My theory is that most people actually don't like Steam, but use it because such a large number of newer titles offer no other choice. There are other in game chat services, cloud save services and auto update services. Some of these may be way better than anything Steam does, but if someone is already using Steam because it is mandatory to play Game X then they have no need to even go looking. One of the more common pro Steam statements I see is something to the effect of "Steam is great because I can install the game on any computer, without ever having to find a disc and if my hard drive crashes I can just redownload and install my games." Now, does this sound like someone who really likes Steam, or someone who really like Digital Distribution but just happens to use Steam? Then there are those users who openly admit that they hate using Steam but have to use it for Steamworks games. They usually say they either don't buy the games from the Steam store or that they won't pay more than $5 for games that require Steam. Even though there are millions of users on Steam I would be willing to bet that very few actually like Steam for what it is. If all digital distribution sites had the exact same catalouges, and each user had the option to transfer all their games to the one service of their choice I doubt Steam would come out on top.

That statement is incorrect. Cloud saves and automatic updating can exist without DRM. The magic word is "optional".

Bingo. I have quite a few games on Steam, but I can't really say I like it. "Tolerate when there is no choice" is closer to it. Then again, it could be worse of course, just like lung cancer is worse than flu.

But then, a few things:

- Even though I don't really play on Linux (I use it for other purposes though), I find it admirable that Valve seems to be pushing it, at least for a show to light fire under Microsoft's ash.

- I would appreciate Steam a bit more if it was more coherent with its DRM. Now it seems to sell anything from no DRM to additional 3rd party DRM on top of Steam DRM.

See, the important bit is not that there might be other software out there which does what Steam does. There might be a software for multiplayer (gameranger), there might be a software for in-game chat (xfire, trillian), there might be software for in-game screenshots (FRAPS), there might even be software for cloud saves and universal patching. But to get all those functions on any given PC, you need to install 4+ pieces of software and still worry about handling the download and installation of your games. Advantage of Steam not that it does any of these things better than software dedicated to them, the advantage of Steam is that in the end of the day, you don't have to do any searching, you don't have to do any tweaking, everything just works. You double-click a game to install it and you get all the features automatically.

Sure they can, it's just I haven't seen any universal, yet optional solution.

Put it this way - I like the idea of Steam, but not its implementation. It's something that works a lot better in theory than in practice.

I agree with you that PC gaming was a far superior experience in the 90s and early 2000s, which I'd say really was the golden era of PC gaming. You'd buy a game, install it, apply the odd patch and play it with whatever hardware you had to hand. You didn't have to beg the publisher for permission to play your legally bought game, you could sell the games you no longer wanted and delve through thrift stores and fleamarkets to find out-of-print classics.

The idea of Steam is a sound one - have access to all of your games everywhere, autopatched. And in many ways, the idea of having a unified platform for PC gaming alongside PSN and Xbox LIVE is a nice one.

But while autopatching may save you a couple of minutes of googling and installing, it also forces you to use the latest version, regardless of whether it is the best version. There have been numerous occasions where patches have introduced game-breaking bugs - Skyrim, Dungeon Defenders, various Paradox games, for instance.

Steam's DRM leaves a lot to be desired. I have frequently had problems - especially during sale periods - with actually being able to play my games. I've had problems with retail keys being invalid. PC gamers long mocked console gamers for region locks, and yet Steam brought region locking to PC gaming.

Steam's support is nothing short of useless, but this is no real secret.

But one of my biggest problems with Steam is the attitudes of some of its most ardent fanboys. I personally find the ideas often put forward highly offensive - that it is too much work to change a disc, too much effort to go out and actually buy a game from a store, too difficult to download a patch. It lends credence to the of the stereotypical PC gamer: a fat, lazy, antisocial slob for whom leaving the house is too much of a chore.

And then there's the myth of the Steam sale - the idea that you can get $50 dollar games for $5 after just three months, although no-one's ever really managed to demonstrate a rock-solid example. What happens if physical were ever to be eliminated? Do people seriously believe that the sales will continue then? No. If competition ever disappears, you can look forward to paying $50 for years for your games.

But the sad thing is, Steam doesn't actually need all that much tweaking to become a superb platform. Offer DRM-free downloads alongside the integrated versions, stop irrevocably binding retail versions to accounts, and get a decent support team together. If Valve did those three simple things, I wouldn't have a bad word to say about it. Unfortunately though, publishers are for the most part only interested in Steam for its DRM, and if Steam ever changed for the better, publishers would just flock to the next big DRM scheme like flies to shit.

A ridiculous point in my opinion. Do you wash your clothes by hand? Do you walk to work instead of use a bike or car?

Using extra convenience when it's available to you is the most common thing in the world these days. I doubt you're excluded from it, you most likely simply don't even think about the other forms in which you are doing the same anymore.

Pointing at a group who prefers a small form of convenience and then implying that they are probably fat lazy antisocial slobs is just wrong, and there's probably bigger indicators of this type of stereotype right there in your house and most everyone's house, than the difference between an automated client and a no-DRM client makes.

I don't own any Steam games, so I think that says what I think of Steam

Funny you should ask.

Sometimes I do, if the stain won't come out.

Yes I do, except when it's raining heavily, because I don't like being dependent on my car. See a pattern emerging here?

You see, it's about choice and flexibility. I could optionally use Steam, but go for a DRM-free alternative for when Steam fails by installing a defective version or its DRM experiences problems. Unfortunately, we're denied this choice nowadays as many AAA titles are bound to Steam, UPlay or Origin.

Based on your analogy, I could take the more convenient option (Steam or the car). But if the car breaks down, you go by bike or take a bus. What do you do if Steam breaks down?

Your average rabid fanboy wouldn't have us use anything except the car, and the entire logic falls apart when the car refuses to start.

I haven't purchased a single game from Steam. Everything I have played on it was from a friend's PC. Personally, I hate Steam and the online activation trend it has brought.

Personally I value (relative) freedom over convenience so I am definitely not a fan of any system that needs to phone home every time I want to install/play my games or upgrade my computer, and of course that includes Steam.

Before I didn't really minded Steam that much but nowadays I am definitely not very fond (to say the least) of the nearly "omnipotence" it got over PC gaming.

This is such a controversial subject (yes, a veritable Pandora's Box) because since it first appeared - to the almost universal dismay and outrage of all PC gamers everywhere at the time - Steam has apparently now won over many, many PC gamers. How times change ..... for the worse. I agree with the OP totally though : I infinitely prefer GOG's version of digital distribution.

Sadly it looks like being spied upon and remotely controlled is well on the way to being the future normality, probably in all areas of life, thanks to the internet. Goodbye privacy, farewell solitude. Thank goodness for GOG.

I despise client-bound services in general, which includes Steam. Some people find them convenient, which is fine. I find them extremely inconvenient. The problem is that so many games are tied exclusively to some shitty client.

I will buy a client-bound game once in a while, but they're worth very little to me.

How do you connect a particular file with a particular user without "DRM"?

I will not touch steam with a ten foot pole. That client is banned under my roof, and I've blocked it in the router too.

Stuff like that and achievements and cross-game chat, etc are the reasons why GOG should have an optional client. I see no reason why they couldn't implement every last one of Steam's non-DRM related features. I see no reason why they shouldn't either. It is one of the few things that Steam has to compete on. I wish GOG would basically turn in to the DRM free version of Steam.