I think Valve is neither particularly good nor evil. They didn't save PC gaming. It's less a revolutionary good or new service but one which is well made. They just want to earn money and they do it. Nothing wrong with it. However they could still be more customer friendly, for example skipping the DRM. I just hope that in the end either one of the two things happen:
- Steam will evolve into a nicer service without DRM more GOG like
- most games from Steam will also be available on GOG.
Both don't look very probable. And if one would need to define one evil thing then it would be the tendency to closed plattforms for Apple, Valve, ... This is the one true evil thing (for customers) the gaming industry is doing.

I wouldn't say that Valve makes an active attempt to screw over the customer, but I do agree that Valve has a very unique and very refined approach to PR. Gabe's statements against DRM, the "leaking" of the employee manual that supposely shows how we the customer are all-important, Greenlight, the Steam sales and so on. Valve's PR work is designed to achieve one thing and one thing only - make the customer believe that the company is being operated for their benefit, that Vave is operated by gamers, for gamers.

While I don't think much of Valve's business practices, you can't help but respect the fact that Valve has grasped one thing that the boards of EA, Ubisoft and Activision completely fail to get into their thick heads - the best way to succeed in the market is to get the community on your side. There are only two other major companies I've seen that really seem to understand this principle - CDPR and GOG - although GOG's follow-through in this regard often leaves a little to be desired.

I honestly can't say what actually goes on behind the scenes at Valve - whether their dubious business practices are a result of desperately trying to keep the major publishers keen or of an actual internal policy to have near-total control over the product to prevent secondhand sales, limit product liability and have access to a kill switch.

In terms of their business acumen, I respect them. As a gamer and a consumer, though, I can't. Everything they've done has been done better by some other company. Almost every other provider offers DRM-free downloads. Xfire and Raptr offer friends lists, voice chat, text chat and in-game overlay features. The only new thing that Valve contributed was account-based online DRM for intrinsically offline games. Is this seriously a feat worth celebrating?

I Steam, you Steam, we all Steam for arguing about Steam.

People here seem to forget that Valve provides us enjoyment of great games. And yes, Valve is making profit. That's how it works, no reason to be paranoid about it.

This thread is so funny.

I agree that Valve are as greedy as any company, and most of their actions are meant to gain loyalty for profit reasons. In the end though if all companies are out for profit above all (and they are) what is your reaction to that? To not buy anything ever? That means you live in a small village and grow your own food, and use... *shudder*... Linux.

The real response should be to keep your eyes open, buy games you want to support and remember DRM is pretty irrelevant and Steam will likely outlast your desire or ability to play video games.

Don't want to start another discussion but what is wrong about Linux? I am using Linux as my primary operating system for 6 years or more for doing everything including my job except gaming. I can not even considering using Windows again. What is this shuddering?

Wut? Barring a civil war, I intend to live to at least 70. 2012 is the 40th anniversary of home video gaming (Magnavox Odyssey). All home video gaming happened in the last 40 years. I won't even put money on Valve surviving in any recognizable form.

Well I plan to have kids relatively soon and probably lose internet in modern gaming eventually, like I have modern movies and television. We all tend to move on and I would bet Steam will outlast my internet by quite a ways.

You never know though, sure.

Highly unlikely ;) I think people need to look at the current generation of 50 year olds and look at what they did when they were young and you'll find that many still are involved with the same things. Instead of playing football, they watch it on TV for example. With games, there's no reason to take a back seat and a lot of people will happily keep playing - when you see how many middle aged and older people play games now, I can't imagine that I will be put off games simply because I age. I imagine I'll be more critical however.

It's funny that part of that is what people really latched on to. How many games have you rebought on GOG because physical media is a pain in the ass? Even if Steam games are 20 year rentals, does that equal no longer worth your time and money?

WRONG

I rebought none so far - it would be paying twice for small additional value. But also some of my favorite games are still missing. Civilization series I would probably buy again. And even for 20 year rentals I would wonder if I maybe wanted to play my games longer and then I would be screwed. That's what I value about physical media - the legal assurance of an eternal playability, or at least until the medium falls to dust. Maybe this is not even rational, because otherwise downloads are clearly more comfortable, but it gives me a feeling of satisfaction. In the end, the GOG model wins.

If you're going to consider 20 years as not viable for a 'rental' model then you should probably apply that to the 'GOG model' as well. Look back 20 years, see where gaming was then and how much you still use that, or are even able to use it. In 20 years, I don't have any particular faith that I'll still be using/able to use my GOG games. I don't even know if I'll be using a PC anymore.