Options are good. No one should sell anything on only 1 platform. I used to get excited about console exclusives. I felt that they would be more polished and niche style games since platform veterans were pouring 100% of their resources into the one game they were making.

Now... I feel like exclusives are nothing more than marketing tricks that money holders use to fight sales wars with.

Distribution platforms should be unique. Steam offers lots of features that lots of people enjoy. They should have the option to use Steam. I should have the option to NOT use steam. You should never have to pick your platform based on what games they have. Let developers be developers and leave politics out of their equations.

If Steam would completely overhaul their ToS/Eula, and Privacy agreements I could see me using the program for non-DRM games. Until they do that, I'll not use their program.

If Steam would stop being its own DRM, I could see me using the program for most games. (online features would have to be optional and customizable for me to use it).

Odds are, they aren't going to change anything and I'll keep not using it, but I'm keeping an open mind for if they do decide to compete on a more realistic and consumer friendly level.

The problem with Steam as a mandatory client is that developers are essentially forcing gamers to pick (with their wallets) TWO different companies everytime they buy a game. I first have to want to buy the game. Second, I have to be ok with DRM, third, I also have to accept the clients own ToS/privacy agreement which is different from the game. Compare to GOG where I download via HTTP and only have to worry about the game. Steam adds 2 extra hurdles to people choosing what to buy.

The part no one will read: This is great for those that choose it and have no problems with it. We should not be debating why people choose steam, but rather why we don't choose it.

Useless fluff. I'd rather they concentrate on getting me games that are in rights hell.

I'm happy for you, but I can assure you that you are in a very small minority that has never had any problems with Steam.

And as for describing a Steam shutdown as a "doomsday" scenario - well, that's naivety at its best.

Tell me, how many online PC gaming services from the mid-90s or early 2000s are still online today? Gaming technologies come and go like the passing wind, and fanboys will always swear blind that their platform of choice will never die.

Remember how people thought that the Sega vs. Nintendo war would last through the ages? Or that WON would never go offline? Hell, it doesn't even take bankruptcy for servers to be taken offline. Yahoo Music? How about the astonished reaction that Xbox LIVE was being taken offline for the original Xbox?

I like steam. I would prefer other options, but that's the way of things. I've never really had an issue with steam. However I can understand those that do not like it.

Steam is dangerous. Especially in large quantities. If it's not enough to boil the skin right off your bones then it could still suffocate you by depriving you of DRM-free oxygen.

It annoys me that some games are available only on Steam. So if a Steam-exclusive game appears which I absolutely MUST play but I don't want to buy from Steam - I am placed in a quandary. This sort of situation would never have arisen in the past. Thankfully there are so many games available now that this doesn't bother me too much in practice, but in principle it is just ... wrong.

I was talking about the cloud saving that you mentioned.

No, and if peeps keep buying from them and giving away keys they will take over the PC gaming world.
How sad that would be:(

So, we *are* talking about that then.

And what will you do when your HDD fails, or your CD gets scratched, after GOG has inevitably (as you descibed it) disappeared? Sure, you'll have an extra security layer if your digital supplier ever goes down, something to tide you over so to say.

Even *if* I had a whole game library of No-DRM games, and they were all on CD's/DVD's/HDD, double-triple backed up, and my digital supplier went down, you know what I would do?I would go looking for a new Digital supplier and rebuy the games I'm still fond of (for pennies by then no doubt).

Why? Because for me, on top of the convenience, the digital backup is a large part of my purchase. I'm done keeping local backups after my DVD's started piling up the same way CD's did before, and 3,5" and 5 1/4" did before that. I'm tired of it. It also covers my personal flaws of being absolutely crap at organizing/caring for things that haven't interested me for a while (tossing out games I wasn't playing anymore for instance).

That's of course ignoring the notion that by then there's quite likely superior versions of those games out there. Heck, it's the very reason GOG is doing so great. Not because all of us are getting these games for the first time. No, a lot of us are simply getting a digital backup of something we already have. An improved version. Or an enhanced installer which guarantees it works on the latest OS'es. Or an HD version that makes our beloved classics look better on todays equipment.

Heck, we are rebuying our games already right now, when we still have access to them. I have no doubt I'll be doing the same in the future.

I think Valve did good by creating Steam because it revived the scene. For many people, me included, buying a physical discs was obsolete and too much hassle compared to fast illegal downloads. But they did so together with keeping ridiculous region price policy, endorsing exclusives (HL2) and slowly eating the market by distributing its key on disc instead of actual content. As a result, nowadays it's almost impossible to buy a copy of game which you own. You need to install a bloatware and sign that you can be robbed of your legal purchases in a minute.
It was successful and it inspired likes like Origin, UPlay and now Xbox One.

I think Steam is good servant but a bad master. Its achievement system and multiplayer matchmaking is convenient. I would actually like if GOG developed something similar but optional.
Steam would be great if other non-restrictive distribution choices existed. GOG is great but let's be honest - new non-indie games are not something you can look forward to buy here now.

They closed a deals group a while back and made them promise never to mention an Origin deal again as a condition for them re-opening. I'd assume that clause is what they got you for.

To the OP, no, not really.

For myself, I'll buy games from here or places like Desura or Humble Store first if given the option. Waiting a bit for games is fine with me as I usually wait for sales anyways. If something were to come along that was steamworks only I'd only buy it from a 3rd party key reseller. After Valve used the EULA to block people from even single player offline games, I won't give them financial support anymore.

Edit: Removed the Xbox One comparison with the news from Microsoft that just came out.

Steam is convenient, but the DRM is too restrictive to make me happy with it. The scariest thing for me was when they altered the steam service agreement in 2012 to require arbitration. If you didn't click agree, you lost all access to your games. There should have been a TLDR at the bottom of it that says (in Darth Vaders voice): Steam is altering the agreement. Pray we do not alter it further.

So, games are not yours, and you pretty much know that when you sign up, but it's because of this that I don't typically buy any game on steam for more than $7.50.

On the whole, though, they have made a lot games available at low prices and I've only had occasional problems with accessibility. And if you want to play skyrim on the pc without resorting to theft, then steam it is (no matter where you buy it from).