Yes. Because if unrelated industries decide to give up then a theoretical collapse becomes an unavoidable economic collapse. And history has proven that war usually follows economic collapses.
So literally the best thing Valve could do here is carry on like usual.
Notice that I'm not discussing economic collapse, I'm mentioning the environment and international relationships (e.g. the apparent return from the rule of international right we've had since WW2, however partially and imperfectly, to the rule of international anarchy we've seen in Europe since the birth of feodalism).
Notice that I'm also not criticizing Valve. They're doing what they feel is best for their business.
What I'm disagreeing with is enthusiasm for buying yet another gaming rig in the above circumstances.
> Notice that I'm not discussing economic collapse, I'm mentioning the environment and international relationships
Noice how I also discussed international relationships. I didn’t miss your point.
> Notice that I'm also not criticizing Valve. They're doing what they feel is best for their business. What I'm disagreeing with is enthusiasm for buying yet another gaming rig in the above circumstances.
You don't "need" most of what you own, conditioned upon mere survival. Liberal democracy allows people to improve their lives and pursue what makes them happy.
Degrowth as a cure is worse than what it is purported to treat. Itwould hurt people. Developing countries improve their standard of living by exporting stuff to us, by consuming resources, etc. The poorest countries trade the least and its not an enviable lifestyle.
We are not headed for collapse by any metric. Fuel use in China has plateaued despite growing energy demand, owing to rapid solar scaling. Matter of time before we catch up. IPCC says climate will suck and be expensive, not apocalyptic. And finally, global population growth is projected to completely stall. The fertility rate is already stagnant in the 1st world. Innovation also improves efficiency, allowing us to build with less energy and resources over time.
We grow only BC of immigration, and immigrants are not coming to consume less, but to consume more.
I'm not going to discuss the details, because we obviously draw different conclusions from the same numbers. For me, the answer is going to be "I'm not going to buy a Steam Machine, not because it's a bad tech, but because it doesn't make my life better, and it uses resources that I'm not sure we can afford."
OK, but do you expect Valve to do anything about first two problems you have mentioned? (OK, saying “our next console will be a bunch of refurbished PCs we have sourced from local junkyard” would be a flex)
Both the CPU and GPU Valve chose for the Steam Machine are cut down ("binned") versions of silicon AMD likely had lying around. The CPU is a laptop part which didn't sell in huge volume and has had the GPU fused off. The GPU has several CUs disabled compared to top-of-the-line. This indicates to me that Valve is using silicon which AMD either couldn't use otherwise, or couldn't sell for top price.
You can see the alternative with PS5 and Xbox, where AMD designed and produced large bespoke custom chips. Versions of these chips which don't fully pass QA could have a few defective cores or CUs fused off and used elsewhere, but we don't see that outside of some very niche Chinese motherboards.
Valve's approach instead allows them to re-use standard PC components which just didn't quite meet muster.
So in effect, "our next console will be a bunch of refurbished PCs we have sourced from local junkyard" is exactly what Valve did here.
But the OP didn't discuss "Should Valve do something about the sorry state of the world", it discussed whether we individually should buy a Steam Machine.
