Wow, I didn't know this gaming stuff was so complicated! ;)

Your point?

You'd be laughing at the thought of installing games and crap 10-15 years from now.
Like Netflix, for example. For some $ every month you can watch as many movies as you like, on whatever device you like. (as far as I know)

I don't think so. Forcing me to play unfinished games like KOTOR II and similar without use of restoration mods would be crime. Also, I love my full HD Underground 2...wait there are no widescreen setting there without 3rd party mod.
It works against piracy, I'll give them that much, but not everyone can afford to pay new games. Oh, and if you manage explain me how to play FPS on tablet....

If I trust any company with a monopoly it'd be Valve. It's not what I want, but over the years they've proven to me that they believe customers and their opinions are important.

I don't want Valve to have the monopoly in anything.

They're a great gaming company with some great ideas and Steam is one of those ideas, which has come to fruition after almost 10 years of evolution, and is still bound to evolve. Besides that, it's not the only platform I support. I buy stuff from GOG every once in a while, I have an Origin account which I use and from which I've bought a few EA games, I bought 3 games from Amazon due to its better prices during the last month too.

That said, I haven't spent any money on GamersGate (even though I have an account), on Desura or GreenManGaming. Not because I don't like their prices or what they offer, but because on many occasions Steam beats them quite easily and I already have 3 different clients and 5 different stores from where I buy stuff from.

Connect a mouse if you want precision.

Onlive-likes definitely have a place in the future of gaming. In fact I'd quite like the idea of such a means of trying before I buy once internet connections (especially wireless) become adequate enough to support such things).

But it would be a gross underestimation of people's desire to own things to think that Onlive-likes will have any kind of monopoly.

Okay, so Steam has dominance in the PC market and Steam doesn't even pretend that you own anything in your collection. But Steam's dominance is mostly down to the fact that there wouldn't even be a PC market without them. Okay, so maybe you'd have a couple of indies silly enough to think that the PC is a gaming platform. But other than that it would be dead and buried.

As time moves on, now that the PC has regained its footing thanks to digital distribution, made viable by Steam, Steam will merely become one option among many. Even if it remains a pretty significant entity.

Long story short: I don't see buying and owning games disappearing without a significant change in consumer expectations.

Well, if r/gaming is any indication (I still visit ;), yes, they love Gaben. But they also respect GOG. (It's most non-indie publishers they seem hate, like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc.)

That might be but it doesn't mean that they do what customers want. My opinion is that use of clients or patching should be purely optional while supply of a fully archivable installer without any checks should be mandatory. No customer would loose a bit by this, and maybe Valve thinks my opinion is important but they will not change because of this.

That's why I hope for noone to get a monopoly on anything ever. :)

I wonder if anyone else has wondered, but me, what would happen to our games on Steam if Steam were to be shut down for good? Not all things last forever.

Sure, if you don't mind the downsides. Like that you are guaranteed to have the games you "buy" for a couple of years IIRC (after which they may be e.g. removed from the service, if not for other reason but that the game servers they were running on were upgraded due to newer games, hence compatibility problems have risen with those older games), and if you have the PlayPack pass to play hundreds of games for $9.99/month, I think also there they may remove games to make "room" for other games.

So basically, you could see a game you still wanted to finish some day removed before you could do so, and there's nothing you can do about it. So it may be a good service for people who just want to play "something" and hop from games to other games

For game collectors like me, it is not a preferable scenario. It is taking me even further away from being able to control the games I want to keep than e.g. Steam with 3rd party DRM. That doesn't mean I wouldn't play any games on OnLive, just like I have bought games on Steam too even though I don't really like it.

Just as with Steam, if the masses go for streaming gaming and playing installed games becomes a niche market, I guess there's little I can do about it, other than keep voting wil my wallet as long as I can. Maybe both markets will co-exists side by side, who knows.

Gaben said that they have Steam-removing patches on standby for such an eventuality. But any company that goes under has no further obligation to its customers. So take it as you will.

I have a pretty decent broadband connection - fairly steady at 17-19MB (and I remember when baud was measured in bits per second).

I tried OnLive a couple of months ago and found it to be: "not as bad as I thought it would be".

Whilst I think it will improve over time as broadband speeds increase - the content density of games will also increase as will consumer demand for internet throughput in general ... and I believe that triangle will be chasing each other for a while yet.

At some point there will probably be little to choose between a local machine and an internet service. I wouldn't like to predict when that time will be but it is not that far off. I find that a little scary as a hoarder of my "content", be that games, images, music or documents.

At some point someone will realise ... hang on a minute - he has that, so does she, and him - why are we storing and serving all these copies of exactly the same thing .. organise, distribute, shuffle, ... vast amount of previously duplicate storage and throughput instantly becomes available.

I still think that is nothing but a pipe dream. The reason? Security. If everything is in the cloud, your entire OS, your programs, your services, your data, everything has to be streamed to you over potentially vulnerable connections. Average users are uneducated enough to do anything at all over unsecured wi-fis. The potential for abuse is so gigantic I just can't see it taking off.

I do think we'll all go back to the mainframe/thin workstations system. That's what people actually want, if the tablet and smartphone boom is any indication.

OnLive? Nice attempt, but there's no way I'm supporting that. I may be fine with DRM, but I am absolutely not fine with not being 100% dependent on some cloud in the sky.

You never know. One time it was a silly thought that most people wouldn't want to keep buying physical games, but would be happy with downloadable games (that usually require an umbilical cord to some authentication server). Or that smartphone, IPad and Facebook games would become so big that the tradional game companies sees them as a real threat to their future (e.g. as Nintendo and Epic MegaGames have complained).

Many Steam-proponents say most gamers don't care about DRM or keeping games, but all they care about is maximum ease of use and being able to play lots of games cheaply, and forget about the games after use.

Streaming gaming seems like a logical next step for these people. After all it is even less hassle, and could easily be much more affordable too (if it is e.g. a monthly cost included into your ISP/cable company fee, and considering you never have to upgrade your gaming hardware either), if you are into playing as many games as possible.

Maybe "keeping of games" will be even a smaller niche in the future, as DRM-free gaming is today... I don't necessarily like it, but then what can you do except keep voting with your wallet.