I do appreciate the help you've offered and for taking the time to reply. I'll make a couple more closing comments here and then I'll drop the subject as I believe I got the answer to my opening question as to what Steam actually does to activate a game. It was not my intention to start a thread to either rant against Steam or defend it's existance, but rather to understand how it works.
They also make the perfectly reasonable assumption that their customers aren't paranoid about using the internet.
I am not paranoid about using the internet. My participation here and on other forums is evidence of that. However, that does not mean I wish to have all use of my computer tied to, and rely upon, the internet for my software to work.
Do you ever patronize restaurants or mechanics or, god forbid, doctors?
I do not see the analogy here. When you click on a link or visit a website, you do not know what that website is reading from your hard drive or downloading to your machine. If we did, there would be less of a need for anti virus, malware or adware software. Hopefully when you go to one of the places above, you do not blindly let them do anything before being informed.
That's their claim, regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not.
Only time will tell whether this is true. The downside if it is not true will be the loss of use of games which require Steam. All we can do is go by past history and what has occurred when prior server services have sut down - did they first make accomodations for software which used their sites/servers?
Two or three people could share an account, maybe, but 60 couldn't. They'd be constantly kicking each other off while downloading stuff; plus, that many people using an account is going to make someone suspicious. And, believe it or not, most PC gamers actually enjoy Steam's social features. I have a friend in Israel I can chat with, invite to games automatically, and even talk to with Steam's built-in VOIP.
How would Steam know it was more than one person accessing an account?
Just as a theoretical, let's say a group of people decided to use one account, or create one for each person, and share those accounts. Let's also assume they only want games which are run in offline mode. Would they not be able to each download the game and play it in offline mode on their machine? Or in the case of physical media, install the game and activate it?
The comment on social interaction is interesting, If social media is of interest to you, the feature is great. If you are like a lot of us who do not use (and have no interest in using) social media, then the feature is of no consequence.
I surely would. In fact, I wish publishers offered a lower price on new games that limits play to three days or a week or whatever. It'd save me a lot of money. Let me ask this of you: do you buy movie tickets or rent movies? I do. It's entertainment. Entertainment is typically less entertaining the second time around, and a lot less entertaining the third time around. Why do I need something to hang on to forever? I just sold a stack of 40+ boxed games because I realized I'd never play them again. Games on Steam are so cheap and so plentiful I don't have enough time to play the ones I've bought but haven't gotten to yet.
I believe you are talking about two different things here. One would be software rental. In this case, you would want to play the game immediatly for a given length of time. The other is buying the software so it can be played whenever you like for as long as you like. Both are valid and rental would no doubt save money for those who want to use software immediatly and for a limited time.
The comparision with entertainment is only slightly valid. Yes, seeing a movie the first time is better than the second or subsequent time. But, have you never seen a movie twice or watched a TV show rerun? There is some value is seeing something a second time.
However, games are very different. Have you only played Monopoly one time? Sure there are games which lose most of their value once you've played them. Games such as Lesuire Suit Larry lose their charm the second time because you've seen it all and figured out the puzzles. Although once a few years pass, you may play it again because most of it has been forgotten. But how about Doom or Quake? I've played them several times, especially when I can get new maps.
Game publishers sell games to gamers, not to museum curators. And why are you being so negative? Valve can simply stop developing the XP client and leave it running as a legacy version (Steam doesn't require an internet browser BTW; the client program has its own built-in one that isn't used in installing or launching games). Moreover, if Valve chooses to remove any game that requires XP from the store, they'll incentivize publishers to release versions compatible with newer operating systems, since they actually make money from old games people buy through the Steam Store (unlike those boxed games you bought from the bargain bin).
We have a forum filled with people who love the older games. I doubt they consider themselves as curators or their game collections as museum pieces. They bought the games to enjoy whenever they wish and to this day may play the most simplistic of games despite the new whiz-bang graphics of today.
If I buy a movie or TV series on DVD, it is not because it is going in a museum, it is because I want to watch it at some point. Maybe not today, this week, this month or even this year. And once I watch it, I may put it on a shelf and drag it out in a couple years to watch again. That is my right. While the content of that movie or TV show does not belong to me, I did buy the right to watch it whenever I want, as many times as I want. Same with buying a game. I do not own the content but did buy the right to use it when I want and as long as I want. If the "owner" does not want me to own the right to use the game whenever I want, then they should only offer rentals.
My comment on Steam (and the internet) being available in the future is simple. This is a vintage computer forum. As such, the people here are interested in vintage hardware and software. They may or may not be interested in using newer hardware/software to emulate older hardware/software. So bear this in mind as we talk about games bought today (or yesterday) made to run on machines (and software) available today.
I liken this part of the discussion to people who collect older cars. Someone who has no interest in older cars would probably wonder why someone wants to keep a car which has no stereo, GPS, video cameras, power windows, etc. Same with vintage computers. None of my friends understand why I keep these old computers - hopefully those on this forum do understand which is why we all are here.
So with this in mind, the games I have today I can play on machines I have today. Down the road, the resources required to access internet websites is going to greatly increase, probably even faster than in the past. How many machines have you had in the past which could access the internet but are now not up to the task? How many websites no longer can be accessed using your older browsers? Remember using 2400 baud modems? The point is this...if you have games today which rely on internet access for activation or anything else, you may not be able to get to the internet years from now using those same machines. The websites may require you to use browsers which are beyond the capability of your OS to handle and the hardware requirements may be beyond your machines limits. Those games may now be unuseable.
Your comment above about Steam not requiring an internet browser sounds as if it is only true if the client is already on your machine. If you need to get the client, you would have to access the Steam website and use a browser which works fully with the Steam website.
The issue is one of your perspective and your perception. When you buy boxed software, you're actually buying a license to use a copy of the software. The copyright holder is the one who owns the software. The only difference between games now and games in the past is that you actually have to account for your license now. Publishers would've done so in the past if the technology existed.
I agree. However, there are no time constraints on my use of the software. The software does not have an expiration date - if it did, I wouldn't buy it. Publishers can use whatever copy protection they desire as long as it is disclosed. The use of online services to authenticate and/or validate software introduces the possibility, and I would say the probability, that the service will not be around forever and your right to use the software, which you paid for, will be lost.
