ET3D: 'Owning' doesn't have inherent value, and therefore decisions based on it aren't rational.
Pretty sure owning has a value, and decisions based on it are rational.
Owning can imply various things that have value. For example, owning something that you can sell has that potential value, so if you sell the stuff you buy that then owning it certainly has more value than renting it. On the other hand, you can't sell GOG games, so you don't get that value. (And is the reason I quote 'owning'.)
That's pretty much the problem with digital games nowadays, DRM-free or not. There is no method of transfer that works properly until now. But until then, DRM-free games are simply more valuable than Steam games, due to their longevity, and their playability no matter the given situation.
The sole benefit of 'owning' games that you're talking about is that they'll be at your disposal forever. That's something that has a particular value based on your usage, and I tried to quantify it. I think I was generous.
You were far from generous. There's all sorts of value in owning it far than having it forever. The DRM-free game simply can be played on as many devices as I own, can be played on a fully offline computer, can be reinstalled as many times as possible, do not need an account to run, etc. These pretty much should raise the value of a game tenfold.
It's of course possible that for specific people the value is higher, as I said, but I think you're trying to argue that there's something inherently bad in 'renting' (which I again quote because it's not the standard way the word is used), and there isn't. It lowers the value in a small way.
Yes it lowers the value in a big way. You don't own the game by any stretch. A Steam game is governed under the SSA, which deems that your games are okay for as long as the duration of your account. That and reverse all the things I said above about DRM-free games, plus add reliance on the publishers' services and being on good terms with them. Not that renting is inherently bad, but what's inherently bad is when the industry offers no way to own the game and instead force us to rent and make up excuses to back this thought up.
Your assertion is based on nothing, and it would be just as correct to say that most GOG purchases end up unplayed. Buying a game and not playing it is of course illogical in any case, but arguing that paying twice as much for a game you'll never play just to 'own' it is even more illogical. If you either play the game immediately or you never play the game, paying half the price is better.
I see a higher percentage of games being unplayed on Steam than on anywhere else because of the compulse purchases. Of course, it depends on whether I'll end up playing said game or not that my decision be logical or not. If I see no reason to play, I see no reason to either own it or rent it with my money. And if I want to play immediately, it is owning or nothing.
As you clearly say, your decisions are based on the vibe you get, not on the actual value.
I'm not the only one judging the value by the vibe here. Many do. Many prefer to pirate their games and be outright pirates than be treated by big companies as consumers with a great potential to be pirates. At least pirates enjoy cracked games, superior beings to DRM'd games.