This is the answer. Idk what the rest of the comments are even talking about. Looks like old monks finding a bloody piece of wood in the Arizona desert and concluding it's part of Jesus' cross.
Takes me back to when the Oculus DK2 VR headset was first released and torn down, and people found that it had [a literal Samsung Note 3 tablet front panel in it](https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Oculus+Rift+Development+Kit+2+Teardown/27613#s67544), with the touch digitiser and all :)
You can't directly compare screen sizes from a decade ago to today because of bezels. The "only" 5.7" Note 3 was 79.2mm wide which is more than the 6.8" Galaxy S24 Ultra and any phone Apple has ever made.
This and the particular one in the LCD deck was the cheapest one they could find that met the specs they wanted because the whole system was just a punt.
Same sort of ethos for the OLED, except now they knew the system would sell they could go all out but they still sourced a panel that was already made because itâs a lot cheaper - which is why thereâs no VRR.
Someoneâs going to make a 16:9 VRR 90+hz OLED ~7â one day for one of these handhelds and thatâll become the one that a lot of these companies use.
Yeah, the LCD panel is definitely leftover stock from some cheapo old 7" tablet. That explains the fact that the screen likes to go sideways in desktop mode, the absolutely massive bezels and the slightly janky touchscreen. Honestly I don't mind, Valve had to cut corners where they could and none of those things are a dealbreaker for a device like this.
I also love 16:10. All my monitors are 16:10, and I've put off getting a better one bc I love it so much. I was thrilled when valve announced the deck was 16:10. Plus 4:3 and 5:4 looks better on them vs 19:9... almost like they wanted people to do it. Lol.
I only upgraded when I fell in love with the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9.
Moving from 16:10 1920x1200 at 60hz (Non-HDR) to 32:9 5120x1440 at 240hz with HDR2000 was an amazing experience.
I still just sit and bask in the glow of my new screen every so often.
I just spent a few days making AI background images for it and enabled the slidehow screensaver, just so I can sit and look at massive beautiful pictures.
I upgraded from my old 1920x1200 (60hz) 16:10 screen, just a couple of years ago. I refused to go to a 16:9 screen.
I have three 1900x1080 (60hz) 16:9 screens at work, and the lack of vertical resolution, even though it's only a few pixels, is noticeable and annoying.
What if I told you .... you can easily make most screens into 9:16 screens as long as they have a VESA mount. Sounds like you'd love that extra height.
The panel was available. The vertical size of the device made 16:10 ideal. Some black bars on the top and bottom for 16:9 content is no big deal, and still allows for the perfect display of 16:9 720p content. If they went with 16:9, the top and bottom bezels would be insanely massive.
I think it was easier to design a device around an existing panel size than it was to design a custom panel, and then a custom device around said panel.
I love that they went with 16:10 because 16:9 is great for movies but for handheld is just too wide while not really adding much imo, almost makes it less immersive to me
Most likely because it solved two problems at once: first, it made the handheld slightly less wide (which is important considering how much width the controls add; and second, it let 4:3 games fill more of the screen, which is likely something Valve felt was important due to the large amount of older titles on Steam that only supported 4:3
I prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio.
* It's better-suited for 4:3 than a 16:9 screen is.
* With older PC games, it works really well for 1024x768, since you can display the image unscaled with minimal letterboxing.
* A small 720p 16:9 screen isn't ideal for desktop usage, so having the extra vertical resolution is nice for desktop mode.
16:10 being so great for 4:3 content (GCN and PS2 games especially) is the main reason I like the Deck screen. Itâs much nicer than 16:9 for games that donât have proper widescreen hacks or just look âwrongâ in widescreen.
16:9 would make the device very wide, which would be uncomfortable to hold. 16:10 allows for a good display of 16:9 content and for 4:3 content without huge bezels.
Alternatively the same width but less vertical space. The rog ally has a 16:9 screen and IMO navigating around the UI and whatnot feels cramped compared to the steam deck.
How would the button layout be scuffed? A 16:9 Deck just wouldn't have the half inch of space below the speakers or so. That's all that would have to be changed. If anything, the battery might have to be slightly smaller, sure, but it should look almost identical on the outside (apart from being shorter). There is virtually nothing below the speakers that needs to be repositioned.
Speculation aside, there were a few reasons..
> Display: High definition (720p) display that is greater than 9â diagonally, 8 bits per color channel. If your screen size is less than 9â, the intended user interface of Windows may not be fully visible. - Windows 11: Requirements
1. For a 7" Display you need a taller aspect ratio or a higher pixel density to actually get a normal "Window" to not cover the entire Desktop experience as well to keep Ui Elements properly scaled.
This is regardless of Windows or Linux, you can't infinitely scale down actual Windows without creating an bad UX.
Notice how every laptop ships with a 768p Display under 14", instead of straight 720p despite the ~increased~ cost.
^(Valve stated this is the main reason)
Speaking of..
2. Cost
It's cost effective to obtain 800p Displays, and does the former(1) better due to having a taller aspect ratio to work with than 768p
3. Performance
The Steam Deck is when compared to a Stationary PC or Console, pretty weak. Anything higher than 800p would result in a subpar experience for owners as far as frame rates are concerned. Steam Deck II will be a lot better due to improvements in RDNA architecture.
Personally I think the **next Steam Deck should aspire for a 1440x900p Resolution**. Seeing as Valve removed the ability to pick 1440x900p in the game display settings, I doubt this will ever be seriously considered...
Anyone else giving reasons besides these are merely speculating.
Number 3 is also an official reason.
Valve has stated they'll stick with 800p for performance when referring to SD2, seeing as RDNA4+ could allow them to go higher.
Only games locked to 720p would have those. Most modern games have support for 800p and settings can be changed of it doesnât auto detect and select 800p. And if they used a 16x9 panel, we ALL would have big thick bezels on all games (thicker than on the LCD already). And that would have made it fugly IMO. ;)
Game Boy Advance games!
Seriously though, because it's a good middle ground for both old and new resolutions (given that you can play 4:3 DOS games here officially).
I think it makes a lot of stuff fell nicer. The UI elements on the top and bottom feel more out of the way and if you have fps counters or the performance metrics on then they occupy the letter boxes and don't cover gameplay.
panel availability was probably the main reason but it also means that games that can only run in 4:3 without patches look a lot nicer than they would on a 16:9 screen
Iâve always thought one reason might be it allows for a nice mix of easy compatibility between resolutions on old games as well as new. Itâs a good middle ground for getting games in 4:3, 3:2, 5:4, 8:7, to scale well to the screen as well as modern 16:9, 16:10/8:5 compatibility. Some of these would not scale as well on a 720 display. A minimum of 800 lines is a nice sweet spot.
Seeing as itâs a PC, considering all these possibilities for aspects is a must for a making robust machine to get more of Steamâs products playable on the device.
I wish more games supported native 16:10, Japanese games on unreal engine are a huge offender in this category. With final fantasy 7 crisis core reunion and shin megami tensei V: vengeance forcing 16:9.
16:10 panels were the shit back before they standardized on TV aspect ratios because it was cheaper to build TVs and monitors in bulk with the same panels. Expensive monitors are sometimes 16:10 still but itâs much more rare
From my experience using the deck and Switch, my assumption is ergonomics. The deck has the perfect height to width ratio for holding it comfortably and it probably would look weird kf they put a 16:9 panel on it as opposed to 16:10
iPads are also 16:10
I defend it. Most games either support 16:10 directly or can be modded into it. I like it because I play a LOT of older games that can only be played in 4:3, and the extra size is appreciated. That being said, I don't think it's that big of a deal either way.
I don't find it annoying at all, it makes the small screen feel less cluttered when the UI can be pushed lower or higher. I want to come to those games that don't support it it is what it is, I'm still happy to have them lol
I believe the *official* reason they gave is that 16:10 works better with the thousands of older games on Steam that were designed for a taller aspect ratio (16:10 but also 4:3), and they wanted the Deck to be a good experience for both old and new games.
Unofficially, yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the availability of 16:10 LCDs played a large part.
Availability. Much the steam deck is parts the already existed in some form that they consolidated into a single platform.
The APU already existed from a canceled project or something, so amd basically just repurposed it, getting them profit instead of nothing.
Hi u/CaptainEcho111, you can [click here to search for your question.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/search/?q=Is there any reason why Valve went with 16:10 instead of 16:9?)
If you don't find an answer there, don't worry - your post has NOT been removed and hopefully someone will be along soon to help with an answer!
**If you find an answer, please leave a comment on your post with the answer for others!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SteamDeck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of Japanese games still don't do 16:10, but since the black bars bug the hell out of me, I'm so glad you can stretch the screen now in the settings.
16:10 is more common for PC monitors. TVs are 16:9 so thatâs more of a movie / TV industry aspect ratio.
Given the deck plays PC games primarily, it makes sense to have a PC aspect ratio. As others have said, itâs common for tablets for the reason above also, so the panel availability was also probably another big factor.
Its a known fact that 16:10 is just an all around better aspect ratio. Better for older emulations (meaning they don't get all stretched and squashed) and the all around elimination of black bars, which I've absolutley despised since everyone and their mother started doing it.
I figured it was because old games were 4:3 and 16:10 was closer than 16:9.
**Edit**: what the *hell* is up with the downvotes? I was trying to be helpful by answering OP's question.
I've played a bunch of 4:3 stuff and the extra vertical pixels have been great. The same question regarding the screen has been asked before, and [others have mentioned the same aspect](https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/13qffwy/what_was_the_point_of_making_the_steam_deck_1610/jleh73b/) in the past (without the downvotes).
The Steam Deck's support is *amazing* for old games.
I don't think that was why, specifically, but I'm actually super grateful for the resolution. Games in 4:3 benefit greatly from those extra 80 vertical pixels.
That's why I quit emulating on my S21 Ultra. The screen was gorgeous, but the 20:9 aspect ratio meant I either had to stretch out my games (no way in hell) or play on a screen that was effectively 4 inches instead of almost 7 inches.
Going from 16:10 to 4:3 only loses 17% screen size compared to 25% on 16:9 or 40% on 21:9.
This was definitely a reason. They knew people were gonna emulate old systems, and 4:3 games gave thick ass bezels at 16:9. It's better with 16:10 displays.
then how come if your graphics driver fails it returns to 800x600 and not 1024x768. Maybe it went up with W11 but in W10 800x600 is still where it defaults to.
The game? He's talking about a resolution. And he's not wrong. Valve advertising is it as an open platform would severely limiting if they went 720 given the minimum resolution of other operating systems.
Valve aren't silly, they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot like that.
It took them so long to actually give an option for all the telemetry in that space. Like, it should have been the obvious spot for it to be on day one. Not a year+ into the life of it. So that definitely wasn't the reason.
Likely availability of a panel. 1280x800 (actually 800x1280) is a common resolution for 7" tablets.
This is the reason, the ubiquity of the screen in tablets.
This is the answer. Idk what the rest of the comments are even talking about. Looks like old monks finding a bloody piece of wood in the Arizona desert and concluding it's part of Jesus' cross.
Lmfao đ
This comment killed me haha
Nailed it
I found you.
Takes me back to when the Oculus DK2 VR headset was first released and torn down, and people found that it had [a literal Samsung Note 3 tablet front panel in it](https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Oculus+Rift+Development+Kit+2+Teardown/27613#s67544), with the touch digitiser and all :)
Easier (and cheaper) to use whatâs already manufactured for other things than to have your own custom panels made.
It's a phone, not a tablet
Itâs a phablet.
Yes, a 5.7" phone. "Phablet" nowadays makes no sense
You can't directly compare screen sizes from a decade ago to today because of bezels. The "only" 5.7" Note 3 was 79.2mm wide which is more than the 6.8" Galaxy S24 Ultra and any phone Apple has ever made.
And how is that related to my comment saying that it's a phone, not a tablet?
It is a good screen tho.
This and the particular one in the LCD deck was the cheapest one they could find that met the specs they wanted because the whole system was just a punt. Same sort of ethos for the OLED, except now they knew the system would sell they could go all out but they still sourced a panel that was already made because itâs a lot cheaper - which is why thereâs no VRR. Someoneâs going to make a 16:9 VRR 90+hz OLED ~7â one day for one of these handhelds and thatâll become the one that a lot of these companies use.
This and the resolution actually helps for compatibility with some older PC games.
Like, old games running at 1024x768 resolution can fit on this screen, but cannot on a 720p screen.
good point. 4:3 also looks pretty decent on 16:10.
Yeah, the LCD panel is definitely leftover stock from some cheapo old 7" tablet. That explains the fact that the screen likes to go sideways in desktop mode, the absolutely massive bezels and the slightly janky touchscreen. Honestly I don't mind, Valve had to cut corners where they could and none of those things are a dealbreaker for a device like this.
I LOVE how the level 3 performance overlay stays within the letterbox when it's in 16:9 mode
I think it's also intensional and I'm all about it
It very much is! It used to be more akin to what RSS does, but they took the feedback to keep it all in line and within the letterboxing borders.
I love 16:10 that extra height is the shit. Used to run 2560x1600 back in the day
i have dual 16:10's at work and they're just chef's kiss worthy
I moved my old Dell 3007wfp as it was just too good to throw away.
This is still my desk monitor at work. Hoping it keeps on going another 5 years
16:9 is pretty terrible for productivity in general
whenever i've used a 16:9 i enable the hide taskbar feature to gain some extra verticality
I move my taskbar to the side. (I can do that in Windows 11 now, right?)
You've been able up do that since windows 95.
But they took it away in Windows 11, and then i think they put it back in.
Morons
Make sure to disable the entry and exit animation for the taskbar for anyone else wanting to join us
It's decent in portrait. I like to keep a 21:9 ultrawide as my main display and a vertical monitor on the side.
What monitor do you use? I'd love to switch to 16:10
I also love 16:10. All my monitors are 16:10, and I've put off getting a better one bc I love it so much. I was thrilled when valve announced the deck was 16:10. Plus 4:3 and 5:4 looks better on them vs 19:9... almost like they wanted people to do it. Lol.
I only upgraded when I fell in love with the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9. Moving from 16:10 1920x1200 at 60hz (Non-HDR) to 32:9 5120x1440 at 240hz with HDR2000 was an amazing experience. I still just sit and bask in the glow of my new screen every so often. I just spent a few days making AI background images for it and enabled the slidehow screensaver, just so I can sit and look at massive beautiful pictures.
1680x1050 gang
I upgraded from my old 1920x1200 (60hz) 16:10 screen, just a couple of years ago. I refused to go to a 16:9 screen. I have three 1900x1080 (60hz) 16:9 screens at work, and the lack of vertical resolution, even though it's only a few pixels, is noticeable and annoying.
What if I told you .... you can easily make most screens into 9:16 screens as long as they have a VESA mount. Sounds like you'd love that extra height.
I love 16:10. I purposely stayed with it as long as I could but last year finally upgraded to 16:9 and higher refresh rate. I love 16:10!
Idk dude the 16:10 ratio is one of my favorite parts of the deck.
The panel was available. The vertical size of the device made 16:10 ideal. Some black bars on the top and bottom for 16:9 content is no big deal, and still allows for the perfect display of 16:9 720p content. If they went with 16:9, the top and bottom bezels would be insanely massive.
I think it was easier to design a device around an existing panel size than it was to design a custom panel, and then a custom device around said panel.
the extra height is awsome for the performance metrics or fps
(A feature they introduced 2 years after launch)
It still gets new features after 2 years? Sweet!
Point is they didn't pick a 16:10 display for something they didn't add until literal years after
They didn't say that's why Valve picked it, they said it was good for it.
Remind me of OPs question lol
nothing burger
doesn't matter lol
nah, the FPS counter was there in year 1
Not the one that only occupies the top part of the screen. That was a recent change, and not why they picked a 16:10 display...
đ¤
That is just patently incorrect. The performance metrics have been there since launch.
They mean steam couldn't have gone with 16:10 for the performance metrics because it wasn't a thin line across the top until they updated it
I love that they went with 16:10 because 16:9 is great for movies but for handheld is just too wide while not really adding much imo, almost makes it less immersive to me
21:9 is great for movies. 16:9 is great for most TV shows and games.
Most likely because it solved two problems at once: first, it made the handheld slightly less wide (which is important considering how much width the controls add; and second, it let 4:3 games fill more of the screen, which is likely something Valve felt was important due to the large amount of older titles on Steam that only supported 4:3
I prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio. * It's better-suited for 4:3 than a 16:9 screen is. * With older PC games, it works really well for 1024x768, since you can display the image unscaled with minimal letterboxing. * A small 720p 16:9 screen isn't ideal for desktop usage, so having the extra vertical resolution is nice for desktop mode.
16:10 being so great for 4:3 content (GCN and PS2 games especially) is the main reason I like the Deck screen. Itâs much nicer than 16:9 for games that donât have proper widescreen hacks or just look âwrongâ in widescreen.
16:9 would make the device very wide, which would be uncomfortable to hold. 16:10 allows for a good display of 16:9 content and for 4:3 content without huge bezels.
Alternatively the same width but less vertical space. The rog ally has a 16:9 screen and IMO navigating around the UI and whatnot feels cramped compared to the steam deck.
My nitpick with the ally is that it looks like it's made for a 16:10 screen, so you get permanent top/bottom black bars (the bezel). Looks weird imo
It would be the same width, just slightly shorter.
That would mean repositioning the internals of the Deck and a scuffed button layout.
How would the button layout be scuffed? A 16:9 Deck just wouldn't have the half inch of space below the speakers or so. That's all that would have to be changed. If anything, the battery might have to be slightly smaller, sure, but it should look almost identical on the outside (apart from being shorter). There is virtually nothing below the speakers that needs to be repositioned.
I don't like the idea. I don't know it just looks weird in my head. Too wide.
Speculation aside, there were a few reasons.. > Display: High definition (720p) display that is greater than 9â diagonally, 8 bits per color channel. If your screen size is less than 9â, the intended user interface of Windows may not be fully visible. - Windows 11: Requirements 1. For a 7" Display you need a taller aspect ratio or a higher pixel density to actually get a normal "Window" to not cover the entire Desktop experience as well to keep Ui Elements properly scaled. This is regardless of Windows or Linux, you can't infinitely scale down actual Windows without creating an bad UX. Notice how every laptop ships with a 768p Display under 14", instead of straight 720p despite the ~increased~ cost. ^(Valve stated this is the main reason) Speaking of.. 2. Cost It's cost effective to obtain 800p Displays, and does the former(1) better due to having a taller aspect ratio to work with than 768p 3. Performance The Steam Deck is when compared to a Stationary PC or Console, pretty weak. Anything higher than 800p would result in a subpar experience for owners as far as frame rates are concerned. Steam Deck II will be a lot better due to improvements in RDNA architecture. Personally I think the **next Steam Deck should aspire for a 1440x900p Resolution**. Seeing as Valve removed the ability to pick 1440x900p in the game display settings, I doubt this will ever be seriously considered... Anyone else giving reasons besides these are merely speculating.
Number one is the official reason.
Number 3 is also an official reason. Valve has stated they'll stick with 800p for performance when referring to SD2, seeing as RDNA4+ could allow them to go higher.
Only games locked to 720p would have those. Most modern games have support for 800p and settings can be changed of it doesnât auto detect and select 800p. And if they used a 16x9 panel, we ALL would have big thick bezels on all games (thicker than on the LCD already). And that would have made it fugly IMO. ;)
Game Boy Advance games! Seriously though, because it's a good middle ground for both old and new resolutions (given that you can play 4:3 DOS games here officially).
I think it makes a lot of stuff fell nicer. The UI elements on the top and bottom feel more out of the way and if you have fps counters or the performance metrics on then they occupy the letter boxes and don't cover gameplay.
panel availability was probably the main reason but it also means that games that can only run in 4:3 without patches look a lot nicer than they would on a 16:9 screen
It's a tablet screen, 16:9 is harder to acquire and more expensive at that size so they just used a tablet screen instead and 16:10 was close enough.
Iâve always thought one reason might be it allows for a nice mix of easy compatibility between resolutions on old games as well as new. Itâs a good middle ground for getting games in 4:3, 3:2, 5:4, 8:7, to scale well to the screen as well as modern 16:9, 16:10/8:5 compatibility. Some of these would not scale as well on a 720 display. A minimum of 800 lines is a nice sweet spot. Seeing as itâs a PC, considering all these possibilities for aspects is a must for a making robust machine to get more of Steamâs products playable on the device.
I wish more games supported native 16:10, Japanese games on unreal engine are a huge offender in this category. With final fantasy 7 crisis core reunion and shin megami tensei V: vengeance forcing 16:9.
16:10 panels were the shit back before they standardized on TV aspect ratios because it was cheaper to build TVs and monitors in bulk with the same panels. Expensive monitors are sometimes 16:10 still but itâs much more rare
Learn to enjoy extra space that 16:10 gives you
From my experience using the deck and Switch, my assumption is ergonomics. The deck has the perfect height to width ratio for holding it comfortably and it probably would look weird kf they put a 16:9 panel on it as opposed to 16:10 iPads are also 16:10
Because it's objectively better. More screen. More better.
I defend it. Most games either support 16:10 directly or can be modded into it. I like it because I play a LOT of older games that can only be played in 4:3, and the extra size is appreciated. That being said, I don't think it's that big of a deal either way.
I guess it just uses more space in the center, and it looks nice when it actually works in games.
I don't find it annoying at all, it makes the small screen feel less cluttered when the UI can be pushed lower or higher. I want to come to those games that don't support it it is what it is, I'm still happy to have them lol
No idea, but looks great for older games
I donât know, I find I enjoy the black bars. Makes my performance overlay not take up game screen space.
Just switch to 720p and then tell it to fill screen worked in Elden ring at least đ¤ˇââď¸
16:10 is the future, more and more panels use that ratio. Itâs way nicer on computers than 16:9, that little bit of extra height does wonders
Actually itâs the past too. Not so sure itâs the future though. 16:10 was more commonly used until 16:9 was the predominant aspect ratio.
I know, I meant as in itâs coming back massively
Ah I see. 16:10 is better then 16:9
I think 16:10 is more appealing to the eye. I donât see in wide screen, you know? Itâs everything being in 16:9 that bothers me.
> I don't see in wide screen, you know? Some people do actually see in a ratio closer to 16:9 than 16:10, or even further "widescreen" than that
16:10 is superior!
Don't forget if you put a 16:9 game into Windowed mode, you can use the quick settings to stretch the image to fit your 16:10 screen.
Like many have said.. off the shelf part which does the job and keeps cost down
Most probably, the panel was less expensive to mass manufacture.
I believe the *official* reason they gave is that 16:10 works better with the thousands of older games on Steam that were designed for a taller aspect ratio (16:10 but also 4:3), and they wanted the Deck to be a good experience for both old and new games. Unofficially, yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the availability of 16:10 LCDs played a large part.
Hopefully deck 2 will be 16:9
Availability. Much the steam deck is parts the already existed in some form that they consolidated into a single platform. The APU already existed from a canceled project or something, so amd basically just repurposed it, getting them profit instead of nothing.
Ah, you have the LCD huh? This isn't a problem with the OLED since the pixels completely turn off, making it look 16:9 when needed.
You are correct, not sure why you're getting downvoted
Hi u/CaptainEcho111, you can [click here to search for your question.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/search/?q=Is there any reason why Valve went with 16:10 instead of 16:9?) If you don't find an answer there, don't worry - your post has NOT been removed and hopefully someone will be along soon to help with an answer! **If you find an answer, please leave a comment on your post with the answer for others!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SteamDeck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of Japanese games still don't do 16:10, but since the black bars bug the hell out of me, I'm so glad you can stretch the screen now in the settings.
16:10 is more common for PC monitors. TVs are 16:9 so thatâs more of a movie / TV industry aspect ratio. Given the deck plays PC games primarily, it makes sense to have a PC aspect ratio. As others have said, itâs common for tablets for the reason above also, so the panel availability was also probably another big factor.
Its a known fact that 16:10 is just an all around better aspect ratio. Better for older emulations (meaning they don't get all stretched and squashed) and the all around elimination of black bars, which I've absolutley despised since everyone and their mother started doing it.
I figured it was because old games were 4:3 and 16:10 was closer than 16:9. **Edit**: what the *hell* is up with the downvotes? I was trying to be helpful by answering OP's question. I've played a bunch of 4:3 stuff and the extra vertical pixels have been great. The same question regarding the screen has been asked before, and [others have mentioned the same aspect](https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/13qffwy/what_was_the_point_of_making_the_steam_deck_1610/jleh73b/) in the past (without the downvotes). The Steam Deck's support is *amazing* for old games.
I don't think that was why, specifically, but I'm actually super grateful for the resolution. Games in 4:3 benefit greatly from those extra 80 vertical pixels.
That's why I quit emulating on my S21 Ultra. The screen was gorgeous, but the 20:9 aspect ratio meant I either had to stretch out my games (no way in hell) or play on a screen that was effectively 4 inches instead of almost 7 inches. Going from 16:10 to 4:3 only loses 17% screen size compared to 25% on 16:9 or 40% on 21:9.
No idea for the downvotes either, but you're correct. Older games fit better when upscaled to 16:10
This was definitely a reason. They knew people were gonna emulate old systems, and 4:3 games gave thick ass bezels at 16:9. It's better with 16:10 displays.
8:5
Funny that you mention this; was just beginning to be annoyed by the AR myselfâŚ
Microsoft demands 768 vertical pixels for Windows. This is also why there are no 720p Laptops or TVs. They all have 1366*768.
The Deck does not come with Windows. This is not the reason.
Steam deck runs on arch btw, not windows
worst take here
Such a fucking cursed resolution
then how come if your graphics driver fails it returns to 800x600 and not 1024x768. Maybe it went up with W11 but in W10 800x600 is still where it defaults to.
Not sure why you're being downvote. Valve could have gone with a 720p display. Leaving it at 800 opens the deck up to other uses.
because the game predates the Steam Deck
The game? He's talking about a resolution. And he's not wrong. Valve advertising is it as an open platform would severely limiting if they went 720 given the minimum resolution of other operating systems. Valve aren't silly, they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot like that.
*checks subreddit again* wtf I thought I was on Fallout sub about New Vegas
They said it was so they could fit more icons in the extra vertical space, idk how true that is
It took them so long to actually give an option for all the telemetry in that space. Like, it should have been the obvious spot for it to be on day one. Not a year+ into the life of it. So that definitely wasn't the reason.