But by comparison to other platforms like Quest or Steam? That's what I meant, people are drawn to those platforms when they think gaming, and not Roku.
I know Roku isn’t meant to compete with Quest or Steam in terms of raw power. But that’s not the point. In 95% of cases, Roku is used exactly as intended - for video content. And that’s totally fine.
What’s frustrating is that the platform seems almost deliberately hostile to developers - especially game developers - rather than simply being limited.
It doesn’t need to be powerful to support trivia, logic, or NES-style 2D games that fit perfectly into short 10–20 minute play sessions between shows. With its simple remote control and environment, it could be great for that. But instead, developers are met with barriers, not support.
Take the Commodore 64 or Arduino as examples - both are (or were) extremely limited in terms of hardware. But their openness and strong pro-developer support unleashed massive creativity. Roku could follow a similar path. Instead, developers are met with restrictions, which stifles the very experimentation that could make the platform more engaging.
But considering what you wrote it seems that will not change:
outsourcing more of their development as time goes on, cheapening their hardware, reducing customer service
That is usually not a good sign as it means losing internal expertise and potentially loss of strategic control, which usually leads to slower iteration, lower code quality, and lack of product vision.
Usually it is done in desperation to conserve cash...
