1+1 = +2.

I used to be among those who boycott Steam, however my strict boycott has changed.

Now, despite its positive aspects (which do exist) I still hate Steam in it's current form (due to the lack of resaleability or an opt-out and the rights it potentially grants Valve, like taking your game away from you) but nevertheless I have accumulated a number of Steam games over the last copule of years. Either as boni in bundles that I didn't ask for, or as goodies from magazines/websites/etc. And I kinda don't see the point of letting free stuff go to waste, so to speak.

So I've adapted my stance as follows to reflect the new reality:

1. I will not reward Valve/Developers for using Steam, which means that I will not pay them money of my own. I can't help it if they receive money for a game in a magazine I subscribe to or a bundle I buy for a different game, but I won't actually go and buy a Steam game online or in a store.
2. I will only ever actively pay money for a Steam game if 100% of the money goes to charity (i.e. Humble Bundle).
3. If I receive a Steam key with a DRM free game, I will use the DRM free version and give the key away as I always did.

It's more or less the same as before (for me it was always about not rewarding a developer for a restriction of my rights as a customer), but takes recent developments with bundles and free goodies into account.

I don't boycott, but I don't actually even have Steam. I would pay extra for the games that don't need Steam to be delivered as a direct install, however.

I would also pay money for GOG to be a passthrough, to a similar tune of the above concept.

I don't want to boycott Steam at all, because I don't want to have anything to do with tose DRM supporting jerks.

I have never understood the rationale behind duplicating game licenses like this. You buy one game license, you keep the game (DRM free) and yet you still manage to give it away also. How is this different from piracy?

Would it be different if I keept the Steam version and gave away the DRM free one, or what if I kept the DRM free one and gave away the DRM free one?

That would be what we call 'charity', not piracy.

Poor rationalization. People do what they do because they feel it's right or whatever, that's just the way it is.

I suppose the difference is because people actually paid they feel they have the right to do whatever they want with it and the word piracy has a negative connotation to it.

Sometimes you overdo by putting more things into the mouth of the people than they have said themselves. It comes across as a tad pretentious. The guy might still differentiate between giving away the Steam version or giving away the DRM version and keeping it, while you aren't doing it.

Anyway it simply is a breach of contract, that's why it's illegal. Piracy is also illegal. But in this case he is not obtaining a game that he didn't buy, he is giving away a game he has no right to do so. I'm quite sure this is technically completely different from piracy, more like fraud.

Really? In another thread I offered to give away all my gog games... for some reason people did not think that was very charitable at all.

And just how is it different from piracy? You buy a game. You give away the game. And yet you manage to give keep the game at the same time.

Look, My sister and I share this GOG account, for example we bought Slender: The arrival mostly because she wanted it, I was kind of skeptic about it (not even played it yet since my computer has a poor GPU) we both played Botanicula, the main difference with pyracy is that someone already paid, nobody is making money from sharing it and that you are not sharing it wit several unknown persons, just with someone close to you, someone who also pays for the games to some extent, specially since when I need money to buy a game she helps me even when she is not interested in the game.

What you are just saying now is that piracy is charity - both duplicating licences and pirating game constitutes breaking TOS.

What words? He said he kept the DRM free, and gives away the Steam key. I may misread or misunderstood something, but the rest I did was a question, I did not put any words in his mouth. If I misunderstood him, then I am sorry.

And from the rest of the post, I see that you agree with me, if I did not misunderstand.

You say it's one license, I say it's two. It's even two technically different products, one of which I didn't want to begin with.

Not to mention that certain aspects of the TOS might not even be applicable, depending on the country you're from. Compare EULAs of which certain parts are worth precisely bugger all in Germany because they violate local law. Of course it's different, because the Steam key I give away can be used only once unlike the DRM free version which could be duplicated unlimitedly.

There's a lot of misinformation here. You can run most Steam games perfectly fine in offline mode, you don't need a persistent internet connection, you just need access for installation and patch releases. The installation part is a convenience for those of us with reliable internet connections, and online patch releases have been industry standard since the internet became a normalised thing. There have been issues with people being booted from offline mode, but Valve have confirmed that this is a bug (that they are working to correct), not intentional, and that it should be possible to remain in offline mode indefinitely. Most games also allow you to turn off the steam browser (this is a developer choice). Steam routinely has ridiculously cheap prices, and I've had nothing but positive interactions with their tech support. They've also confirmed that if Steam buckles as a company, all purchased games will be detached from the Steamworks infrastructure, allowing continued use by purchasers.

So what's with the hate? Just cos? Sure seems that way. Don't get me wrong, I love GOG's resolutely anti-drm stance, but the hate leveled at Steam here would really be better leveled at services like Uplay, GFWL and Origin - which routinely screw people over - not Steam, which routinely demonstrates that even though it could, it wont, because ethics.