It's an issue if I want to install the game on a computer without an internet connection, or if I have bought a retail version, or many other common situations.

I would be a huge fan of Steam if the client and activation were optional.

A computer without internet for people buying off a digital retailer? That's a small issue either way I imagine. I can sort of see the DVD one but the box will probably have stated 'needs internet and a free Steam account' right there before buying it, people should know what they are buying.

I use Steam because of the service it offers. If I just wanted the games I can always torrent them.

As long as they can, they will offer me that service. If they are no longer existent, the internet will provide.

I'm not arguing if people who have bought should have read or not the warning. I'm just arguing against the concept of requiring an internet connection for a singleplayer game.

That's not a valid argument because you are using piracy as a valid solution (which it isn't).

That rather depends on the problem, doesn't it?

Why? And it isn't piracy if I own the license. I can hardly pirate a game I own ...

(Due do legislation being pretty shitty it is in some countries actually a crime even if I have a valid claim!)

We're speaking of this problem in particular.

But the problem is that you don't own it, right? Otherwise you wouldn't need to pirate it.

You don't really grasp the legal situation, do you? Does personal non-transferable license mean anything to you?

I never owned a game in my life. (Well actually, the ECJ used some really bad wording, so I could actually owned a game, but I'm not going there). I always ever owned the right to play the game (and, by the wording of the ECJ, also "the right to own", but I really don't like the wording).

It is perfectly legal for me to download any game (in the published version I bought) I own from anywhere in the net (as long as I don't break any anti-piracy laws, those are usually not determined by ownership, not the best work of out legislative).



(I'm being arrogant again, am I? Ah, well, who cares)

If that's the case, then that's not a very well designed piece of software. I have a hard time believing that's the case as even Valve seems to realize that the behavior isn't the way that it should be. There are plenty of fanbois out there that claim otherwise, but if I tell it to go offline and I have my credentials stored then it had better go offline.

The fact that I'm even arguing the point is indicative of Valves low quality of software.
Depends, if you own the copy then no, if you own a license then yes. But in practice if it goes on like this it wouldn't surprise me if publishers start charging more in Europe and refusing to recognize licenses sold to Europeans from different regions.

Or more likely jacking up the price substantially and refusing to acknowledge licenses that were bought by Europeans even though they weren't licensed for use in Europe.

There's a certain degree of irony of us Americans getting stuck with that BS Berne business and you guys essentially deciding to ignore the standard copyrights on various things in favor of piracy and taking rights away.

Hey, I might actually use Steam, like it, and pay a subscription if it wasn't required. If I could install and play single-player games without needing to download anything or be online.

As for the OP, it's his/her screw-up, not Steam's. I had a boneheaded screw-up when I first used Steam but that doesn't change the fact that Steam shouldn't be required to play the game in the first place. So if the bitching is about not being able to play games, I agree with OP but if the bitching is about actually wanting a Steam account and being able to use Steam's features, I don't have much sympathy.