Posted June 26, 2014
vulchor: What if Steam believes that taking a different approach, say leaving PC in the dust to support only the ARM architecture (not terribly far-fetched of an idea a few years from now, although I'd still be shocked) because supporting both architectures increases costs. You think they'll just give you all the games you bought, DRM-free? No. In fact, they don't even have the power to do that. Every publisher of every game that has Steamworks would have to sign off on that, and be forced with paying the development resources to unhook the two. No, instead they'll say "thank you, it has been a good run, you got years of use from what you paid us, and we even gave you free achievements along the way, but we've decided to go in a different direction, wish us luck (and fuck you)".
The money you paid them would have been better spent on hookers and blow.
joppo: Those are good points you're raising, Yes MS's position surely looked very solid 7 years ago, exactly like Valve's today. And there's no guarantee over Valve's future (or any other company's future for that matter). It could change from the inside or it could be led to change due to outside factors like a new technology or an even more powerful new competitor. The money you paid them would have been better spent on hookers and blow.
The Walmart analogy is spot on too.