck that didn't need the Dumbo ears for the sake of keeping that weird vestigial remnant of the Steam Machines era.
No, friend, the argument you're making is that Valve didn't sell it based on its ability to replace sticks or mice, which is what is incorrect.
Also, there are no points. This is a conversation, not basketball.
Explain to me how we can simultaneoulsy agree that it's not a great mouse replacement and you can still claim that it's a good solution to play non-controller games.
What non-controller games are these that don't rely on a mouse? Have we been arguing about your Donkey Konga or Typing of the Dead controller all along?
Valve said it. It's not a straw man. I'm not cherry picking. Those are direct quotes from contemporary reviewers going off Valve's marketing and review guides. The first that I could find, too, there's only so much homework I'm willing to do.
The damn thing went to market with that as a USP. They told everybody the pads were superior before they had to backtrack on it and add a single stick because they couldn't get playtesters to go along with it.
If you think you know better than Valve and they mismarketed the thing... well, great. Good for you. But they still mismarketed the thing, people still reviewed it as a stick replacement and it still reviewed poorly on that front.
Now, I'd argue it was also poor at being a mouse replacement, which is also something mentioned in contemporary reviews. It may technically enable you to play a strategy game, but you're not going to excel at Dota 2 on a Steam Controller. There are multiple superior alternatives. Most obviously to just... you know, go to a desk and play with a mouse, but there are also multiple solutions to have a laptop mouse and keyboard combo. There was that Roccat solution and there are a number of variants on "here's a flat surface with a USB hub inside it" you can use for that, if you must.
So if it's not a great standard controller replacement and it's not a great mouse replacement, what is it for? It never solved the issue of playing mouse and keyboard games on the couch effectively, which by your own account was the entire idea (even though it wasn't). The solution to that ended up being developers adding mouse and keyboard options instead. And maybe gyro aiming.
In any case, we at least got Steam Input out of it, which never did much to fix the shortcomings of the Steam Controller, but is a solid tool to enhance controller support for other devices and it picks up the slack from Sony refusing to properly support their controllers on PC.
I have no doubt that some diehard PC gamers will put in tons of time customizing Steam Controller profiles, practicing, and becoming much more accurate than they ever would be with gamepad aiming. But the best you’re ever going to get is almost as good as a mouse, and I think games designed for an Xbox or PlayStation pad will still play better with the native hardware. Spending hours trying out the Steam Controller in the living room, I realized that don’t see much reason to make that compromise. There are very few PC games without controller support that I really want to play on my TV. When I tried, I mostly ended up just missing my mouse.
Hilariously the guy got much more negative (honest?) about it over time.
It works great for typing in Steam Big Picture mode or in SteamOS, but it ultimately fails at replicating the speed and precision of a mouse for gaming. Traditional controllers use a thumbstick to let users look around in games, but with the Steam Controller, you’re forced to use the right touchpad to look around and aim. I tried tweaking the sensitivity of the pads for various games but I could find any setting that felt natural. I constantly overshot my targets and relied on the right thumbstick for accuracy instead.
As touched on already, it's difficult for the dual-trackpads to replace the trusty thumbstick, especially when it comes to aiming in first-person shooters, or even moving the camera around. I believe it's certainly possible to get the hang of it and while everything appears to be accurate enough, it simply doesn't feel as responsive as the thumbstick, or rather you don't feel quite in control for quick snappy movements.
Valve being reported as saying trackpads are the superior option at The Escapist while also admitting they couldn't get people to use them:
The machinist said that the new prototype’s analog stick was tied to movement, in order to “ease new players in” to using the two trackpads, by starting them off using just one for aiming. While he said that the prototype had been successful, and that players were eventually able to transition to the dual trackpad layout, its big disadvantage that the controller’s d-pad had to be cut to make room for the stick.
I was there. I bought one. Why do you make me do homework?
As you say, it doesn't seem that manufacturers are too unhappy with their sales here, but I'd also like to see scale grow to the point where we can start seeing devices launch cheaper, rather than more expensive. Besides the presumably heavily subsidized (or at least priced for scale) Deck the more interesting alternatives are luxury items. It'd be nice to see them find some room for more competitive pricing, and that probably requires adding a zero to the sales numbers.
No, I get it, no animosity here. I'm just curious about why you think the bar is fundamentally different for the Deck than for consoles in general.
Hell, adjusted for inflation the Game Gear retailed for the equivalent of 300 bucks at launch, which is not far off from the lowest price for the Deck at 399. Plus 90s devices sold a lot less than modern devices. Why would meeting the Game Gear not be a reasonable target for the Deck?
It's the most successful individual PC handheld, but it's also not made it into the same range as most consoles so it hasn't turned this product category into a mainstream device... yet.
I'm comparing unit sales. The Deck just happens to slot in between older handhelds in terms of unit sales. It also sold about as much as the Saturn and a little more than the Dreamcast, as far as I can tell. I may be ahead of both and on par with the Wii U now, but Steam isn't super transparent with giving sales numbers.
One million units in the accessory market may as well be zero. The game controller market is woth billions each year just in the US. Specific per-company market share is hard to come by, but I'll put it this way: none of the data I've seen even includes Valve as a player in the space.
I do have a Steam Controller and it will continue to sit in a box next to the Steam Link indefinitely, because see above about having a collecting issue with controllers. My solution for playing non-controller games on the TV ended up being a lapboard with an embedded keyboard an a mouse area from Roccat, which they've discontinued because they're dumb.
The points I make about the success of the pads are entirely reasonable, seeing how Valve DID in fact market them as stick and button replacements on the original and included them instead of having sticks on the Vive controllers. They tried to sell them as a replacement, they did not work for that.
The Steam Controller is in this bizarre space where it bombed so hard it is not remembered at all by most and yet it has been subject to this revisionist history where instead of being briefly available and getting discontinued because nobody really wanted them or was using them it was a massive success that is not being made anyway because... I don't know, because they're special and unique and Valve doesn't want to devalue them? I have no idea how this is supposed to have gone down.
I mean, it's fine, it's not even close to the weirdest piece of tech I own. Not even the weirdest controller I own. But it was never a killer app, it was never particularly successful and the dumb touchpads were absolutely marketed as being superior to physical controls and were extremely not that. I was there for the fifteen minutes it took everybody to decide this, I remember.
This has been true of Nintendo hardware for a long time, though. I wouldn't discount their ability to sustain it through a steady feed of exclusives.
Whether they can do better at managing rising costs and complexity than others is anybody's guess. And we'll see what happens on PC with compatibility. With a handful of games that don't run on SteamOS dominating the PC market there is a quiet conflict there and it's not clear how it will resolve itself.
The OG Steam controller was a bust in general, but yeah, they ended up having to add a stick there. And the original Vive controllers were touchpad-only, which was a bad choice that was reverted somewhere in the process of Valve exiting the picture and every other VR controller standardizing around sticks instead. And notably the Steam Deck launched with dual sticks in a standard configuration despite insisting on keeping the dual trackpads, but very few competitors have followed suit. One touchpad, sure, because these all need a remedial solution for a pointing device, but two is rare (I can think of one other example).
So yeah, Valve has been dragged kicking and screaming back to the standard layout, much as they seem to not want to entirely let go of the idea for some reason. There aren't many examples because they don't make a ton of hardware, but there is nothing in the history of those haptic trackpads to suggest that they're a runaway hit with users that will become the go-to for input devices. There's a lot more evidence for the opposite.
I fundamentally disagree that the touchpads had anything to do with the Deck's success. Reading reviews, looking at usage lists and just looking at how the thing is used, the killer feature is and has always been the ridiculously low price for what it packs and the user-friendly UI. The entire point of SteamOS is making the device manageable with the sticks alone and not needing a pointer device as much as the Windows alternatives. You're projecting your tastes onto it pretty heavily there.
I have to say, there is so much self-contradiction in people that get activist about this segment. And I say that as someone heavily invested in it. I upgraded from the OG Deck to the OLED and I own other handhelds. But man, people need to decide whether the reason the Deck is great is that it IS a console that works like a console and doesn't need to mess around with annoying Windows quirks... or a full-fledged PC that is not really competing with consoles.
Look, the Deck is a very, very, very cheap handheld PC that is less performant and not as sleek as some of the more boutique alternatives, but it's the best value in that space. And it's less of a hassle to use out of the box than the Windows alternatives (although the difference is smaller than most people claim, honestly). It's not as smooth as a console, it's clunky and it's less compatible than inititally promised. And not as successful as you'd think from the attention it gets. But it's good. Not best in class in most areas, but definitely best in value by a large margin.
I'm confused on what your hypothesis is here. You think PC handhelds are massively shifting the modes of usage of the Switch towards being primarily docked? I'm not gonna dig for it, but my understanding was that the Switch usage was slowly drifting towards more handheld over time. Even if that wasn't the case, the numbers just don't match. Even if 10 million people had shifted from using the Switch as a handheld to a PC handheld, why would that impact the remaining 130 million users? PC handhelds are a rounding error in the space the Switch operates in.
If I had to guess the drift towards PC probably has a lot to do with software. PC ports weren't a given until recently and they arguably still aren't reliably great. With console exclusives becoming fewer and further between and both first parties now willing to ship PC ports there just is less of an incentive to be stuck to a specific piece of hardware. PCs have always been backwards and forwards compatible, but with all sorts of devices able to run the same software across many device types and hardware generations that is becoming a big selling point.
Which on the Switch is a lot weaker, mostly because Nintendo is better at making a ton of first party games than Sony and Microsoft and because they have a younger userbase that is less likely to have three other gaming-worthy devices at their fingertips at all times.
PC gaming absolutely has mainstream appeal, and it's growing. Just not specifically because of the handheld market. By the numbers, anyway. I find people tend to hedge on this. Either the Steam Deck is a consolized solution to PC gaming that makes the Switch obsolete or a bit of an experiment that doesn't need to stack up to mainstream devices.
Yes, PCs (desktop PCs, laptops and handhelds together) are comparable to 4K home consoles these days and lead in some segments. But of those categories the handhelds are the smallest contributor while they are the largest portion of the console market. I love PC handhelds and I'd like to see those proportions shift, but it's interesting that Valve has put a lot of resources behind having a competitive device at a very low price point and we haven't seen more of a change.
On the docked vs handheld thing, Nintendo disclosed that info a few times. This is the first result I found just searching for it. It's recent enough that there were already a hundred million of the things in the wild, so I don't expect it'll have changed much.
As for the mini PC thing... yeah, sure. I mean, I'm not sayng they don't do the thing, I'm saying whenever I sit to look at the optimal solution for a problem the mini PCs never seem to come out on top. A PC for an older person taht doesn't need a ton of computing power? I went with an Android tablet with a detachable keyboard last time, they are delighted at having a laptop-style thing and a tablet to watch media that works like their phone. A low power device to run some specific application? I can probably find some cheap SBC somewhere I can get running passively with a heatsink and will do the job. A portable gaming solution? I have laptops with dedicated GPUs around that are older but much faster than most mini PCs. Also, they have a screen, so there's that. A set-top box? I can put something together for cheaper in the same performance range.
There are valid use cases. Sure, if you need a dozen of these things to embed in desktops, or something you can mount behind a screen, or... something to run a FGC tourney for cheap, apparently, there are reasons to use them. I just haven't found they provided a better alternative than other devices for most of the uses I personally have.
It is atypical, and certainly a medical issue, but I'm not alone there by any means. People who like these do tend to be loud and proud about it, so they stand out more, but it's worth pointing out that any time Valve has tried to have them as a primary input they had to either reintroduce sticks alongside them or swap them out for sticks altogether. Accessibility wise I know people who share my issues and people who say they interact better with their own mobility problems. That's always the case with ergonomics and accessibility issues. On the plus side, that has taken me into a lively and very expensive habit of controller collecting, so... yay for me.
FWIW, I'm aware of the functionality, which works just as well with a modifier button and a stick. Those things and a lot of the features attached to them are, and have always been, a solution looking for a problem. There are very few games where the developer hasn't provided a viable control mapping that the Steam layers turn into a comfortable gaming experience. In most cases if it's not intended to be used with a controller I'd much rather go sit somewhere with a mouse and keyboard.
Yeeeah, I don't know that "it'd slot in next to the Nomad" is a ringing endorsement of mainstream appeal.
You, by the way, are not in the majority in your usage pattern for the Switch. Every bit of info available suggests that handheld vs docked use of the Switch is pretty much evenly split. Which is surprising to me, because I see it as a handheld first and foremost.
I do agree that it'll be interesting to see how the Switch 2 fares in a market where it's not the only thing in its class, but if I had to place any bets, they have a humongous lead despite PC handhelds having been around for ages and the Deck having taken a very good stab at competitive pricing and performance a whole three years ago (what is even time, holy crap).
As for mini PCs... Man, I don't get mini PCs. I'm very much an early adopter of weird tech, I have more SBCs and handheld devices than I know what to do with, but... who wants a screenless laptop? Or an underpowered, overpriced desktop? I can see some use cases for it, I've had some NUCs and thin clients here and there, I just don't think the value proposition is there to use them even as a media device. But hey, it's a small but clearly competitive space, and if this gen APUs do indeed match a 4060 desktop level of performance when fed enough power maybe that starts to make sense next to a Xbox Series S or something as a gaming device. We'll see.
For the record, I do have a PC plugged into a TV for gaming, mostly made out of spares and hand-me-downs built into a smaller, less garish case. I haven't seen a mini PC that made me question that choice yet. I'm open to having my mind changed, it just hasn't happened yet.
As a touchpad, maybe. But they're not being used as a touchpad, they're being used as this weird physical input substitute thing that is meant to work with your thumb. Two thumbs, actually. Sliding my thumb that way while holding the thing I'm using causes excruciating pain almost immediately, but even in the brief period until it does it's less functional than a large touchpad, let alone a mouse or a stick.
I know some people swear by them, I just don't think they're worth the space they take up as a pointer device and I don't think they're particularly useful as anything else.
But hey, that's the point of PCs, right? People who agree with me can get the Legion Go S with the actually good Thinkpad-style optical nub and people who like playing games by scratching a plastic square for some reason can stick to the Deck.