Actual game perservings with medias stored for future generations is good even when it maybe not tow the legal line fully. This is being how I see it but other peoples will see it different. More places and groups doing such perserving the better. All original files as was originally released is the best option for perservation.

Well he's probably not wrong. But it isn't down to whether Steam are going anywhere, it is also about Steam policies, which can change over time, and personal access, which we all know isn't always guaranteed ... shit happens.

Steam cannot fail, wouldn't be allowed to by the many game providers that have attached themselves and thus their reputation to the Steam ship. If it ever started to sink, plenty would help rescue it.

You cannot say the same for GOG, not anywhere near to the same degree anyway. Maybe Epic might bail out a failing GOG, but only with some kind of takeover, Microsoft perhaps too ... or someone like Bethesda that have a lot of games here. Of course, it would be a great opportunity for the ZOOM Platform, if they were up for it. Aside from with ZP, GOG would likely change a lot with another owner, with DRM likely becoming part of the mix.

Hmm...weren't people saying something similar about Enron?

The reality is there are plenty of ways any company can fail - management failure or fraud, a takeover that changes the company so it can't continue, failure to adapt to changing markets, critical security breach, etc.

Valve is different in one respect - it can dramatically increase income by imposing a monthly fee on accounts (especially if not paying means losing access to all games previously purchased) and this is certainly a more likely outcome than outright failure.

But Steam can still fail - a combination of monthly fees, security breaches in Valve's client allowing Steam users to be compromised and enough lawsuits from disgruntled publishers is one route. Regulatory intervention could be another.

Being privately owned, what happens to Steam is entirely in the hands of a very few people. Gabe's in his 60's now and doesn't keep himself in the best of shape. If the family members who inherit his controlling share of Valve decide they don't want to keep it running and receive an "offer they can't refuse" from Microsoft, EA, Tencent, etc who then acquire it and gradually merge the service and convert all "Steam" games into Microsoft Store / Origin, etc, it absolutely could change in a way you may simply no longer want to use it. No matter how much they depend on it, game publishers really have no say in it as being privately owned = there's no public listed shares for them to buy to be able to vote on anything / take control of it.

They may not like it, but that just highlights the complete insanity of basing the bulk of a +$400bn industry on one store run by an overweight dude in his 60's living forever then hoping emotional blackmail by fanboys will somehow trump the actual law and rights of the owners. At the end of the day all that matters is who owns Valve. If Valve were publicly traded, mega-publishers could group together and buy up a majority controlling share but they aren't. Other businesses / gamers can't just walk into another private business and demand to take control because they have 'strong feelings'. If Gabe died tomorrow and his kids decided to just "hard" pull the plug, could they do so without legal recourse? Yes, yes they could and their "subscribers" feelings will have about as much impact as they did vs Microsoft pulling the plug on Games For Windows Live. Or current / future digital stores & streaming services going out of business. And their Steam 'subscriptions' would become as ephemeral as those encrypted .wma music albums formerly sold on Zune Marketplace...

It's far more likely that rather than ever close Steam, his future estate would rather sell it (reality check : Valve's market cap is around $8bn-$10bn. Meanwhile, Microsoft spent $68.7bn buying up Activision-Blizzard alone). Imagine you're Gabe's kids, you just inherited $3-4bn from Daddy then have a choice of putting in a lot of work running his $10bn store - or you could just inherit another $10bn from Microsoft effort-free and spend the rest of your life in luxury by accepting that takeover offer, it's really not that far-fetched at all in 10-15 years time.

Publishers who have games only on Steam may be upset, but all they'll ultimately do is just republish them elsewhere (GOG, Epic, MS Store, Origin, etc). Exactly as former GFWL titles did with Steam. In fact it would be a healthy lesson for the market as a whole to learn to not rely on one single store in future but go back to publishing on multiple stores again (as they did pre-Steam). As for "but they love DRM", there's already plenty of choice for publishers with Epic / MS Store / Origin / uPlay, none of which have DRM-Free requirements. Nothing at all will change there.

Just got around to finding out that this program exists just today. Got a bit confused...

Wasn't GOG already doing this with their whole library? Prior to making this program "official", W1/2, Diablo 1, and Dungeon Siege all released modified to run on modern systems. Were there games on GOG which couldn't run like that? I know on Steam, there are a ton of games which can no longer run without some modifications. That or they run incredibly poorly. Diablo 1 rerelease in Blizzard launcher is a broken mess.

I'm able to run original Baldur's Gate without any issues from GOG. That goes for all the games I've ever tried on here. Did something specifically change for these hundred or so games that're labeled as "GOOD OLD GAME"?

Nope you probably have every right to feel a bit confused.

From what I can tell, GOG are just doing an awareness promotion kind of thing, and that in reality, aside from that business for them hasn't changed ... they are still doing the same as what they have been doing.

It is great that GOG are now actually doing this, and could well mean they gain a big bunch of new customers. But it is a bit disingenuous their claim about Game Preservation, as if they are the sole ones doing it, and they aren't even doing it properly ... if they were, they would be pushing for us all to download the Offline Installers, instead of as they are, encouraging the opposite, to install with Galaxy instead.

GOG, to pay them their due, are enabling Game Preservation, but it is we the customers, that are actually doing it ... providing we download and backup the DRM-Free Offline Installers.

No one source should be responsible for Game Preservation. It needs to be multiple and spread far and wide.

You are missing the big picture and I am not going to continue arguing about it. All I've needed to say is in what I've already stated. Either you read that properly or you didn't, and I hate having to repeat myself.

In any case, you are entitled to your view. Me, I stand by the logic behind what I listed.

I guess we will see what happens ... or not. LOL