With what I've noticed DVD just may outlast Blu-ray (at least with movies) since not all blu-ray players can play all blu-ray movies

...

The Blu-ray format allows for new features over time (3D, Live, etc.), which means no sudden format transitions, but it's then up to the manufacturer to care enough to release the software update necessary for older players to use the new formats. This is one of the reasons why the PlayStation 3 is said to be one of the best Blu-ray players even if you never use it for gaming since Sony has always kept it up to date with the latest Blu-ray features.

If you believe that your answer could be used to disprove your experience with the subject, then you're of course free to evade the question. I've asked a very simple question three times now, you evaded it every single time.

You have made a lot of claims. I am questioning the validity of these claims since they run counter to my experience and knowledge of these subjects. I have asked for actual substance to back your claims up, which I believe is a valid course of action: when speculations clash, you look at the evidence behind them. You haven't provided anything apart from vague general statements, despite having been asked three times. I think I'll let that stand.

So, let me sum up your argumentation here.

1. You acknowledge (as far as I understand you) that DRM-free games have the advantage of not relying on a third party, and can be backed up in a way that they are certain to remain playable as long as you provide the respective hardware.

2. You then go to great lengths trying to argue that this advantage is meaningless. To this end, you:
- assume that we will become unable to play DRM-free games due to changes in technology, neglecting the fact that decades-old DRM-free games have been ported to newer systems repeatedly, while especially DRM-ed games proved to be harder to preserve
- assume that it will grow too hard to maintain older hardware, neglecting the vast amount of hardware and legacy PCs around (and providing no actual evidence except vague generalizations)
- assume that new developments in Windows will make it impossible to use emulators
- assume that other operating systems will not develop in a way that they become even better alternatives for people who want to play old games

Your evidence for all these assumptions so far is: zilch. Whenever you're asked for actual substance, you evade the question and respond with generalizations. And the fact that you need to chain so many assumptions together to even be able to make your point doesn't seem odd to you?

Let me put it this way: If someone were hungering for that "Instant gratification" you wrote about, that ability to play the games that are currently not available DRM-free, then this argumentation looks like a pretty elaborate attempt to lull oneself into a feeling that "DRM-free" might not be that useful. I can understand that, but it doesn't make the argumentation less fallacious.

If you want to trade in control and freedom for the instant gratification of playing a new game immediately, then do so. Depending on what your preferences are, this may indeed be the better option for you; I'm not judging that. I often make this decision myself. I own several hundreds of games on GOG and hundreds on Steam, I can certainly understand that the trade-off may sometimes favor a purchase of the DRM-ed game. Just don't lull yourself into thinking that there is no trade-off or that the trade-off would be meaningless, because that is simply not backed up by the evidence we currently have.

I think most people like to feel good about themselves, and thus don't have a desire to run around commiting acts of "evil", like pirating games. And many pirates probably don't see themselves as evil, but justify their actions by the "fact" they can't afford the game, can't source the game legally, or believe the game studios are charging too much and won't miss one sale.

Similarly, game studios who use DRM aren't evil either. They just have a distorted view that all their customers are evil, which makes me wonder why they want to sell games to us in the first place.

When I buy a DVD, I get really annoyed when they start with the "Don't be a pirate", "Piracy is bad" clips. But on the far more rare occassions where a DVD starts with a "Thanks for buying this DVD" clip, I feel really good.

...

Hate is a strong word. Dislike may be better.

I don't use Steam because:
- I don't get to own games - I'm not interested in renting games.
- I can't make backups of games - unless I resort to the same methods that pirates use.
- I don't have the required broadband connection - I have a prepaid 3G data connection.
- I don't like being online more than I have too - the computer I'm using right now is purely for surfing the web.
- I don't trust cloud saves - I trust my ability to look after my own saves far more.
- I don't publicise achievements - my gaming is my business only.
- I want to be free to play games when I want to - no nasty surprises because of forced updates or Steam being down.

Thanks for saving me this work. For the record: his line of argumentation consists of appeal to fear, shifting the burden of proof, and (most evidently) argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I agree that "ownership" is a grey area, even regarding GOG games, as we're not allowed to resell them. However, I view the distinction as follows: if I bought a non-Steam game and the publisher folded, I could still legally play the game. If Steam folds, I can no longer legally play a Steam game. This is why I'm against Steam exclusives.

If you can backup your Steam games so that you can reinstall them without having to reactivate them again online, then I'm interested to know how you do that.

If Steam really had an offline mode, I might consider it. Anything that needs to go online to be able to go offline isn't truly offline.

My point with not using cloud saves and achievements was more to highlight that Steam doesn't offer me anything I'd regard as a benefit.

...

As you say, the legality is very grey, and what you say there is not quite right. If Steam folds, you still have a license to use the game, it is the service (Steam) which no longer works. The license to a game and rights to use a service are two different things. If you back up a Steam game you bought a license for, then you can legally play that game until the license is revoked. Steam folding is not the same as a revoke of licenses. The same principle applies for gog. If gog folds, you can still play the games, but you can no longer use GoG's services.

Point of interest, GoG can also revoke licenses, just as steam can do, and remove a game from your library, it is in the ToS. As stated before, the only difference in the regards of legal, buying and and renting discussion between Steam and GoG is that Steam can enforce this, gog can not. If you play a gog game where GOG have revoked the license, but you have made a backup before, then you are playing an illegal copy. So in the purely legally matters, they are very much equal.

Edit - some sprelling, probably more left.

...

I agree that I'm blurring the lines between legal and practical.

Let's take Skyrim as an example. If Steam folds, can I legally still play Skyrim? If so, then although I'm legally allowed to play it, the DRM would still prevent me from being able to play the game.

I'd assume that Bethesda would have to come on board and offer all their customers a free patch that would allow the game to be playable again. If they didn't, would we be able to bring a class action suit against them?

...