I have a current Steam Deck and briefly considered the OLED, I got an OLED switch and OLED is really nice but at that price why not just spend the same to a little more and get a much more powerful handheld that doesn’t have the same restrictions as using a Steam Deck, such as many games and a lot of the most popular online games not working at all due to the anti-cheat? With the other handhelds you can install steam and run any game that you can run on windows without worry (unless KBM is required then can’t run in handheld mode) as well as easily install other launchers if needed.

Am I missing something that makes this the wrong thought process? Is there something about the other handhelds that although much higher stats and performance that makes them a lesser choice over the Steam Deck?

  • Facehugger_35@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    None of the other Windows handhelds have OLED, and Windows is as much a bane as it is a boon.

    Also, battery life. 50% greater battery life like Valve’s claiming for the OLED is a big deal in a handheld gaming device.

    And the Z1E chips the other two use generally sacrifice battery life even harder to get their vaunted performance. And for me personally, their performance isn’t good enough to justify the cost bump. If I still have to play RDR2 with everything on low at 720p and still can’t reach 60fps, am I really gaining anything?