I think “optimize the UX a bit” is what they did, and it falls very woefully short of what they need. Especially when it arguably has a far bigger and better library of titles.
I hope Valve doesn’t throw in the towel after the first round. The Steam Deck idea can be a killer one. It just needs a lot more UX polish and marketing.
On the other hand, it's plausible that the Steam Deck could hit within 50% of Vita, the Wii U or Gamecube, which is amazing for Valve's second push into the console market, and immensely profitable, given Valve owns pretty much the only avenue with which people will be buying games for it and gets a 30% cut, on top of the Deck being significantly more expensive than any comparable console, now or historically.
I just picked the closest analog: a modern handheld that can be plugged into a TV.
When the Game Cube "fails" as a product, all the worlds Game Cubes become just cubes that you can't do anything interesting with.
If Steam Deck "fails", it becomes merely a funky form factor PC. Plug it into a monitor via USB-C and it's a full desktop computer. With a surprisingly okay price for that, too!
Since Valve doesn't share actual numbers, or at least has not done so yet, it's really hard to judge, but I think you're painting a picture that is at least a bit too pessimistic. I don't know if Valve actually expected to outsell stalwart console vendors, but I would actually guess they DID outsell the PS Vita's first year. That's really not too bad for a foray into a saturated market with a somewhat niche and admittedly even somewhat immature product.
Steam Deck probably has a bright future, but I'm most interested to hear if they had any success breaking into the market in Asia, as it seemed like that was a big push for them and probably generally one of the hardest markets for Valve/Steam, for a variety of different reasons. I have to guess the sales numbers in North America are pretty good based on how quickly we went through the preorders.
A big and weird part of this is simply because Valve is different. Still a corporation, still flawed, but certainly, if nothing else, definitely different. They have an appeal almost reminiscent of how people once regarded Google a long time ago. They've gotten a solid reputation for playing the long game with respect to building their ecosystem, and in that regard, Deck feels like a product many years in the making: the Steam client and games library, Proton and DXVK, the overlay and other middleware libraries, the multiple iterations of SteamOS, and many more endeavors all came into the product that the Deck is today.
Meanwhile, PS Vita did not have the luxury of the depth of consumer goodwill that Valve has, even if Sony has many times the breadth of consumer goodwill; worse, it needed to bootstrap it's ecosystem, whereas Valve has committed to bringing it's entire existing ecosystem to Deck instead. Valve also had the luxury of not being a traditional video game console vendor, and thus I don't think it elicited as strong of a reaction in the "console wars" either: I do not think that people view it the same. And hell, I don't think Valve does either. It has an aggressive starting price, and thus definitely can compete, but it seems probably still profitable. At the higher end, it's priced more like a gaming laptop, and thus the enthusiast gear that you would expect. I think they landed themselves a nearly unloseable situation with Deck. Because it's basically just an extension of their existing Steam ecosystem, it's essentially a value-add at worst. I would bet it acts more complimentary to other consoles, and there are probably few Deck owners without at least one other game console.
As a competitor to Nintendo's gaming handhelds and as a successor to the PSP, it seems like consumers largely rejected the PS Vita. Maybe in an alternate universe where Sony took an entirely different approach to the ecosystem and marketing of the PS Vita, things could've gone very differently.
Though I could buy the Steam Deck now, I am eagerly waiting for Steam Deck 2 just to see if there are lessons-learned-improvements from the first iteration.
Just wait for the Steam Deck 3, where they'll solve all the problems that don't even exist yet on the Steam Deck 2. Or better yet, might just wait for the Steam Deck 5 just to make sure they've finally ironed out all the kinks.
I'm just saying, if it's something you want, it fits your needs today, and you've got the budget for it, just buy it. Don't wait for the "what if the next generation is better?", Because of course the next generation will probably be better, if it comes out. But this fits your needs well enough today, and it's something you want, and there will always be something newer supplanting whatever you buy in the future as well.
So if you're thinking you'll wait for the 2 because it'll be better than the original, why get the 2? Won't the 3 be better? And of course, the 4 will be better than the 3, so maybe you shouldn't buy the 3 but instead wait for the 4. But what if there's a 5th generation...
Why would I buy the iPhone of today, won't the one next year be faster? And the one the year after that be faster than next year? Why would I buy the one this year when there will probably be a better one available eventually?
I just never got this line of reasoning. Could you share why you'd wait for the 2, but not the 3?
Cheers!
I'm very surprised that you don't seem to be aware of this, and treat it purely as n versus n+1.