IAmSinistar: Ah, hubris. You are confusing cause with effect. Steam is not the origin of a modern resurgence of computer gaming, it is one of the platforms upon which this resurgence is taking place. It is the expansion of gaming as a hobby in the populace, which in turn fuels the profitability of gaming, plus the access to professional game-making tools by cottage game crafters, that are driving this renaissance. Crediting Steam with this is like saying Facebook made the web possible. The truth is the other way around.
Let me give a concrete example of why I find this kind of ahistorical arrogance objectionable. I'm an Amigan. I am part of the generation that truly reinvented computer gaming (and graphics, and sound), and brought it to the masses. Compared to that Steam is a trifle. It doesn't bring anything nearly as significant to the table, and nothing that any of its fans have told me about it leads me to believe it won't be anything more than another protracted flash-in-the-pan when the next business model comes along and trumps it. Sure, it's a popular service bringing a lot people what they want. So was MySpace. So was AOL.
I'll just leave
this here, then.
No offense but you're being an arrogant twit. This isn't about ego, this is about stating the obvious. You might not care about the things Steam has done for gaming but that doesn't mean it hasn't been extremely important, influential and invigorating to the PC marketplace. Any developer or publisher would tell you the same thing.
Auto-patching, a single library, digital delivery made easy, no backups, achievements on PC, DLC on PC, cloud saving, indies not needing a publisher to attract customers, sales, seasonal sales, Steam workshop making mods easy and soon SteamOS. And I am only naming what come to mind immediately, there are dozens more I am sure. It took the PC from a place where shitty console ports barely sold any discs to a place where a lot of those same types of games sell more on PC than the consoles they were built for, and where the PC is the talk of the town again. The indie resurgence wouldn't have even happened like it did without a strong, publisher-free platform for them to take over.
Your "forrest and tiger" talk misses the obvious: Steam was essential in getting the forrest we see today grown. The PC was not headed that way or growing that kind of ecosystem before Steam made it happen. You can ignore all this all you want and pretend Steam is not important, or a big factor in the PC's current popularity, but it's flat-out ridiculous horseshit, to be blunt. Disliking the platform (WHICH I DO) doesn't make this any less so.