ok, but somewhere you own your copy, fully downloadable and then FUNCTIONAL no matter if site its downloaded from still exists or not.

in addition i dont play online games but single

This sounds like about how I feel about the matter. Including the offline serial key bit, which isn't that hard to keep track of.

I just want a nice file I can download, install, and play wherever on my computer(s) without having to run any separate clients. That's my main thing.

I don't boycott Steam but I don't really like it either.

If a game that I want is available on both GOG and Steam, I buy it on GOG no questions asked. GOG is my preferred platform by far.

Basically my stance as well. I'm not above buying a game from Steam if I absolutely, positively have to have it, there's no other place to get it, and it's discounted enough that the financial hit from me losing access to it is trivial.

Other than that, I'd either buy it straight from the developer or from GOG.

Some love Valve, some hate it, I think its convenient (even if I somewhat hate them as well). Of course its a money hungry corporation (which had its major fuck ups like any other big corporation) and Steam exclusive games suck big time, and actually Id love giving them the finger, but I have many games on there and having them in a library is better than hundreds of CD´s and DVD´s flying all over the place IMO.
And since I already have bought a lot of games on Steam I wont stop doing so, of course if I know that a game I want is coming to gog I rather buy it here, but if said game is staying Steam exclusive Ill rather buy it on there than miss out on a game I know Ill have have fun playing.

Not the first time I heard this argument and it is still invalid. Yes, you never own the rights for a game, back before online distribution that was also true: you never received the source code but the physical copy of the game was yours.

This is a fight for consumer rights, this has been a directed campaign from big conglomerates to destroy those common, basic rights for profit.

The copyright millennium act took away (furtively) your right to backup your copies, so a scratch disc was another sale.

Later they destroyed the second market. Somehow digital goods are different than physical ones and you can't sell your used games. Why? Because online technology allows them the means.

Lend your game to a friend? Nope again prohibited for their benefit.

You lost the right to use the product you bought without warning nor reason.

EULAS are a contract that can be modified for only one party's benefit at any moment. How is this fair?

The next step is making software a "service" instead of a product and demanding a monthly payment for their use.

Last, don't forget that software is increasingly paired with physical products so basically we are heading to a world where you don't have propriety, only a "License" (Anyone who own a printer can testify the fairness of 500% over cost cartridges).

The consumer doesn't have a voice anymore, big media has more resources to promote their agenda. They simple buy theirs laws.

While I may come across anti-capitalist, I agree with this. Buy a book and you no more own the word in the book than you do to the source code of the game you buy, but you own the book.

However that laws are starting to catch up on this unbalanced situation. OWnership rights have been return to software licenses. Unfortunately computer games may not be software, so we have to wait for new law to cover them.

I don't boycott steam per se, but a steam game is severely devaluated. Therefore, I don't pay full price for a steam game, ever. I'll wait till they are 10 € or so, I kind of find that a price I'm willing to pay for a rental.

Some productivity software already does this, is the troubling thing. You can't buy Adobe products standalone any more, for instance; you can only access them through a subscription.

At least for games MMO's have largely moved away from this model to "F2P'.

While I can agree there should be some form of consumer protection, I don't consider it fair to compare to how it used to be with physical media. It is not the same. I couldn't share my physical copy of the game with someone in Tokyo japan in under a minute and have it back a couple of hours later when he was done with it.

Sharing with physical media was extremely limited by locale and involved either time, cost or both (if you send it to someone).

I personally don't consider the option to share my game to be something integral to my consumer rights. At least not beyond the household I'm in. "If you play it you pay it" is basically how I see it. To me that feels fair. I think that system would work perfectly fine, and I'd like consumer rights to be focused on making sure that if you paid for it you can play it and retain your rights to that purchase.

It is this situation which most annoys me with Steams Family Sharing.
Sharing with someone 1/2 way around the world can easily be done and the chances of you stopping each other playing are near 0. However sharing with a child that lives in the same house, there is a near absolute chance that one of you will not be able to play because of the library lock.

Steam Family Sharing is the exact opposite to real life sharing.

It's certainly not perfect. Though it's doable with one other person. We're doing it with Fallout at the moment, she's playing my game on her account with family sharing while I'm playing it on my account (offline).

Unfortunately there are a few more of us. I've given up on SFS and just do what everyone else did before hand. Use main account offline.