The real problem, in my view, was that they approached things backwards: they concentrated on hardware rather than software - in particular the OS. As many have pointed out, many PC gamers would never consider the Steam Box hardware, because they build their own rigs. Jumping into hardware partnerships while still just developing their own gaming OS was a huge example of putting the cart before the horse. If Valve had put all of their resources into the OS and refined something that was hardware-independently stable, then pushed that out to allow their current users to jump in easily (maybe dual-booting), it could have created much more momentum behind the whole idea of a Steam Box concept, which would then be a prime time to introduce dedicated hardware units. Instead, we got slick designs with underwhelming hardware, stumbling and bumbling OS development with poor drivers, and very limited adoption by game designers to provide a very limited library that could even be run on the new systems. There was no grass roots to push the concept, no internal momentum from the existing (and often long time) player base, no real reason to even give Steam Box a second look. Which is too bad, because the idea came in during a perfect storm - rising console gaming profiles, and the horrible public perception of Windows 8. It was an ideal window (no pun intended) to get something out there that could have gained traction quickly. But they tripped at the starting line, and then seemed to stumble at every hurdle they tried to jump.
