I did some thinking last night and I think I understand the misconceptions you are suffering from, Riley.
1. You do not own the software, you own a copy of the software. All rights pertaining to the game are reserved by the Publisher/Developer. Pretty standard stuff there. That's why they don't like it when you hack the software, pirate it, etc. It's also why you are supposed to buy multiple copies to use on several PC's.
Your whole argument is based on your percieved invasion of privacy and your dislike of Steam. You claim m00zilla as the holy grail of why Steam is bad, based on a single email from Valve, and yet none from m00zilla. What about Microsoft? They have the same capability, you know, and they are much more invasive than Steam could ever be, as you are running Windows constantly. Remember the whole fiasco with XP about how if you changed the hardware in your system to a certain degree, you had to call them and get Windows reactivated?
2. After some thinking, I was wondering how a single person could forge ahead in such ignorance, posting with such obvious hositility and using antagonistic prose that is designed to get a reaction from whomever you direct it to. Let me tell you the story about a viral marketing technique. It's where a person is paid to antagonize people about a certain issue in order to see where the prevalent general opinion falls. It's not about promoting your view, but simply to piss people off enough to respond with their own opinion. Because, let's face it, you're not doing your cause any good with such posts. As people have stated, you're promoting opinion as fact, with no solid evidence to bear up your views, or a distorted vision of what your rights should be, rather than the reality of what they are. When you feel that your argument isn't winning over someone, you then switch to namecalling and lacing your posts with invectives and antagonistic words.
Also, by cracking the code to bypass Steam's server browser functionality in older software, you are stating that you would intentionally open up your computer to other people skilled enough to do so as well. But oh yeah, they wouldn't do anything bad because they aren't a business.
I don't, but it's a moot point. Fundamentally Valve has poor customer service because it doesn't have telephone contact for it, it doesn't compensate users when they are unable to play their games due to problems with the Steam software or network, it hasn't provided sufficient redundancy in the network to avoid the outages and capacity shortages over the years, it doesn't provide any guarantees of availability especially the long-term availability of games purchased via Steam, and it doesn't provide users with the flexibility to have final control over the use of their own purchases. The individual accounts I have read by aggrieved users who are afflicted by one or more of these many limitations and shortcomings simply demonstrate their existence. Even if the majority of Steam users haven't yet experienced any of these problems doesn't mean they won't at some point because Valve has done nothing substantial to rectify them.
This statement was too funny to pass up. I'm sorry, but this is full of the most ignorant crap I've heard in some time. Compare Steam outtages of the past to Steam outtages of now and tell me no improvements have been made. That's just observation there and opinion. Ok, I can accept that. However, provide me proof they haven't done anything. You're trying to present this as fact, but it is merely your opinion. You even state the majority haven't experienced these issues, which then leads me to believe that perhaps the problem doesn't lie with Steam? I mean, if you have 20 millions users, and 100,000 of them are having problems, do you honestly believe it's Steam causing the problem? But anyway, let's continue in your world. Steam is causing the problem. So why should Valve change their code to accomodate the 100,000 when it could potentially affect the other 19,900,000? It's easier to just tell the 100,000 to get their shit fixed. This is, of course, a very generalized example, but I hope it drives home the point that the minority are /not/ the majority.
This comment was edited on Apr 26, 13:15.