Globalization works in both ways I'd say.

Why not, console gaming has one.

The rise of the consoles and their conquest of the living room started with the Playstation 2 and Xbox - both launched before Steam did. By May 2007 Steam had 150 games on sale - by that time the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 had been released.
Digital distribution started with the Internet become more widespread and bandwidth affordable. Valve simple realised that opportunity first. The only thing I agree with, is that Valve started with the client-based DRM and made it popular - which however has nothing to do with retail sales or the problem that started this thread.

It's pretty easy to see why some gamers want to pay the russian price for their newest games. Not really hard to see the abuse here and why that change did come. But abusing the system then cry "abuse" when that hole get's stuffed - I'd call self-righteous greedy gamer.

Yet, they pretty much did. In capitalism consumers have ALL the power. What they support is what continues. What they don't support is what stops. Consumers embraced account-based digital "ownership" completely, and that is why it took off. They are the deciders and they decided.

And you can't blame ignorance. Consumers crave convenience, and Steam is much more convenient for most people compared to discs and boxes and manual patching and whatever else. Also most people don't care about DRM because they don't play old games or think the community will fix it if it ever needs fixing, so they don't factor that into their decision.

So, yes, consumers did it.

Context.

Out of context: Origin is not great, far from it. It's a DLC/DRM shop run by EA.

In context: Origin is great compared to fucking Steam.

Context: never post on the internet without it. :)

I have to agree, Origin and Steam are pretty much identical but Origin runs quicker now and has that excellent 24 hour guarantee option.

Of course it isn't an ideal solution, but its either same prices everywhere, essentially making games in many regions too expensive to buy or regional pricing with restrictions. Its not a great development but i can understand why they do it and the way it is now is probably not as bad as the alternative. At least people everywhere pay about the same price (as in percentage of average income), well ideally at least. Its not an unfair solution in my opinion.

I guess no one would bother if there was the occasional game gifted, but with all those trading sites around it was probably just a matter of time.

Just a quick question, why are Czech women so gorgeous?

Same reason why is czech beer best. It's because of...
Ops, almost revealed you our secret:)

FINALLY! This stupid thread has delved into a topic that someone of my intellect and sophistication can appreciate, chicks and beer! :D

Every thread that doesn't end with chicks and beer, is a waste of time.

Except Steam doesn't exist within a truly capitalist system. If it did, people would be able to resell the games they've bought. Steam is quite the enemy of capitalism, and quite the enemy of customer rights. Also, if this was about capitalism, they'd allow the free market to compete against them, instead of locking games to specified regions. If they want to have regional pricing? I'm fine with that- but they should have to deal with the reality of sellers buying from those regions and selling to others. They're making a profit off of this, why can't the Russians? There's something ironic when Russia is more capitalist, free, and pro-consumer than a company founded in the US.

Also, manual patches are a good thing. There are many times where a patch will break a game, and thus you would want to revert to an earlier patch (trust me, I'm having a lot of troubles with reverting Command & Conquer 3 to an earlier patch right now).

And are you seriously implying that physical discs are a down side?

Not trying to be insulting but I don't think you understand my points and such enough to really continue this debate. Have fun with the rest of the thread.

People reselling = less sales for Steam = less profit for Steam = not capitalistic.

Free market = other competitors. You DON'T want your customers turn into competitors in a capitalistic system.
Region lock - please check about the grey market and how it is handled in non-gaming businesses. Exactly the same way. Capitalism.

Sure. Still a large part of customers decided that they prefer Steam over retail and manual patches. That's free market.

a) the bigger the collection of games you own, the bigger the space they use in your room. Some like that, some prefer to use this space otherwise.
b) a physical disc can get scratched or break. Still have C64, Amiga or PC games on floppys lying around? Expect a large part of them being unreadable.
.... now where do I find a floppy drive for my PC nowadays, so that I can install Darklands again? .... scrap that, I'll use my digital distribution copy - problem solved.

Again, some may prefer them, some don't. But don't claim that there is no downside to a purely physical collection.
And again, the customer decides in the end. Not Steam, GOG, Microsoft, Apple or any other company. Just. the. customer.