What you describe sounds pretty similar to the gods of Classical mythology. For sure, the source of their power was not usually thought to be technological, but something something magic something advanced technology...
Besides that, they seem to have desired followers not out of genuine need but narcissism and self-importance, and perhaps bragging rights among themselves. You could reuse much of this mythology for your own case, assuming your "gods" have some social instincts that would justify sentiments such as pride.
A less common (but adored by modern fiction writers) perspective is that gods are somehow bound to domains, and depend on followers to expand these domains. Eg. the god of oceans wants the whole planet to be flooded, since that will expand his domain and thus make him more powerful. I never got the impression that Classical people believed anything like this - at best they seem to have viewed the gods' dependence on ordinary mortals in the vein of an owners' "dependence" on his fighting cocks: There is no actual dependence, but there is mutually agreed pretense of dependence for the sake of sport. I think this just goes back to pride and bragging rights, though.
Incidentally, one school of thoughts regards DC Comics superheros in a similar light: For instance, Superman is essentially like a God unto men, he does not need them, and they have little they could offer him - he assumes his guardian role and seeks humanity's approval out of dedication to his personal principles and beliefs. Then you have characters like Batman that are more nuanced. So these comics are a nice modern interpretation of the same thing.
A second common trope is gods requiring either belief per se, or some other human quality access to which is secured through belief. For this you just give the humans some trivial ability which doesn't change in any way the ability of the gods to totally kick humans' ass, but is still a trick humans can do and gods cannot.
For the first class, many fantasy settings simply have belief directly produce the god's power in a magical way. Since your divine power is technological, you can't really do this easily - you could perhaps badly abuse quantum mechanics and such to handwave it somehow.
The second class is much easier. Maybe our mortality creates a unique motivation that immortal gods cannot appreciate, so we are capable of some great deeds that they are not, or maybe human psychology has some novel quirk that allows ideas the gods couldn't think of themselves. With the domain idea from earlier (easily produced by having each individual god's tech being different and only applicable to a limited context) is a great example: On the whole gods are vastly more mighty, but humans can do the one thing they can't - gods are bound to their domains but humans are not. Vernor Vinge's Zones of Thought universe has an example of this that I like: Advanced computation becomes more and more difficult closer to the center of the galaxy (the brain, itself a computer, apparently is not affected). The gods of the series (in fact planet-sized post-singularity AIs) can only exist on the outer rim, and hence try to get mere mortals to be their agents in places where they themselves could not function.
The distinction between needing specifically belief, or service guaranteed by belief, is helpful. For instance, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books (where gods and magic are both ubiquitous and well-known) the gods don't care much about heretics and atheists unless they "stand on top of a hill in a thunderstorm, wearing a copper hat, and yell all gods are bastards". So, not belief per se but respectful behavior, which in turn implies pride and social behaviors. This seems much more plausible for a sci-fi story absent a compelling explanation why mere belief would grant power. Granted, in Discworld gods do get power from belief, one book is even about a once great god whose name has become so obscure that he rendered powerless.
In our world, nobody has credibly observed a god. So it is hard to say what would be considered realistic behavior for them. One could say that our gods have served philosophical function: Once upon a time they provided explanations for natural phenomena, later they provided the basis for moral and legal systems. Today we consider our philosophies to arise purely from our own reasoning, and all our moral and legal systems supposedly stem from axioms that we hold to be self-evident. Thus we seemingly have no need for gods, nor would the gods in your case have any niche that humanity has in the past provided for gods.
On the other hand, your gods seem very similar in role to dictators: They are very powerful, and strictly speaking do not "need" any given individual. You could therefore model the role of your gods on real-life dictators, good or bad. The question is then why they would feel the need to be gods, not rulers (a trivial question, since in reality many dictators have chosen to deify themselves). Perhaps they believe that religion is a more effective way of control than politics - a view supported by the comparative longevity of religions in our history (millenia) vs. governments (centuries at best).