I'm sick of people STILL saying Steam sucks. Steam sucked when it was in beta in 2004. Guess what? It's really slick and works perfectly now
LOL! The main things that were wrong with Steam in 2004 are still the main things which are wrong with it in 2007. Steam is fundamentally flawed, and Valve has never done anything to correct those fundamental flaws because it doesn't want them fixed. Valve wants control of when and if its customers can play their games and doesn't want to relinquish that control to the customer. Valve also doesn't want to pay for sufficient capacity and redundancy in the Steam network so rather than spend the money it simply doesn't guarantee the availability of Steam. So, with Steam the customer is at the mercy of Valve to be able to play the games for which he paid with no assurances that he can play them. With Steam the customer is no longer purchasing a game to play in virtual perpetuity anywhere and anytime he wants. He is essentially only renting a game service and a tenuous one at that given Valve's history and policies. If Steam is offline or unavailable (as has happened many times in the past and will no doubt happen again for at least some customers) or Valve decides to stop offering a game or wants the customer to pay more to be able to keep playing a game, or decides to require advertising to keep playing a game (as it is doing with Counterstrike), the customer is shit out of luck.
If you want to know what's wrong with Steam and can't figure it out on your own, simply read the Steam subscriber agreement and Valve privacy policy. Valve guarantees you nothing about being able to play the games for which you spent your hard-earned money, and it spies on you when it does allow you to play. If you want to know more, simply search my post history for Steam-related posts.
This comment was edited on Mar 25, 23:32.