SimonG: Which in the end, is also good for us as gamers, because as long as aggravated data is considered a valuable commodity, Steam will literally pay for itself.

bazilisek: I think the word you were looking for is aggregated. I'd like to see some aggravated data, though.

bazilisek: ...
Just a minor correction: technically speaking, Steam can do without DRM. There are several DRM-free games on Steam I know of; implementing the CEG (=DRM) part of Steamworks, just like any other part of Steamworks, is not mandatory to get your game on Steam.

SimonG: Another point that hasn't come up yet, and is very important, is that Steam in itself is nice little money generator. I'm not talking about the sales here, but those aggregated data collected by Steam is probably worth a lot more than what we might think. I'm not in that kind of industry, so I don't know the numbers, but Facebook is a pretty valuable company considering their only value is that data. And Steam is getting some really tasty data freshly cut a pretty damn accurate. (This is probably the reason why Steam is still clinging to the mandatory client running in the background). Edit: Removed the gamma radiation.

ReynardFox: I want Valve to choke on their own smugness. The idea of Steam having total digital control is terrifying to me.

Steam has basically ruined PC gaming for me. Any game that forces online activation, even a single time is offensive in concept to me and I will not stand for it nor support it. Buying on steam is basically renting and takes all control away from the user. A friend of mine moved, upgraded to a new PC and was unable to get internet access for at least 3 months, in this time he was unable to play any of his games because he's only bought from Steam. It's so easy to forget about the total reliance on the internet this service requires.

But where steam really burns me up is the way it's wormed itself into retail. I like owning a retail copy of a game, and DRM services like steam have basically killed this.

I am a solo gamer, online play has almost zero interest for me... now, if any game I want comes out using steamworks, I can't buy it. I am required to install a 3rd party piece of online software and make an online account, and then activate my disc copy of a single player game online before I can so much as install it. I will never understand how people find this acceptable... See, steam's online service is great for hooking up players and matches online, that's all well and good for those who want it but it's not optional, it's forced on everyone, and as a solo player, this does nothing but significantly impede my gaming experience.

I constantly hear the limp rebuttal of 'you know it has an offline mode right?' ...you realize that you have to go online and verify the games cache to get to offline mode in the first place right? This sounds like a good thing when playing a single player game to you?
Even more frustrating is the 'that's the way things are going, get used to it" doormat response, and to this I say... Why? I should go back on my stance and moral objection because It's inconvenient? It's lazy backpedaling like this that prevents things from changing for the better.

GoG is the only thing that's kept my faith in PC gaming alive. I'd still rather own physical discs, but at least on GoG I know I own my purchases, I know that I can, at any time and anywhere, go to my local files, run an installer and any update patch files that I have stored locally and then just play the game. The way it should be.

Skunk: It's like you read my mind completely. Completely. Well, except for the "GoG" part. It's "GOG", or even "gog". Why would the "o" be lowercase? It stands for "Old", not "of". It's been about two years since I first pondered why people say "GoG", and I fear I'm no closer to having my answer. I can at least be sure it's not "because it looks better", because it just looks horrible. >_>

orcishgamer: MS had a stroke of luck by getting Demon/Dark/whichever-I-forget Souls on GfWL, it might prove to people that the service is a lot better than it used to be (the in game client is as slick as Steam, the stand alone needs a bit of work, imo).

RayRay13000: Perhaps It's just my lack of actually using the service but GfWL pretty much acted the same as Steam. I've only had one title for the service (BioShock 2) and I didn't have much luck getting it to play offline.

Hicks233: "Gamers" tend to be an apathetic and lazy bunch. It's either too much effort for them to put a disc in tray or too much effort to use a start menu or a desktop shortcut.

All steam has done is mollify an easily pacified customer base that frequently forget how to be customers with rights.

ReynardFox: I want Valve to choke on their own smugness. The idea of Steam having total digital control is terrifying to me.

Steam has basically ruined PC gaming for me. Any game that forces online activation, even a single time is offensive in concept to me and I will not stand for it nor support it. Buying on steam is basically renting and takes all control away from the user. A friend of mine moved, upgraded to a new PC and was unable to get internet access for at least 3 months, in this time he was unable to play any of his games because he's only bought from Steam. It's so easy to forget about the total reliance on the internet this service requires.

But where steam really burns me up is the way it's wormed itself into retail. I like owning a retail copy of a game, and DRM services like steam have basically killed this.

I am a solo gamer, online play has almost zero interest for me... now, if any game I want comes out using steamworks, I can't buy it. I am required to install a 3rd party piece of online software and make an online account, and then activate my disc copy of a single player game online before I can so much as install it. I will never understand how people find this acceptable... See, steam's online service is great for hooking up players and matches online, that's all well and good for those who want it but it's not optional, it's forced on everyone, and as a solo player, this does nothing but significantly impede my gaming experience.

I constantly hear the limp rebuttal of 'you know it has an offline mode right?' ...you realize that you have to go online and verify the games cache to get to offline mode in the first place right? This sounds like a good thing when playing a single player game to you?
Even more frustrating is the 'that's the way things are going, get used to it" doormat response, and to this I say... Why? I should go back on my stance and moral objection because It's inconvenient? It's lazy backpedaling like this that prevents things from changing for the better.

GoG is the only thing that's kept my faith in PC gaming alive. I'd still rather own physical discs, but at least on GoG I know I own my purchases, I know that I can, at any time and anywhere, go to my local files, run an installer and any update patch files that I have stored locally and then just play the game. The way it should be.

Hicks233: "Gamers" tend to be an apathetic and lazy bunch. It's either too much effort for them to put a disc in tray or too much effort to use a start menu or a desktop shortcut.

kojocel: Want an example (one of the countless I could think of)? Here's an epic one right from Steam forums:

"Giving up after 2 hours of gameplay
Sorry but Morrowind is too complicated. There are no mapmarkers, the journal is a total mess, every NPC opens 30+ dialogue options. Not to mention I died once to 2 bugs because my knife wouldn't hit them even at point-blank range.

Installing Oblivion now, I hope it'll be better."

Have a nice day.

kojocel: Just as a side note (and a bit off-topic), I would like to say that this reflects the quality of the games we're getting as of late: shamefully easy, boring, with retarded or almost no dialogue at all, let apart any sense of progress.