Good that is now cleared. Then it should apply consistently, also to the analogies I presented.

- Ubisoft and other publishers can't be blamed for using 3rd party DRM like SecuROM/TAGES with installation caps with their Steam games, because they obviously lack a principle of not using such DRM methods. (The original point to which I replied suggested that the publishers can still be blamed for doing it, but Steam can't really be blamed for allowing it in their service).

- A manufacturer makes products that purposely break down right after the warranty period, and a brick and mortar store in a dominant market position knows about this feature, but still allows those products to be sold in their stores, because they want to keep good relationships with those vendors. They are both above criticism when some people get "steamed" over such practices. Hey, lack of principles, the universal jail-free card.

- The landlord gardener who is renting allotments to subtenant gardeners, can't be blamed for allowing and even _enabling_ the subtenants for using questionable fertilizers. He just lacked a principle regarding using questionable fertilizers in his garden by his subtenants, hence he willingly allowed the practice. Otherwise he might had lost some of his subtenants.

In that case we just need to agree to disagree, because I don't feel lack of principles elevates one above criticism, when it is something one could directly affect.

Not even going to bother read any analogies. They are pointless, because not care about DRM = Not care whether a game is with DRM or not. This do not need any analogy. It is clear.

edit - or to put it differently. Since it is so clear, any analogy made is not to clarify any issue, which is why we need analogies and what they are for, but to twist it towards whatever bias we have. That is why any analogies is pointless when the issue is so clear, it is just to transparent. Analogies in this case do not 'clarify', but 'muddles' so that whatever we want to put through gets a spin towards what you want. You are very good at it, by the way.

But when a Steam customer has an issue with certain DRM that Valve allowed and maybe even enabled in their own service, it shouldn't be unthinkable for him to blame also the service provider for knowingly allowing (and enabling) it. You act as if the service provider/store owner is completely irrelevant in the chain, just because he doesn't care what his clients are doing (but knows).

Not care (while knowing about it) whether the product you keep selling in your store breaks right after warranty period = Not care (while knowing about it) whether the product you keep selling in your store breaks right after warranty period. Doesn't make the store owner blame-free though, just for not caring but still actively selling such products and making money by it.

What warranty period? Do my games break down? No one told me...

You mean agree with you and get a +1 or disagree with you and get told why I'm wrong about everything? :P

I'll just continue enjoying all of my services for the reasons that I do, while not pretending that any of them are without faults. Thank you very much. ^^

This is fine, it is clear standpoint, you should stop there

This is a pointless analogy, which brings nothing to the table except muddling things.

What games? What on earth are you talking about? Nowhere in that message I mentioned any game! Why are you trying to muddle the discussion? What year was this again?

(That's my amok-impression for the day. :))

nah, never mind.

Its really interesting that people still defend Steam bad practices and use the "don't care" about DRM argument especially in a place that is about no DRM which for me give me a bleak idea about the percentage of people who "Don't care".

First of all, I want to point out that I believe if games disappeared tomorrow nothing will happen to the world problems, i.e. games are not that important to start with. But its buzzling that people are still arguing that DRM and Steam practices are not a problem with the gaming industry and take it upon themselves to defend them while in fact its the same companies that are hurting the hobby they enjoy.

Its same as people defending free 2 play games like LOL servers going down because its a free game.

But for me worst thing is people defending companies like Google who their whole purpose is to invade their privacy using same arguments free and don't care.

I can understand if you don't care and use steam but taking it upon yourself to defend their bad practices using the don't care argument or being an advocate for a bad practice defeats any logical explanation.

I think that the main crux of that problem is that what you see as bad practice, others see as good practice (or tolerant practice, or "not really care about it" practice).

This conversation
It's like Commodore vs. Atari, PC vs. Amiga and so on. Why can't we just agree to disagree and go play games?

I think I have posted this before, but I feel it is more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaUyaLZSoTc

Oh I see, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you then. Well... The model is getting extended to PC usage, more and more - MacOS mostly does it already, and I can see Windows going that way as well. I'd say that my general reply to that would be that using and maintaining a machine should be clearly defined and divided, not overlapped. Usage should be as simple as possible without any need to understand what's going under the hood so the maintenance can be handled completely by someone else - for example, learning how my oven works to mechanically fix it so it works on the right temperature for me to cook my meal is not something I want to divert my time to.

Too much love and sex to make a good analogy :)
Reminds me of 'Hell is repetition' from Storm of the century. Both this clip and this discussion :)