I give valve credit for not just sticking us with a crappy product, but instead continuing to devote resources on fine tuning what was, from the start, supposed to be a multi-company, collaborative effort, that has instead been brought in house for them to reap the benefits of. Thats a smart move, it puts them at risk for the financial troubles previously mentioned, but its going to pay off, like it or not. Why criticize?
Damn I'm tired of Valve apologists. Why should I give them props for taking a business risk? WTF do I care about their business risks? What I care about is how the product works.
If it works for you, great. It sucked rocks for me. You know what is helpful for software that requires a login? A freakin' login dialogue. Guess what you have when Steam forgets how to draw one, like it did for me? Big useless chunk of hard drive, that's what.
So don't expect me to excuse Steam simply because Valve hired a couple of MBA's. I have games on CD from a decade ago that I could play today if I wanted to, but because of Valve's implentation I wasn't able to play a game a purchased in a store weeks earlier. What does that have to do with digital delivery? Nothing, that's what.
I think digital delivery could be the bomb, if it's done right. I don't think Steam is doing it right and thanks to my experience with it I will probably avoid Valve products from here on out.
I love how if a Derek Smart game has problems with it's copy protection everyone and their dog on Blues has a field day cramming it down his throat, but if people report problems with Valve then we get a dissertation about how they are innovating the industry.
Why criticize? Because it bricked my game and nothing in their tech support covered it, so I deleted and won't trust it again. If that's not a reason to be critical of something, nothing is.
This comment was edited on Oct 12, 12:10.