6 ms·

Obviously Proton is a big part of the Steam Deck's success, but I firmly believe it would be a flop if it weren't for Steam's input mapping tools. I can play so

by goda90 4y ago

Obviously Proton is a big part of the Steam Deck's success, but I firmly believe it would be a flop if it weren't for Steam's input mapping tools. I can play so many games that are keyboard+mouse only because of mapping hotkeys.

shkkmo 4y ago
Those mapping tools, and many of the mappings, owe a debt to the underrated steam controller.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  I had one of those, it was great. I don't know why it failed.
  - mikedelago 4y ago
    I don't think it was pushed/marketed very hard, and by the end of it they were kind of just giving them away. Failed might not be appropriate, it's still plenty usable in my opinion.
  - empyrrhicist 4y ago
    There was a patent infringement case which I have heard blamed for it.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    I'm not sure by what measure it failed. I'm certain Valve wasn't trying to turn the Steam Controller into a household item. It was a reasonably popular niche product and as a dogfooding item it was a wild success for the development of Steam input, which is a core reason why the Steam Deck works at all.
    - dagmx 4y ago
      Valve were definitely trying to push it, along with their other defunct products: The Steam Link and the Steam Machines. Both those products were meant to be mass adopted, and the steam controller was meant to be the best input choice for both of them.
      - Sakos 4y ago
        Steam Machines were a miserable failure with nothing to show for it. I don't buy the "guilty by association" argument though. People liked, bought and used the Steam Controller. Steam Machines never even remotely reached that point.
        dagmx 4y ago
        Whether the Steam Machines were successful or not is besides the point with regards to whether valve intended it to be successful (they clearly did because they pushed very hard for it at the time) and the Steam Controller having been part of the pitch. Lots of things that arose from their steam machine project were more successful than the steam machine, including: - the steam deck - funding various Vulkan projects - funding Proton development - general Linux experience for gaming getting better (many many patches that were funded) So it’s not really meaningful to differentiate their intent just by the popularity of their product. The steam machine and the steam controllers were meant to be the every day console and valve certainly invested a ton into trying.
    - waboremo 4y ago
      No successful product goes on fire sale only ~3 years after release.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    It failed because: 1. It’s an accessory that was an extra purchase when many alternatives existed. So it was competing for mindshare from people who either were using keyboard+mouse, or could also buy a console controller and connect it up. Unless you already researched it, there was no surface reason to own one for many people. 2. Low availability. You couldn’t just find it in any retail store. So you already needed to be aware of it to want it, and then be willing to wait for delivery. So it had a higher bar to cross. 3. Comfort was a big one. Some people loved it. Others hated it. It was too big for many people, and too cumbersome for others. I personally thought it was one of the worst controllers I’ve owned and I have very large hands. 4. The touch controls mapped poorly to many games. If you did buy one, it was really hit and miss how well it worked for your games. A lot depended on either putting in the time to map it out or hoping the community had something. It just had too much going against it. Which is a death blow for a product that can’t exist by itself and has competition (even if it does more). The steamdeck in comparison sort of exists in its own niche and is a complete product.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      5) Most halfway-recent PC games that are any good to play on a gamepad are made with X-Box controllers in mind—button maps readied and all, truly plug-n-play—and 360 or XBone controllers are readily available and even very cheap (in the case of used 360 controllers, especially). This has been true so long that they're practically the "standard" gamepad for PC gaming, if you're gonna bring a gamepad into the mix at all, with the main kinda-successful exceptions being retro controllers for use with emulators. If you want the boring and relatively-cheap thing that's also the least likely to give you any surprises or irritations in the next 5+ years, you just get an X-Box controller, so Valve's controller had a real uphill battle.
      - jamesgeck0 4y ago
        > Most halfway-recent PC games This is a key point that undermines the rest of your argument. Controller support is practically a given today, but when the Steam Controller launched in 2015 there were _a lot_ of games on Steam (even AAA console ports) that were mouse/keyboard only.
  - AngryData 4y ago
    I think it was a combination of a lack of both a proper d-pad or right joystick. With only one missing, I would have recommended it more, but with both missing, it only works great for a certain sub selection of games, and while most of the rest are playable, they aren't a great experience with it. For the games I used it with, it was great, probably the best Dark Souls controller I ever used by turning the right track pad into a simulated trackball. But without a d-pad it ruins it for most fighting games, joystick FPS are kind of shit without a second joystick as there is no more muscle memory to rely on, and it lacks the speed needed for any serious RTS games. That leaves racing games, and surfing the web. It does make an amazing remote mouse for watching shows and stuff from my computer while not sitting at it, but that certainly doesn't drive sales. And the one joystick is has is absolutely phenomenal, the smallest deadzone out of any joystick controller ive used and it is super sensitive and precise, which would have been really great if there were two of them. And the haptics was pretty great in my opinion for racing game.
  - flanbiscuit 4y ago
    Had? What happened to it? Is it not still useful? I have one, but only used it a couple times. Don't remember it being a game changer for me but it's been so long since the last time I touched it that I can't remember now what it was like to use it. I'll have to find it and give another try
    - theshrike79 4y ago
      It's EOL and you can't get more. I'm still kicking myself for not ordering a half-dozen of them when they suddenly went on super-sale on Steam (5€/pop or something)
  - everdrive 4y ago
    I had one, and really wanted to like it. I found the controller very comfortable in my hands. But, I could never make the touch pads useful for me. I tried different configurations, I tried intentionally practicing with them. But to no avail. For me, they were never more comfortable, intuitive, or accurate than dual-sticks. But, they were so central to the controller that they effectively _had_ to be used.
  - delecti 4y ago
    Because it was weird. Lots of "you'll get it once you try it" products fail because they can't convey what their value proposition is. On top of that, their market was already limited to PC gamers who wanted a controller (which was already a comparatively small market at the time), plus were willing to go with something non-standard that they'd have to tinker with to get working.
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    Valve lost a patent case against SCUF and Ironburg over the back paddles. Which sucks, because the main value proposition of the SC wasn't the back paddles but the haptic touchpads combined with the customisation. It would be nice if Valve would make another SC and pay the licensing fees.
- seritools 4y ago
  It's awesome seeing the iteration through the steam controller, then the Index controllers, and now the steam deck.
  - wildrhythms 4y ago
    I remember people clowning on the Steam controller at the time, but I used it for many games (having to, at the time, manually map the controller inputs) and it was perfect for me. The dual trackpads that I could map to become radial controls, touch controls, whatever I wanted was awesome (I was really in to Elite: Dangerous at the time). I think a lot of gamers just don't have the time or motivation to tinker and customize the thing for themselves. Also, a lot of games didn't handle the Steam Controller's rapid input doubling/switching between mouse and gamepad.
psychphysic 4y ago
To succeed as it has it needed it all. First of all it really needed to secure sales early ideally preorders. It needed to "just work" with games, like you said input mapping is huge part of that, also proton and "deck verified". Valve brought all those things together. I'm just surprised it was colaunched with HL3.

by goda90 4y ago

shkkmo 4y ago

Those mapping tools, and many of the mappings, owe a debt to the underrated steam controller.

marcus_holmes 4y ago
I had one of those, it was great. I don't know why it failed.
- mikedelago 4y ago
  I don't think it was pushed/marketed very hard, and by the end of it they were kind of just giving them away. Failed might not be appropriate, it's still plenty usable in my opinion.
- empyrrhicist 4y ago
  There was a patent infringement case which I have heard blamed for it.
- Sakos 4y ago
  I'm not sure by what measure it failed. I'm certain Valve wasn't trying to turn the Steam Controller into a household item. It was a reasonably popular niche product and as a dogfooding item it was a wild success for the development of Steam input, which is a core reason why the Steam Deck works at all.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    Valve were definitely trying to push it, along with their other defunct products: The Steam Link and the Steam Machines. Both those products were meant to be mass adopted, and the steam controller was meant to be the best input choice for both of them.
    - Sakos 4y ago
      Steam Machines were a miserable failure with nothing to show for it. I don't buy the "guilty by association" argument though. People liked, bought and used the Steam Controller. Steam Machines never even remotely reached that point.
      - dagmx 4y ago
        Whether the Steam Machines were successful or not is besides the point with regards to whether valve intended it to be successful (they clearly did because they pushed very hard for it at the time) and the Steam Controller having been part of the pitch. Lots of things that arose from their steam machine project were more successful than the steam machine, including: - the steam deck - funding various Vulkan projects - funding Proton development - general Linux experience for gaming getting better (many many patches that were funded) So it’s not really meaningful to differentiate their intent just by the popularity of their product. The steam machine and the steam controllers were meant to be the every day console and valve certainly invested a ton into trying.
  - waboremo 4y ago
    No successful product goes on fire sale only ~3 years after release.
- dagmx 4y ago
  It failed because: 1. It’s an accessory that was an extra purchase when many alternatives existed. So it was competing for mindshare from people who either were using keyboard+mouse, or could also buy a console controller and connect it up. Unless you already researched it, there was no surface reason to own one for many people. 2. Low availability. You couldn’t just find it in any retail store. So you already needed to be aware of it to want it, and then be willing to wait for delivery. So it had a higher bar to cross. 3. Comfort was a big one. Some people loved it. Others hated it. It was too big for many people, and too cumbersome for others. I personally thought it was one of the worst controllers I’ve owned and I have very large hands. 4. The touch controls mapped poorly to many games. If you did buy one, it was really hit and miss how well it worked for your games. A lot depended on either putting in the time to map it out or hoping the community had something. It just had too much going against it. Which is a death blow for a product that can’t exist by itself and has competition (even if it does more). The steamdeck in comparison sort of exists in its own niche and is a complete product.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    5) Most halfway-recent PC games that are any good to play on a gamepad are made with X-Box controllers in mind—button maps readied and all, truly plug-n-play—and 360 or XBone controllers are readily available and even very cheap (in the case of used 360 controllers, especially). This has been true so long that they're practically the "standard" gamepad for PC gaming, if you're gonna bring a gamepad into the mix at all, with the main kinda-successful exceptions being retro controllers for use with emulators. If you want the boring and relatively-cheap thing that's also the least likely to give you any surprises or irritations in the next 5+ years, you just get an X-Box controller, so Valve's controller had a real uphill battle.
    - jamesgeck0 4y ago
      > Most halfway-recent PC games This is a key point that undermines the rest of your argument. Controller support is practically a given today, but when the Steam Controller launched in 2015 there were _a lot_ of games on Steam (even AAA console ports) that were mouse/keyboard only.
- AngryData 4y ago
  I think it was a combination of a lack of both a proper d-pad or right joystick. With only one missing, I would have recommended it more, but with both missing, it only works great for a certain sub selection of games, and while most of the rest are playable, they aren't a great experience with it. For the games I used it with, it was great, probably the best Dark Souls controller I ever used by turning the right track pad into a simulated trackball. But without a d-pad it ruins it for most fighting games, joystick FPS are kind of shit without a second joystick as there is no more muscle memory to rely on, and it lacks the speed needed for any serious RTS games. That leaves racing games, and surfing the web. It does make an amazing remote mouse for watching shows and stuff from my computer while not sitting at it, but that certainly doesn't drive sales. And the one joystick is has is absolutely phenomenal, the smallest deadzone out of any joystick controller ive used and it is super sensitive and precise, which would have been really great if there were two of them. And the haptics was pretty great in my opinion for racing game.
- flanbiscuit 4y ago
  Had? What happened to it? Is it not still useful? I have one, but only used it a couple times. Don't remember it being a game changer for me but it's been so long since the last time I touched it that I can't remember now what it was like to use it. I'll have to find it and give another try
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    It's EOL and you can't get more. I'm still kicking myself for not ordering a half-dozen of them when they suddenly went on super-sale on Steam (5€/pop or something)
- everdrive 4y ago
  I had one, and really wanted to like it. I found the controller very comfortable in my hands. But, I could never make the touch pads useful for me. I tried different configurations, I tried intentionally practicing with them. But to no avail. For me, they were never more comfortable, intuitive, or accurate than dual-sticks. But, they were so central to the controller that they effectively _had_ to be used.
- delecti 4y ago
  Because it was weird. Lots of "you'll get it once you try it" products fail because they can't convey what their value proposition is. On top of that, their market was already limited to PC gamers who wanted a controller (which was already a comparatively small market at the time), plus were willing to go with something non-standard that they'd have to tinker with to get working.
- tmtvl 4y ago
  Valve lost a patent case against SCUF and Ironburg over the back paddles. Which sucks, because the main value proposition of the SC wasn't the back paddles but the haptic touchpads combined with the customisation. It would be nice if Valve would make another SC and pay the licensing fees.
seritools 4y ago
It's awesome seeing the iteration through the steam controller, then the Index controllers, and now the steam deck.
- wildrhythms 4y ago
  I remember people clowning on the Steam controller at the time, but I used it for many games (having to, at the time, manually map the controller inputs) and it was perfect for me. The dual trackpads that I could map to become radial controls, touch controls, whatever I wanted was awesome (I was really in to Elite: Dangerous at the time). I think a lot of gamers just don't have the time or motivation to tinker and customize the thing for themselves. Also, a lot of games didn't handle the Steam Controller's rapid input doubling/switching between mouse and gamepad.

psychphysic 4y ago

To succeed as it has it needed it all. First of all it really needed to secure sales early ideally preorders. It needed to "just work" with games, like you said input mapping is huge part of that, also proton and "deck verified". Valve brought all those things together. I'm just surprised it was colaunched with HL3.