I don't disagree with your analysis at all, but the the people waving flags at the frontline tend to be far more vocal about it, now matter which side you ultimately come down on. I'd much rather we stop judging each others' shopping proclivities, of all things, and stop allowing this type of tribalism to continue proliferating at the rate it does, because there always has to be at least one gatekeeper.

I don't wanna get misconstrued. I'm not saying if you DO boycott Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay, or whatever platform emerges next, that you're automatically in that category. However, if you're the type to vocally judge those around you who don't feel the same, you're literally the exact same thing as people in churches, schools, whatever "institutions of society" you feel like attributing my analogy to, who actively judge everyone around you according to some ultimately arbitrary list of values that most of them don't follow either. I'm not here to defend any particular avenue to where you purchase your things, I'm pretty agnostic in regards to that, with the exception of Origin, because I've been burnt by EA so many times, I'm just done buying things from them. I'm also not going to tell anyone who doesn't feel the same as I do, that they're a lesser person or gamer for not, which is ultimately what this thread seems designed for.

I'm with you on most "walled garden" approaches, and I enjoy being able to shop around any platforms I want, to figure out the best deals for myself. I don't have loyalty to companies, I save that for private business owners who have treated me well in the past.

(Response to topic question)

Not as much of a boycott as it is preferring to buy DRM-free even if it takes years for it to arrive. If I'm really desperate to know the storyline of the games, I'll watch a let's play.

My Steam account is 14 years old now, but I never had as much loyalty to them as I do with GOG now. All the power to Steam fans, though, as they may have different priorities that make Steam a much more attractive option for them.

Post got downvoted for obvious reasons, but this part is true. We're long past the days when boycotting DRM could be considered anything close to an effective solution. I remember when Mass Effect launched with a SecuROM install limit and Half-Life 2 launched with Steam requirement and many like myself were upset and proposed boycotts and such. Very few cared, and the games were big hits, and that sealed the fate of PC gaming. Hell, people actively prefer Steam DRM to DRM free, as you can see with Steam vs. GOG sales numbers.

You can refuse to shop there for your own reasons and I respect that, but just don't delude yourself that you're making a statement or a difference. That war is long over.

Because people can't comprehend the idea of managing installers and putting your games in a self made folder it seems.

Such ownership has always existed... if you buy some physical item then you have complete authority over what you can do with it. The only space where ownership doesn't exist is when we're talking about digital items.

If you buy a console, you have complete authority to mod it however you see fit, but you don't have the authority to use the playstation network with a modded console.. but you have complete authority over the console itself. You can do whatever you want with it.

With physical CDs you could do anything you wanted to with the CD... just not anything with the digital contents.

What people call "ownership" changed to match what you can do with digital items... ownership originated in the real world not the digital world. You've allowed the meaning of ownership to be stripped away to suit the argument that not owning something is still owning it because you want to feel like you own it.

I do not see it about tribalism or store guettos. At least me. I do not consider one better of worse as an absolute. I have my preferences, obviouslly, and can say what is better for me. It is just a debate created about what do contractually each store offers, and it is fine make it clear.

-Originally Steam is a pseudorenting platform. A "subscription service" in their own words as a defense strategy.
-GOG EULA says different things and you legally own the digital game.

Store wars aside It is the most important. This is, Just let people know what they use to make good decissions based in its own criteria.

Can you trade it for a slave?
Can you rig it so it'll burn down your house?
Can you throw it out, in the street?
Can you...
Whatever, have your own definition of "complete authority" if you want; I've said enough.

Actually I can do every one of these.

The reason I left Steam was the censorship. I didn't actually mind the DRM since Steam is not really a store front nor a platform. Steam is MMORPG. It has everything that MMORPG has: levels, grinding, guilds, items, crafting, markets, events, etc.. There are no games ON Steam. There are only minigames OF Steam and they are only temporary distraction from the big game. This is why you have to be online all the time because you have to be online in order to play MMORPG. It's an online game. Simple.

So what ruined Steam for me was that when I critizised one developer/publisher for them ruining great classics with their "Enhanced" editions, I got banned from their forum. Steam customer service and their valonteer moderators are the worst. Maybe even worse than the c*nt of a certain "community manager". So FU Steam and FU BullS Dog. You really know how to treat people - not.

That's because you're a troll. Legal authorities don't recognise the actions of non-human lifeforms living under bridges.

It's odd that LiquidOxygen80 seems not to grasp that all the tribalism problems have everything to do with the intentional divisions created by Steam in the first place. You can't actively be against the tribalism if you don't recognize just how toxic Steam has been to the gaming community in order to secure a maximum amount of profit and make it harder for games to sell outside the Steam infrastructure.

Just like with Macintosh Fanatics who don't understand that the entire structure of Apple's business model is the complete control of the market at the expense of personal liberties. Only a company like apple can get away with releasing an update that intentionally breaks phones that use third party digitizers (happens when you break your screen and don't go to the Apple Store to pay extra and get it fixed)... and Apple can do that because they've so greatly brainwashed their followers into believing everything Apple does is for the good of the customer, not for the good of Apple's profit.

Tribalism starts because people stop seeing corporate entities as these profit driven beasts and claim "well GoG is fighting for DRM free games" instead of "Well GoG is fighting to maximize its profit in a tough market dominated by Steam." But the reality is that it's the lack of any actual choice that starts the tribalism... after all, Apple hyped Macintosh for years as being the cool kid OS since the only other major consumer OS was Windows. If there was actual competition in the OS market, that "We're the cool kids and those are the old people" game wouldn't have worked.

It's the lack of consumer choice and the brainwashing that the individual platforms do to keep it that way that drives tribalism.

Hehe, look at steam this way can be actually true. It even has the meaningless updates of their crappy client each week.
Yep their forum moderation is very bad. Basically every publisher just hires some hit guy fanatics who kick everyone out talking bad about their precious games.

I already established that slavery isn't possible under the laws of ownership because a slave will always have his own authority, so you cannot have complete authority over someone else. But there brings up a good point, you can actually TRADE physical objects where you can't trade digital ones. The games you buy are linked to an account for life, even in a DRM'd store.

"Can you rig it so it'll burn down your house?"
Yes.

"Can you throw it out, in the street?"
Yes.

" Can you...
Whatever, have your own definition of "complete authority" if you want; I've said enough."

So first you ask for a definition of ownership, and upon getting such a definition you complain that ownership doesn't exist because your interpretation of my definition is wrong. Now you're complaining that me correcting your interpretation of my own definition is... wrong? Like what the hell, it's my definition of ownership we're talking about.

Nope, resulting to personal attacks gj there.
Pushing this limited ownership and some imaginary barriers we are not allowed to do with our stuff. Show us the laws forbidding us from these. There is none, because those laws sanction the actions and not the tools you use in those actions. Where did you get this false view anyway? Was it a teacher or an article?