Why on Earth should they want to do that?

As long as Steam is not subscription-based (where you indeed pay either a monthly fee or pay-per-play to use it), people just owning a big collection of older WinXP/7 games on Steam does not bring any money to Valve, or whoever would be the next owner. In fact, it consumes their profits due to bandwidth costs and keeping the servers up. They should sell more games all the time through the service to keep it profitable.

Considering that Microsoft is launching the official Windows Store in Windows 8 which directly competes also with Steam, AND Microsoft is blocking Steam and others from e.g. delivering Metro apps/games for Win8, it is quite probable that in the long run the non-official retailers will see their services shrinking, unless Win8 and Windows Store fail completely. Most people would simply start buying their newer Windows games from Windows Store, and only keep Steam client around to play the older WinXP/7 games they bought earlier from there.

Apparently you are suggesting that in such a situation Microsoft would buy Steam and integrate it into Windows Store, right? Will they do the same also to GamersGate, Origin etc. too? Heck, why not even GOG? Frankly, a more probable scenario would be Steam trying to survive by moving to streaming gaming, just like OnLive.

Citation very much needed.

EDIT: Actually, no, you are correct. But you're working with this crazy assumption that all games are going to be Metro applications in the future, which is just ridiculous.

plus the crazy assumption that all gamers will install WIndows 8. I still have XP and i really can't find any good reason to install Windows 7 or 8 apart from the fact that they can handle 64bit applications better.

But you really think game developers like Valve will keep building codes for Windows 8 if they are to compete them? They might build them for XP platforms. And yes this might be a step backwards for game development , but no problem for me. It's already on a very high level and i still think Half Life 2 is a perfect game (on graphics too).

That remains to be seen. Windows 95 and DirectX didn't kill MS-DOS game development right away, and some said MS-DOS gaming will prevail because it offers more direct access to hardware, meaning better performance.

Yet, here we are, no more new (commercial) MS-DOS games made. It depends how the whole Metro thingie (incl. SDKs) matures and evolves in the long run, ie. whether MS expects it to be THE way to run all your future Windows apps.

Anyway, it is a bit telling to me that in Win8 the whole "Win7-like desktop" is kinda hidden in the background, as if it is a mere Metro app in itself to run older Windows apps. Or at least it was the last time I saw it.
That's why I added the disclaimer "unless Win8 and/or Windows Store fails completely". Yes, Win8 could be the next Vista, but then that doesn't mean MS wouldn't re-launch Windows Store with e.g. Win9.

And I didn't suggest anything would happen overnight, but in the long run.

I think Valve is pretty insignificant today as a game developer/publisher. They are mostly selling games published or made by others (EA, Ubisoft, indies etc.).

EA Origin (vs. Windows Store) would be a much more interesting case. Will EA start fighting Windows Store "monopoly", or bend backwards and offer all their games also on Windows Store?

Are you seriously comparing an operating system to a framework for running lightweight applications in tiny windows?

In other words, has anyone ever attempted to produce a commercial game that would run as a Vista/7 desktop gadget? I'm guessing not.

I have no objections if someone simply says e.g. "I don't care if Steam closed down someday, I don't replay my old games anyway and any missing games I'd just buy again somewhere else.". Great, all power to you.

But suggesting it as some kind of unthinkable cosmic breach in time/space continuum that Steam would close its doors someday or change its mode of operation harshly (in order to stay profitable)... come on. It is a matter of opinion how probable that is, and in what timespan.

I know I shouldn't say this here, but I don't believe GOG will be necessarily around forever either! Good thing though that the local backups of their games will not require GOG's existence, so while I don't wish for GOG's demise, I guess I could live with it. So I can go silly with increasing my GOG backlog.

Are you working for MS, since you seem to know so well what future their plans with Metro are? As I said, "It depends how the whole Metro thingie (incl. SDKs) matures and evolves in the long run, ie. whether MS expects it to be THE way to run all your future Windows apps.".

Anyway, you are wrong with you claim that Metro apps run only in a tiny window, they run full-screen.

If running older type of desktop apps will be the way also in future Windows versions, why is Microsoft hiding it to the background in Win8? Currently it seems more like some hidden compatibility mode for older apps. I think MS even calls it "Classic", similarly as how you can disable Win7 or XP features in "Classic mode". Ie. "the old way".

Here's some reading:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Windows-8-Metro-vs-Desktop-Conflicts-and-Disconnects/

One interesting part to think about: As said, we'll see what MS will do...

I've been pretty silent in forums for a while but hasn't meant that I don't support this. Still, like some person said in some post, I also come here for games that hardly are found in other places and soundtracks don't hurt. I pre-ordered grimrock when I had money though.
Not so really interested in assassins creed.

I would probably pay about five dollars more without drm restrictions.

Hilariously enough, this is the reason why I was replying to you in the first place -- because that's exactly what you seem to be doing here with your alarmist statements. The crucial difference between the two of us, however, is that you are jumping at conclusions at the slightest provocation, while my estimate of the future is a lot more conservative.

I'm not the first one to make this observation: the bulk of Microsoft's income comes from enterprise customers, and they are not going to alienate that user base; the Metro interface is not aimed at them, and therefore will not replace the operating system's shell entirely. I'm willing to bet that AutoCAD will never ever have a Metro version, and similarly, neither will any first-person "Men in Uniforms Shoot Men in Different Uniforms" blockbuster.

The people working at Microsoft are not completely retarded, you know.

I think the main difference is that I say what could happen, and you make outright claims like that Metro will be used only for running small apps in tiny windows, which is quite untrue already now. I don't claim to know what WILL happen in the future, you/SimonG do.

Win9x did eventually replace MS-DOS as the platform even for games, Windows wasn't merely for Minesweeper anymore.

Nope. We claim that your hypothetical scenarios are UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN in the future. There's a difference.
That might have something to do with the fact that it replaced MS-DOS in absolutely everything. (And yes, I know it was essentially just a glorified GUI, but the average user didn't.)

Win9x could run most MS-DOS games straight from the desktop without any problems, and Win9x let you even boot completely to MS-DOS to run even the problematic DOS games.

If anything, the Win7 kind of desktop is hidden even better in Win8, than running MS-DOS programs was hidden in Win95. But to me they seem a bit similar cases, the new OS supports running the earlier apps too, but tries to shy you away from using it, to using the new way/new apps instead.

I actually do not care much what 30mio+ other gamers are playing. Since the dawn of the first action shooter game I know that I am not mainstream and so I just choose what I like. Also I hate others looking over my shoulder.

However it surely helps in designing the perfectly mainstreamed product. Priceless? Probably not.

They are not evil, just very very selfish.

But they are hurting. Intention and outcome may not be the same thing.
Urban myth? You can see the files, the services are running, how it is being a myth?

Maybe you have a decent PC, maybe some extra bloat does not bother you, maybe you never notice. But still it is there. An unneccessary driver, software installed to your computer, working on background. Why?

No damage? Let's get over potential harms or annoyances at software level but, Starforce physically harmed people's computers, killed their CD-ROM drivers.