...

New games are not necessarily the apex of gaming. I'd rather have a drm-free game with nostalgia value than a brand new release that requires Steam's invasive software.

I have 310, and of those, I've played 3 in the last three days. :v

And now: Useless stats.

Of all of those, only 4 of them have achivements.

Most of my purchases are from Pre 05'. Over 70%.

I consider DRM to be like internet advertisements. A pesky annoyance at best, and an absolute endangerment to the system at the worst. The world would be better without them, in spite of how some may feel.

Yes, there are a number of games that I would love to play but as they are Steam only I simply miss out. The flip side of this is that companies who insist on making their games Steam only are also missing out on a chance to get my money. Adding DRM to a game does not stop piracy, but it does stop sales.

I consider the use of DRM to be immoral.

By using Steam, I would be rewarding companies for releasing DRM-encumbered software, and I would also be rewarding the company that provides the DRM.

Of note, this is also why I refuse to give away Steam keys from Humble Bundles; by giving somebody the key, I would be encouraging the recipient to use a DRM-encumbered service.

Edit: Note that this same argument applies to all stores that sell DRM-encumbered software. In particular, it is not limited to games.

When you have over 700 games in your backlog, you don't need Steam. You don't need new games, you probably need a self-help group.

You are choosing a different set of opportunities that are subjectively more attractive. I still play Super Mario World and prefer that to Super Mario Galaxy.

Edit: More detail :P

There are tons of DRM-free PC videogames out there so I'm pretty sure PC gamers don't "rob themselves of the opportunity to play a lot of new games"

There have been, like, a dozen or so releases that I wanted to play but couldn't because of Steam DRM. Besides, most modern games, particularly the AAA variety, fucking suck. Modern shooters which have you go a linear corridor from point A to point B while scripted events go off left and right are basically the antithesis of what I consider good game design. Visually, there hasn't been much too progress since Crysis. I feel like I'm not missing out on much.


Two games I refused to buy at the time because of DRM that I did get to play by now turned out rather disappointing: HL2 is okayish but massively overrated. Bioshock is average at best.

It's not exactly hard, there are thousands upon thousands of games out there, new and old. Lots of people do it here just fine. Especially if they don't care about new games.

That said I use both GOG and Steam.

I have an intense hatred for steam due to fighting with DRM with titles I bought. So I don't use steam. Simple and clean and good.

I also don't get anything blizzard because of the always-online requirement, and the requirement for Battlenet, not quite the same but close enough.

I have about... 2 Steam games. I also own some 200 to 300 games here on GOG, and have yet to play at least half of those. With the exception of the occasional "must have" title, every once in a blue moon, I think I can make do without Steam and its bullshit just fine.

What if you don't want to play those new games?
Not everybody is interested in the latest and greatest.

This: And this: Buying games online (or anything really) is in fact voting for that particular product/service/company. I am not missing out, I am merely living out the values I hold true. And there's not a DRM game that can top that.

When they asked about the TOS I clicked "no" so I had to look elsewhere ;)

But to be more serious, start with the part you already answered yourself: Thats part of why not, its a monopoly on these many titles; something I do not really like. But would still not stop me if it where for the mandatory online connection on single player games which denies me the complete management control of the games I spend money on; its a backward step to the traditional way which is eased be the comfort of digital distribution.

Adding a bit of emotional discontent "drama": It and its ugly offspring whose names are uplay & origin (or rather the vultures preying upon the initial success of the former) "invaded" my favorite turf by barging into retail distribution and forcing the previously offline working games online, literally killing the retail market. True. In most cases a big relieve; I would have more raged about Dragon Age 2 (I know, not steam, but the same ilk)
playing after reading about it had I bought it like DA1. I guess I could name quite a few examples in which I would have regretted the money spend if I think hard enough.

There are a fistful of games, some quite a few years old by now, which I still would consider paying full new release price should they be released on gog (i.e. Skyrim); but as annoying as that is there are enough games I have in backlog from gog that still need to be played.

Would I be on steam without gog? Don't know; maybe not. I know I have a big gap in singleplayer games before gog, when they (uplay, origin, steam) became more & more dominant in my favorite place before killing it so I guess I will just stop spending money and precious time to that market; play old stuff & a few MMOs and slowly drift to other hobbys.