Thing is, it's a service I don't need. Just like I don't need a service to "handle" my other installed applications, like Word, Excell, Visual Studio, Wireshark, VLC, NASM, Nero, CheatEngine, VMware Player, SVN, Adobe Reader etc etc etc. In fact, if any of those required me to install a client that would throw a fit if I couldn't connect to the internet - and didn't know beforehand that it'd be some downtime (funnily enough, my ISP rarely tells me in advance that the lightning's going to strike their radio link) - I'd uninstall them ASAP and find a replacement. I would believe I'm not the only one.

Of course, my dislike of Steam (I'm not even into steam-punk that much) may feel like a personal insult to people who've invested a lot of time and money in Steam - if Steam is no good, that would mean that they made a bad decision, and that's tough to swallow for a lot of people.. (I have some experience in that regard with "pointy-haired bosses" who've made bad decisions years ago, yet refuse to admit they were wrong, preferring to stay the course, expenses and problems be damned...)

I buy from Steam because: (a) it sells games at huge discounts, it has lots of deep sales; (b) it has a lot of titles,most of the titles I have on my wish list.

Not really, it is just your opinion and your choice, so... *shrug*

(or, as a common saying you should be known to, and slightly wrongly translated - taste is like the ass, it is divided)

Actually, I think it is the other way around. People who don't use or even boycott Steam need to justify somehow that they are missing out on some of the best games of the decade (Spec Ops: The Line, Double Fine games or F:NV) just to name a few. That leads to hilarious claims like "Valve is evil." or "I don't own my Steam games." Maybe it's future angst or the fear of the unknown.While a lot of GOGers criticise Steam users, you hardly find Steam users bashing GOG.

Steam users are usually very open minded and literally don't need to care where their games come from as most stores give out Steam keys. They can look on the whole world for the best price and still download locally. And their digital collection isn't balkanized over several sites. No "waiting for a GOG release, so I can have it on my preferred site".

I turned to Steam more or less by accident two years ago and it was the best "accident" of my gaming life. Client based gaming is a necessity for me nowadays. GOG is the sole exception, as old games hardly need updates. But I'm getting my indies on the Humble Store, as it gives the devs the biggest cut and me the Steam key.

I don't need to justify anything, it's just a matter of principle. Always has been, always will be. Steam & Co. offer possibilities for publishers to interfere with my games that I don't want to grant them, so I don't. Simple as that. No evil baddies.

So I haven't played a couple of games. So what? I live a rich and happy live nonetheless. Even without Steam there are more brillant games every year than I could possibly play. I have such a massive backlog I haven't even gotten around to playing The Witcher yet.

Most of the games can still be played Steam-free on other platforms anyway and for the few that can't...I'm pretty sure that on my death bed my biggest regret won't be "I wish I had played Half-Life 2". Although that would be cool because DAMN! Good life!

Seriously, games are great. But missing a couple of them isn't the end of the world (as we know it). At least not to me. Call me old fashioned but I still buy actual physical copies of games 99.9% of the time. So yeah...I don't care where they come from, either. See above, I'm not waiting on GOG-releases, either. If it's DRM-free, I'll buy it at a store or an online retailer. GOG is for gems I totally missed out on back in the day or the occasional game pulling an Alan Wake.

People who don't use or even boycott Steam need to justify somehow that they are missing out on some of the best games of the decade (Spec Ops: The Line, Double Fine games or F:NV) just to name a few.

No, it's I just do not have a need for them. I already have more than I could play in a lifetime from GOG so it does not bother me to wait at all. Why worry about Spec OPs when I have not even played my Ghost Recon yet? The only new game of interest to me is Skyrim which I will buy at a store when it goes down. So never having a need for Steam, it is easy to not bother with all their hoopla. Now I might be tempted if they have SWOTL, but maybe not even then.

Ugh, page 14 (Response to OP, haven't read comments)

I will do everything I can including paying more gladly to avoid it being a Steam game, because IMO it's starting down that road to always on DRM, and that is UNACCEPTABLE. At least Steam does have an offline mode that I can confirm works, but I can't confirm works if you've been off a long time (as you would if you ever had to cancel your Internet due to finances like I might one day).

The only reason I joined Steam was I bought follow-ups to series and didn't realize until after I had bought them they were Steam exclusive. Civ V and Fallout NV. My first two Steam games were both because their predessors were NOT Steam and these were.

THen recently I bought Divine Divinity there simply because the game is AWESOME but buggy, and I had heard the Steam version was a less buggy version than GOG's. Only own one other Steam game.

So yeah, I avoid it, but can't honestly say it's an out and out boycott. Although it may become that moving forward. Don't want to in any way support the message that it's ok to move towards always on DRM because that is UNACCEPTABLE.

I don't really boycott anything, except games with always online DRMs, I do however try to limit as much as possible the number of DRM using games (be it Steam, Origin or even Securom using ones) I buy each year; usually to max 4-5 per years.

This is ridiculous.
First, most Steam users probably don't even use the forums (They have like 30 million accounts but how many even bothers with a forum?).
Secondly the majority that do probably don't even know GOG exist.
Thirdly, I have never seen an open minded heavy Steam user when an upcoming game they're looking forward to is not going to be released there.
Fourth, your last sentence. Good argument. They don't have to care because so many games are released there. Seriously?

Frankly, as much as GOG have a lot of "Any DRM = no buy" to a ridiculous point at least it's justified if you have had a lot of trouble with DRM. Steam users who claim all games should be there only wants it for convenience which is nice, I agree, but convenience shouldn't take priority before probable issues e.g like DRM.

I had a terrible experience with steam. And with they own game: Half Life

I wont suppot they again.

And the worst part is that today some retail games NEED to be attivated online via Steam

I knew I shouldn't have added that paragraph as it takes away the focus on my main point: The Steam service is unnecessary. It's there, it works (most of the time, just like any other piece of software) and doesn't noticably inconvene most of its users - but it's not necessary, given that your end goal is to play a game you've bought.

My biggest issue with Steam - and any other service based distributor - is that you can't just buy a game from them, you have to buy the whole Steam (or Origin etc) philosophy. Another example is Apple's App Store - if they haven't approved of the app, you won't get it (legally). I do see the mercantile advantages of such systems, and I wouldn't mind owning stocks in Apple or Valve, but I'm loathe to take part as a consumer.

That doesn't make any sense at all. It's not like Beta vs VHS or DVD+R vs DVD-R where you've been "betting on the losing horse" - you can (and you do) have both games tied to Steam and games not tied to Steam at the same time. Or to put it differently, there are no financial repercussions in "changing your mind" and buy your first, new game on Steam. Leaving Steam, on the other hand, is only possible if you re-buy the same games (or those you actually want, anyway) without Steam - the bigger your collection on Steam is, the harder and more expensive it'll be. Which is (part of) the strategy that makes Steam (and others) such a huge monetary success.

Just for the record, I don't feel like I'm "missing out on some of the best games of the decade" - if I really were, I'd buy them on Steam (unless a better alternative appeared). That's why I signed up on GOG, to get some of the games I'd wanting to play (again) for years, that's why I signed up at GG (to get Mafia). I'm not too fond of the way GG does things so I haven't bought more there than I've felt comfortable with, and I assume I'd do the same on Steam.

Of course, on Steam it'd be even more along the lines of "do I feel like paying this much for being able to play this game only for the next 12 months?", but given my private economy, that would easily be a "yes" if I really wanted the game. Just like I could end up buying an iPhone - if I felt I could afford to buy another phone that I'd actually own in addition to it.

Like most people, sometimes I go to the movies rather than buy the movie on DVD, even if there's probably going to be someone talking in their cellphone in the audience, loudly spoken spoilers, butter (and other stuff you don't want to know about) on the seat, way too many commercials being shown before the actual movie, you can't pause it to go out for a quick smoke, a small box of popcorn costs $15 etc - I'm as masochistic as the next guy, I guess - sometimes we all do stuff regardless of the downsides. And if a movie were only to be shown in the theatre and never being released on DVD? I'd go see it if I really wanted to - just like I'd buy a Steam-only game if I really wanted to.

Well, I want to play the best games available. And for better or worse, many of those are Steamworks games. Masterpieces like Spec Ops come around every ten years at best, so I make damn sure I play them. I want the best, not what is lying around.

For me that means occasionally buying from other sites and being pestered by some stand alone installer and manual patches (Heck, recently I got a game that was retail only). But I still get to enjoy the game. On the other way around, however ...

Furthermore, the publisher is not my enemy. I don't feel that he forces anything on me. Publishers create the games I enjoy, therefore I respect their decision. I then decide if I like what they offer me and choose to buy or not buy. Starforce is a no-go for me. Or streaming. But not because I am afraid the "publisher might interfere with my games".

As weird as it sounds, it was the praise steam got from publishers and developers that actually let me embrace the platform fully.

I'm new to digital distribution. I've got a steam account but I try not to use it to much and I'm hoarding games on gog now.

No, they can just download from torrent with one click. They don't miss anything. Also they can play without any EULA, being online or whatever.

Actually they are that overzealous they refuse to buy the game if it not released on Steam.

Necessity? Wow. So clicking on a patch is very hard?