Kotick's next game is going to be called Soul Hero. It's going to be one of a new series of games that you don't buy. In fact you sell it to Kotick.

Is that a playful taunt or seriousness, cause quite frankly emotion sucks on the web.
OH, another thing I hate, how you always sound mad when you TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

Hold up, I just want to double check something here. You are the same Rohan15 who started the entire discussion about religion in this thread, aren't you?

No, I'm his clone from the year 2082. The prime minister of the New World Order Barrack Obama XX combined every religion into one true path called The One Way. If we don't follow it, we are thrown into meat shredders and turned into Soylent Green. We also have statues of great historical figures like Bin Laden, Al Gore, and Stewie Griffin. =P
Nah, just messing with ya. Yes, I did start it, but people still haven't stopped arguing about it. I just said my rant and stopped, so yeah....Join us! The one TRUE WAY!
I should really check what my mom puts in my dinner next time...

This thread needs to be bumped with a link to this thread:
http://forums.aceteam.cl/index.php?showtopic=897&view=findpost&p=8087
My main issue with these Steam defenders is that they can't seem to accept the unlikely happening. Their logic is, if something bad has yet to happen to them, it means it will never happen. Not only is it a strawman argument, it annoys me to see incidents where those who really have a case to build are not being paid heed to by the rest of the herd.
I have absolutely nothing against people who like Steam, but that guy who insinuated that my motives are questionable is a fucking moron.

There's lots of morons on the interwebs, and you should probably try and live with it :D
Of COURSE Steam defenders can't accept the reality, otherwise they would not defend Steam.

Aye, brother. Aye.

Unfunny post is unfunny.

As someone who doesn't like Steam, I have my reasons and those reasons are based on knowledge that most of these "Steam crusaders" don't have yet whenever I mention the reasons, there's always some of them who crawl out of the woodworks to argue that I'm making it all up or that I'm exaggerating but they fail to see that the problem is really one of a combination of factors.
I DO still use Steam but only for dirt cheap games. $5 for a game is worth the risk. $50 is not. I've had quite a lot of problems with Steam myself in the past - I could probably write a small novel on all my woes - but if others want to take the risk, that's fine by me. Just don't tell others lies about how Steam works ("If Steam goes bust, they'll make it so you can run the games without Steam!" <-- big lie!) and don't attack people who have genuine reasons for not wanting to use Steam.

That's hardly a lie as until such an event occurs, no one actually knows *what* will happen. Yes, sure, the legal documents concerned state they don't have to do anything, but that wouldn't stop something from happening. And if the demise of Triton is anything to go by, something *will* happen which results in the games connected to the service still being playable in some form.

Actually, it IS a lie because there's no way they can make that guarantee. Let's take a look at the possibilities:
- Steam is bought out: say EA buys Steam (they already made an offer for it and Valve already admitted they would accept an offer if it was tempting enough). Do you think Valve will still have a say about Steam games then? No they won't. If EA then changes the rules and lets downloads expire, or give people limited amounts of downloads, etc. (like they do with their own download service) it will be their choice, not Valve's. Also, if EA then kills off Steam, it's unlikely the games will get patched. EA doesn't need to abide by Valve's promises.
- if Steam gets involved in a legal conflict which causes it to get closed down: this is an option which many seem to forget is possible. Quite a few games have had their IPs torn up between developers and publishers (Star Control for starters) and guess what would happen if Steam ended up like that? No-one would be allowed to touch it anymore and that includes patching games. Steam would get locked down.

- If Steam shuts down because of financial difficulties: This is less realistic than the two above because Valve sure has enough money but let's say Steam DOES close down and Valve still holds the rights to it. Do you think they could patch those games to run without Steam? If you answer "yes", please tell me how publishers would accept all their games becoming available without any copy protection? Because that's what would happen! Steam IS the copy protection and patching it to remove the need for Steam would make them freely copyable to pass out to anyone who wants those games.
Also, multi player aspects tied into Steam would stop functioning regardless and they wouldn't be able to patch that anyway.
So tell me, how is it NOT a lie to pacify us? They can't keep their word - every single publisher would need to give their permission to patch the games and it's not like they have already given it.

To Steam's credit, the "promise" of letting us play our games offline if Steam goes under is somewhat unofficial. It's rumored, and Steam employees have been quoted out of context saying something to those lines so you can't really say it's a lie OR a truth.
Think unsubstantiated claim, nothing more, nothing less.

This may have changed over time then - I never used EA myself but from what I was told, it originally had a limited number of downloads and they only lasted a certain period of time too.
Well let me rephrase it then: it's misleading and meant to squash "what if" talk. And the claims were made by top ranking Valve employees so I wouldn't dismiss them - they may not have been official (it's doubtful they'd talk about doomsday scenarios through official channels anyway) but they still count and are often quoted by Steam fanatics. That's why I mentioned it in the first place because it's often used as counter argument despite being a load of bull for the reasons I mentioned.
That's a lot of "what ifs" as well - the current DRM would actually make it harder for them to patch the games since it's done by Steam at the moment (most games are activated without you being troubled). With Steam gone, they'd need to release certain software to manually let you activate the game - and you'd need the game serial of course, which is part of Steam and with Steam gone ...... well you see where I'm going.
Basically, there's plenty of other concerns if you look closer to the problem: Steam won't be there to patch games anymore and official patches won't detect the game so you'll be stuck with unpatched games, non-functioning multi player, etc. All this is still enough to make it a valid concern if you ask me, even if they do somehow patch the games. The point is: pro-Steam folks can't just say "they'll patch it" because it's conjecture at best.

Actually, no. No such claim has ever been made in an official capacity. There is an email reply supposedly floating around where Gabe hypothosizes that they MAY deactivate the authentication servers, but there is no proof whatsoever to back up the validity of that email reply. For all we know, it was created by someone else and never originated from Valve.
As for 3rd party DRM activation, none of that is done by Steam's authentication servers, but by the client itself. The systems are completely separate and not even dependent on the content servers. So again, IF anything happened which resulted in Steam vanishing and IF the requirements for online activation via Steam were removed, the activation systems for 3rd party DRM such as SecuROM would remain as is. Either being done automatically on first run or via the activation request pop-ups -- none of which are controlled by the online components of the Steam client or infrastructure.