It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Mnemon: I am not that convinced that their steam boxes won't be making losses, for example. Entering hardware and doing well is well hard.
I think Steam boxes are almost entirely a 3rd party thing, they're not made by Valve. The concept + software comes from Valve, but the boxes themselves is someone else's risk. (could be wrong, haven't kept up with those)
Post edited November 21, 2015 by Pheace
No, I don't think that would be entirely pragmatic.

However, I make it a point to give a preference to games available in the gog library even if they are a tad bit more expensive. Despite the fact that I have not made any video game purchases in the past 6 months due to a overdue backlog.
avatar
Rusty_Gunn: Not necessarily, while I don't see this happening during current management, but let's suppose in the future Valve makes the decision they need more money, they may try making the service pay-2-play on top of the cost to "buy" the games. that could potentially cause an exodus to more forgiving stores & if enough leave it could cost more to run servers than Steam may take in. Hence PC gaming wouldn't have to die first just Steam gaming. After all PCgaming was around before Steam & could out last it as well
avatar
ET3D: I answered this here (on this thread). The short of it is, even if you assume that Valve will end up doing something mortally stupid (an unlikely assumption by itself), this will simply make it a buyout target for another company. For this buyout not to happen, something bad must have happened in general to PC gaming.

avatar
lazydog: Keep living the dream. Maybe it will last forever FFS.
avatar
ET3D: I think it's better to live in a dream than in a paranoid nightmare. :) Also, if losing my games is the worst that would happen to me by the time Steam dies, then I'd consider myself lucky.

I just look at it realistically, if your only reason for not buying on Steam is that your games might disappear (and there are other legitimate reasons to avoid it) then I estimate that on average it's worth paying at most 5% extra for that. That's for the small percentage of games you'll actually want to play or reply enough to re-buy them after Steam dies, under certain assumptions I consider reasonable (but of course won't apply to everyone). Far as I'm concerned there are only two valid reasons to avoid buying games which are significantly cheaper on Steam or games not available elsewhere, and that's ideology and comfort. Fear of losing games isn't a logical reason, it's more a psychological problem.
Fear of losing games is not a logical reason? You mean fear of losing the licence to use a product that you have legitimately paid for does not concern you? That is not a psychological problem. Fear of losing the ability to use a product you have paid for is not and has never been a psychological problem. That is plain and simple poor reasoning on the part of the consumer in an event that will occur, sooner or later.

Steam has been consistently called out on making it's own rules up and they have been challenged as anti-consumer.

Steam is a bloody shop, nothing more, nothing less, but somehow they have obtained the right to allow or disallow you the ability to use the software as licensed with the added caveat that should they cease to be....well what exactly?

I know of not one publisher or developer that has ever put in place an escape route for the consumer should and when steam fails to allow the user access to their own licenses to play their games hidden behind steam servers.

Wake up.
avatar
lazydog: Fear of losing games is not a logical reason?
By its definition, fear is a strong emotional reaction, just like you were having when posting your response. Fear of losing games is the same as any other fear or phobia, an exaggerated response to a risk. How much is your game collection insured for? That's the amount it's worth to you. Anything over that is just an "oh my God, how dare they" response that has nothing to do with logic.
avatar
ET3D:
avatar
Pheace:
Ye. I don't think Steam boxes is what would push them over. But it's just an example of a move they made that is a fairly risky in terms of success. There obviously isn't an example of how Valve might fail given they haven't. But as said it's happened too often - and especially successful companies that are set in their ways can be vulnerable to 'disruptive' business ideas.

Steam itself is an example of one of those after all - and pretty much killed a lot of the physical sale of games dead.

Even Apple - despite their success now - has been on the brink a couple times.
I've been turning away from Steam. I just find the Steam store is too full of Early Access and un-curated garbage. GOG, despite a smaller catalogue and having turned down some games I think should have been accepted, just works better, and now that Galaxy is coming to give a client solution to keeping games up to date and tracking achievements (I'm a bit of an achievement whore, I'll admit) there's no real reason to stay with Steam other than lethargy.

And GOG has started embracing Linux which is was the icing on the cake. I know Steam does too, is pushing a whole OS in fact, but Steam also has Steam support if there are any issues, and that's enough of a reason to get anybody to switch.