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.
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.
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.
Its either one address limitation or none at all, since a company isn’t going to make exceptions based on whether someone is related or not and verify it.
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.
![[Frame] Honest hardworking scalpers when you tell them there's a reservation lottery](https://europe.pub/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fquokk.au%2Fstatic%2Fmedia%2Fposts%2FsC%2FFd%2FsCFdszuqvuPYASu.jpg){kind=link}
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.
Roomates or family are members of a household. One unit per address. I don’t see why relations would matter.
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.
Why would a company care about the distinction. All they care about is limiting it by household.
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.
Its either one address limitation or none at all, since a company isn’t going to make exceptions based on whether someone is related or not and verify it.
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.