u/atrielienz

It's entirely possible it will not be up to them.

Arguing an emotion based opinion of a policy to someone pointing out the flaws in the policy isn't going to win you this argument.

I understand that you feel that this is a non-issue, and perhaps for you it is. But that doesn't mean that it is a fair policy across the board. It just means that you have justified the policy to yourself.

This is a person making this distinction for a company in order to justify why they think this is fair.

I never said the company thought it was fair. It's pretty obvious that the company is fine with penalizing their customers/treating them like scalpers in order to prevent what they consider anti-social behavior.

That doesn't mean we can't be irritated about it.

I've had many a roommate in my life. I've never shared a computer with a roommate. Family computer with my family? Yeah. Roommate. No. Roommates are essentially two completely autonomous people who happen to live together. That's the distinction.

So there's a chance that people out there who missed the lottery may never get it. I think that's the point.

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying here, somehow still. Once you put in once and do not get something and do not get picked, there is no avenue to put in a second time without possibly getting that account flagged. You run the risk of losing an account in good standing over this.

That's the first problem.

The second problem is, why is it that someone who happens to live in the same house as anyone else is less important and should have less of a chance to get it than someone else? That's why the roommate thing is an important distinction.

Just because you live alone or with other people who are not interested in the product, that means your chance of getting it trumps someone else who lives in a different living arrangement and lives with someone else who also wants one?

That's bad logic predicated not on factual information but on an emotional response to the scalper problem and I'm not here for it.

It does not change anything because either way, two different people want a product and could potentially get a product except the way the lottery is set up, there's a chance of penalizing someone who's not doing anything wrong and invalidating their chance. Simply because of where they happen to live.

And your argument is that this is okay because the other people who have the chance don't live together. That's not a criteria that should determine who's chance is more worthy. Logically that's just emotional nonsense dressed up as ok.

How many batches will there be? Just out of curiosity because I doubt we can assume that there will be a chance to buy it later with limited qualities of hardware at all. This isn't a for sure thing is what I'm saying. Stock for their other products fluctuates a lot.

There's also a possibility that price will go up because component costs keep rising.

You made the suppositions about units per household. I framed it as roommates because you didn't think through what you were saying.

It doesn't matter if it's roommates, spouses or any other permutation of people living in the same house. They shouldn't necessarily be expected to share a PC just because someone else is doing something wrong.

I get why Valve did it. I fully remember during the pandemic trying to buy a console and not being able to because of scalpers. But that doesn't negate any of what I said.

My billing address doesn't change so that's unlikely to work. I have to assume having it shipped somewhere else wouldn't make a difference in the long run because the billing address on the account is what they go by.

I don't think you understand what I am saying here. One person in the household signed up and didn't get picked. They do not specify or clarify what happens if the other person in the household signs up. Does it risk one or both of the accounts?

Roommates can't have two systems and should share?! Did you read what I actually said or are you just ignoring half of it because you don't like the idea that this is not a cut and dry thing.

I didn't even say I don't understand the limit. Scalpers suck. I just said I wasn't going to gamble with my steam account over it. I have bought steam hardware before. I've owned both the steam link and the original controller. I had one of their Alienware steam machines back in the day.

This is a system that hurts prospective buyers who want the product because scalpers are doing the wrong thing and it sucks to be essentially treated as a person trying to take advantage of the system when you haven't done anything wrong.

It being limited to one person address is a problem when you have a family though. Only single people are allowed to own this thing I guess. Can't have gamer roommates.

I get it but it'll be years before I can buy this thing or the stream machine mostly likely and it's for a variety of reasons. My husband actually put in for the lottery for the steam machine and didn't get picked.

I have no idea how their system handles a second attempt with a different account but the same address but I'm not sure I want to find out even though I would like to buy one.

Ghostbuster's II throwback!

There are several of what I can only assume are puppet accounts with no posts or comments who's sole purpose seems to be vote manipulation.

Ok. So explain where the investment is. What does "eating the loss" do for them in the long term? How do they recoup that loss? Loss leaders (the Costco hotdog, PlayStation consoles etc) are used by businesses as a way to get people to buy into their other products that do make healthy profits. Costco's hotdog gets people in the door, and those people buy other stuff because "while we're here". There's a psychology to that strategy.

Sony uses sales of the PlayStation consoles to get people locked into their platform where they spend money on games, and skins, and micro transactions etc. People used the PlayStation to play Blu-ray (also a Sony property), and DVDs, and stream content like movies, and music. This nets them healthy profits while selling the hardware at or below cost.

Nintendo is said to do the same thing with the Switch/Switch 2. So there's a cost to benefit ratio equation going on in each case.

What is the cost to benefit equation for Valve selling the Steam Deck at a loss? Their e-shop doesn't depend on the hardware to sell games. They aren't locking people into Steam in a way that's meaningful because other hardware exists with the same or better ability to play all the same games. The Steam e-shop doesn't require you to only play games on the Steam Deck.

So that's where you lose me.

Uninstalling allowed grub to boot Bazzite normally with no errors for me so right now that's maybe the best we can hope for. I also don't want to re-install all my plugins.

Did you try uninstalling and reinstalling?

Also, perhaps just checking for updates? When I checked for updates I could see that there was a new update for decky loader but at that point I had decided to uninstall it anyway to prevent future problems.

So, I've been looking into this for myself and it looks like what's broken is the MagicPods module in deckyloader. If you previously installed that, you can try uninstalling decky and then re-installing it and leave that module out of the reinstall/setup process and see if that works.

At this point I'm gonna leave decky uninstalled on my system mostly because I'm pretty tired of it breaking.

I normally have to go in (uninstall just deckloader), and reinstall deckyloader when this happens. There's no way that I have found to do it otherwise and it's happened to me at least three times now.

I'm sure there probably is another way, but I haven't had success with anything but the uninstall/reinstall method.

So, I don't know what information this is based on, but I'm questioning it.

High end gaming rigs come in pre built, for people who want that kind of warranty, or, more often in my experience, the people who own them build them. Which means they're not super fussed about installing a different OS.

It's more likely that some subset of them play games that require windows (VR, some racing sims, competitive online games that require kernel level anti-cheat etc), and won't switch because of that.

There may be some subset of the gaming populace who wants that without the fuss, and usually they buy consoles. Computer gaming is what it is because people very often like control.

I'm a tinkerer at heart, and one of my older brothers used to build custom gaming rigs as part of his business back in the early 2000's. Most of my family and quite a few of my friends have been computer gamers for decades.

I'd be willing to wager that a fair number of computer gamers aren't bothered about the installation process of steam OS, but might be wary of limiting the games they can play using it.