True. I blame Atari with the 2600 for them.

I don't know... I like achievements, and I only got 1 friend on Steam (my better half). I like hunting down the more obscure ones for myself, it is a meta-game, it do not mean it needs to be a social game.

Achievements done right can bring more longevity in a game, and can also make the player try things they normally would not. Achievements done wrong... is not so good. But that goes for everything in the world, anyway.

Yeah, the Atari 2600 really shoved the social features in your face. You actually had friends coming over and playing with you, which is as low as you can go when it comes to being social.

Not to mention you actually had to take a photo of your screen then mail a letter to Activision to be able to get your patch. That meant interacting with people! People I say!

No, not really. You can buy over the web (I usually do). You can even choose to install from the web, and if your client is running it will install the game (though I haven't tried it). And you can choose to create game icons on your desktop when you install the game and launch the game from there.

Steam will still be running in background processes

LOL! ^^

Of course (except for buying, when you don't need it running or installed), and I understand the issue with the license and the client acting as DRM for most games (i.e. must run for the game to run). I can even understand your personal reluctance to have another task running (though I can't really understand why). What I don't understand is why this is extended to a general hatred where people (like you) make sweeping accusations which aren't real.

The main problem I have with it is that other people believe these accusations. Someone reading such a statement might believe that there's need to buy games through the Steam client, or that you are forced to be social. Most people believe that Steam forces DRM ("is DRM") and that it must run for any game on Steam to run. It may be true for most Steam games, but not for all, i.e., Steam doesn't force games to be like that.

What's worse, some developers believe that "Steam is DRM", and therefore don't even think that that they can write their game such that it will run when Steam isn't running.

As far as I know, every game that is "DRM-free" on Steam is also available DRM-free elsewhere outside Steam, so it's rather irrelevant.

Actually, that's the difference I acknowledged in my comment and see no point in. If GOG goes away, I can't prove that the copy I have was bought and paid for. If someone else somehow got hold of that copy, there would be no way of knowing if any of us bought it.

If steam goes away, sure, I have to crack the game in most of the cases, but I can prove I own the original copies just as easily as with the GOG copy - either the records exist somewhere, or they don't. I don't see a reason why one service should be viewed differently from the other in this hypothetical situation.

You want to push the piracy point of view, but as I said, while it might be a legally murky area, ethically or morally, I see no difference between these two cases - the service that got me the games is gone, but I'm choosing to continue to play those games anyway.

From a convenience point of view, I also see no difference. I don't keep backups on my hard drive from either of the two services. If any of the two services goes away, I will be downloading the games I already paid for, with no moral or ethical reservations, and probably from a torrent.

You want to make me think that the law matters to me in this case. It might matter to you, but it does not matter to me.

Heck, the law doesn't matter to me right now. I have no issues with piracy. The reason I don't pirate isn't because "it's wrong". It's because I like the services GOG, Steam and others offer me and I enjoy using them.

I wasn't making a law argument primarily, I was making an argument about having access to the internet.

Actually, the burden of proof in this case is on the complainant to prove that you pirated the game. No legitimate court of law would accept simple possession of the data as being evidence in its own right, only as supporting evidence to back up server logs, actual sworn statements that you were seen receiving a pirate copy of a game etc.

Otherwise, if Steam or GOG ever quite easily deleted your entire account and denied that you ever had an account with them, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Besides, you have the receipts that are sent to you by email, and in the case of GOG games, no-one would ever know that you had the games anyway if you kept playing them.

But plenty of legal ones.

See, unless you keep your email receipts for your games, you have no evidence that you own licences for these games. And while it is permitted in most jurisdictions (Germany, UK, most recently also the US as well by way of a newly established DMCA exception).

And even so, you may find yourself having to prove to a law firm that you own said licence.

Crazy hypotheticals aside, while there should be customer responsibility, the business is still ultimately responsible for providing quality customer service for instances where a customer accidentally purchases a game that doesn't fit their system requirements.

Not all users are tech savvy enough to even know what their system requirements are, or aware of the various tools or websites which can help them. Perhaps if the company linked in a system like "Can You Run It?" directly on their sales page, they would be responsible enough and thus treat the consumer good enough to be justified in denying a refund due to extreme customer incompetence. Although they should still probably issue a refund.

Not only is good customer service something we as consumers should demand from companies to the point of boycott (else the bigger companies will screw us over, like they do now) but it is actually GOOD for business in the long run.

I bought a game that was falsely advertised on Steam as a copy of another game. Literally advertised that it is basically the same game but updated. So much changed, it wasn't even close to the same game. Dissatisfaction is enough to justify a refund in any brick & mortar store, but Steam thinks otherwise. Oh well, right? Wrong. The game didn't work. I played the game 5 separate times, consuming 3+ hours total. 3 of the times, it crashed in the middle of a game (anywhere from 10 minutes to 30 minutes into). The other two? I completed the incredibly lengthy, repetitive 1+ hour long tutorial (Level 1), and the game didn't save. I was told by the Steam CSR that it isn't their fault they sell a defective product, and my problem relies with the developer. So I check the developer's forums, and find that it is an extremely common problem for games to simply not save after beating a level. The game says "Save Successful", ends the level you're on, but doesn't actually create a save file. I put in my request for a refund due to the defectiveness of the product (Not being able to save, literally means endless hours wasted, having to repeat the same levels, and each level takes 1-2 hours to beat.) Guess what? They told me to go screw myself. I fought with Steam for over a month, and by the end of it the incompetent boss of the boss of the original CSR told me that now the product has been patched, over 1 month after I purchased it, and the save problem is fixed. Not the constant crashes, not the extreme disappointment, and ignoring the fact I requested a refund over 1 month ago.

I basically showed the higher up employee that I have spent hundreds of dollars every year, thousands in the last 5 years. I told him that the game was only $20, and that deceptive descriptions, unplayable crashes, game-destroying bugs, and extreme dissatisfaction is plenty enough to justify me getting a meager refund of $20. I told him I honestly didn't even care about the money, given the fact it's so little. I wanted to be treated with respect as a consumer; let alone an extremely loyal steam fan.

Guess what? They have to date, lost over $500 in sales because they refused to give me my $20 refund. I've never requested a refund before in my entire life, and the CSR decided that 1 second after I purchased a $0.60 DLC package and put in a ticket "Oops, wrong DLC. I meant this other $0.60 pack." was my "One Time Refund". Mind you, my ticket also included why I was confused: They had swapped out the title of two different DLC packages, and so DLC#1 was named DLC#2, and DLC#2 was named DLC#1. They didn't fix the titles, but they did give me that 60 cent "One Time Refund". The CSR also reminded me that it is their generosity, not their policy, to give out "One Time Refunds" so he doesn't even have to give me one. Honestly, I have no idea what his problem was, given how nice I was about it in the tickets, even praising steam. I was a very, very loyal user at the time.

The CSR literally told me that he doesn't care if they lose me as a constomer. Someone who has given them thousands in sales for over 5 loyal years, constantly gifting friends games, and buying nearly everything through them.

So as you can see, Steam has become like any other company. So big, they don't care about their consumers. So big, they care more for the $20 short term over the $2000 long term. I can only assume that with any other company that purposefully decides to lose money over time, they do so based on the strategy of short term gains, which manipulate their stocks and benefit them more in the short term despite the heavy loss in the long term. It's an extremely common practice for businesses, and a big reason why so many go bankrupt or sell out in the long run. In business, there is actually a legit term for this type of short term gains strategy, but I am not well educated in business so I forget what it is called.

Go ahead and try to buy a game that is a scam, such as War Z. Try to buy a game that has tons of bugs and problems, that make it literally unplayable despite far surpassing minimum system specs. Try to simply ask for a refund for $1.00 because you are dissatisfied with a product.

And if you buy into what they say about how digital goods are non-refundable, do your research in business and simply think about it. Steam decides to have the no-refund policy. It isn't because their hands are tied, it is because they want short term gains over long term profits.

Consumer Responsibility? This is simply a term for bending over, opening wide, and asking big business, "How long would you like to screw me?"
There is a reason small business owners have policies which guarantee customer satisfaction, or why certain non-digital businesses issue refunds or coupons directly simply because someone calls them and says "I didn't like your food." or "Your product SUCKS." or "Your employee was rude to me."

If these small businesses can take the hurt that a full refund on an expensive product to keep customers loyal, how much more can a massive monopoly such as Steam do so, and so much more. There is no excuse for a business as successfully large as Steam to deny its customers refunds when games do not work, are too buggy, falsely advertised, or simply dissatisfied. And you would be a FOOL to think that Steam wouldn't be able to weasel out of paying for the digital copy they sold which was "returned". Businesses claim that digital content can't be refunded because the person can simply keep it. However, they fail to mention that the person could just as easily (sometimes MORE easily) pirate the game if they truly wanted to steal, so more than likely the customer will legitimately return the digital goods. If a developer wants to be payed for that copy sold by Steam, and Steam is legally obligated to that developer to tell them of all sales, then Steam could simply say "We issued refunds for this many of the copies, so we won't pay you a dime for them." What is the developer going to do? Pull from Steam over chump change, and lose out on selling their games on what is basically a PC gaming monopoly? Yea right. However, Steam could also very readily pay the developers the chump change and say "You're welcome :)" making themselves look even holier in the eyes of gamers, as if they're being generous.

Don't be so easily fooled. The profits of businesses like Steam are astronomical, and the ONLY reason they have a no-refund policy is because they are able to screw over customers like that and get away with it.

Ah yes, I am extremely, extremely jealous of you.

This only proves my point, and validates my rant.

Steam's policies are literally there to the point they have to be. In the US, they don't HAVE to treat their customers with basic decency, so they don't. In other countries, they HAVE to, so they do.

It's pathetically sad, but proves my point entirely about how corrupt Steam has become, and how much they value short term gains over long term profits.

Thank you VERY much friend, this is something I was too dull to add, and amazing evidence :)

And once more... I am brimming with jealousy.