If Steam were to advertise itself as the world's largest PC game rental store and were to make that fact explicitly clear (ie through the changing of text such as "purchase for myself" to "rent this for myself") would it change your opinion of Steam even if nothing else were to change?

[I'll post my opinion a bit later. I don't want to get stuck just debating my opinion. I want to know yours.]

It would be nice if you'd include more than just yes or no.

Edit: My response below. Plus a 2nd question: What's your opinion of Netflix and are the two opinions related?

One: Steam already is a rental service. Their own subscriber's agreement refers to the right to access your content as a subscription.

Two: Issues of DRM really only apply to purchases. Digital "Restrictions" Management while apt really just obscures the issue-which is that DRM is about rights and restrictions on those rights. So, DRRM?

Renters do also have rights-though they do tend to be defined differently. Defining Steam and such entities as rental services might allow the government to set separate standards for digital rentals that actually protect the rights of the consumer (whereas right now they mostly protect the service provider).

Three: Calling Steam a rental service would allow Steam to continue their "Steam Sales" without completely devaluing purchased games.

Four: Where many people are content to say, "DRM doesn't effect me, therefore I don't care about it" if it were made explicitly clear that in the case of Steam (and Steam like systems), purchases are not owned, it might serve to increase resistance to said form of DRM. (ie people might be a lot less likely to drop $60 on a new game if they knew they were just renting it).

Four B: Resistance to Steam (which is often called the only "good" DRM) might encourage publishers to actually sell games again.

TL:DR: Steam already is a rental service. If it acknowledged that fact, it might help facilitate protections for those who continue to use the service. In addition, it might force other people to see the harm in such DRMs which could in turn increase resistance to them.

no

yes

No, to some degree I would even say it deserves it. It revived PC gaming for many folks and opened many doors.

Although, I have personally received some distastes for Steam as of late.

The purchase/rental thing is just part of the problem. So no.

Yes, I would be even less likely to spend a lot of money on the games. :P

Now, if they'd announce that from now on the client is optional and all publishers are asked to offer DRM-free installers, that would be different ... ;)

Yeah it would change mine. To worse.

But good question, since that and always on DRM is exactly where we're headed.

All they need to do to get me is remove their "Steam client" crap. Even of there are ways around some of it, I don't want to have to work around being on-line to play.

Not really.

Nope. It still doesn't cost me anything. For people who have to, prefer to, or don't know how to not spend money on it would probably change their views though.

No, because I do not care about nor interested in anything related to DRM. And as long as Steam is DRM service I will not use it.

no.why should it?

I have no ill will toward Steam as of now anyway, so no it would not make a difference to me.

Same for me. I like DRM-free and no online requirement of GOG better of course, but it's not the world-breaking issue for me that it seems to be for others.

It would lessen my opinion of Steam, to be honest. I don't like DRM, but at least when purchasing games on Steam I theoretically have a lifetime license to that game for personal use. Also many games (including several Valve games such as Half-Life 2) don't actually use the DRM component of Steam and so can already be used indefinitely without Steam running. So a complete shift to a rental model would actually be a downgrade.

Plus there's this message from Steam support that at least hints at the possibility of access to games if Steam were to go out of business: "In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network, measures are in place to ensure that all users will continue to have access to their Steam games." (Source)

Now obviously that's no guarantee and is hardly an ideal situation. I much, much prefer GOG's approach of trusting the player enough to give them the DRM-free version upfront. Nonetheless, I'd much rather be able to actually purchase the games, some of which are already DRM-free, with at least a small chance of the rest being DRM-free in the future, rather than see Steam shift to a rental model.

And depending on how big of a deal DRM-free becomes in the future and if other publishers have a CD Projekt RED moment and realize the futility of imposing DRM on paying customers, I think it's much more likely (and much more ideal) for Steam to start openly advertising at least some games as DRM-free than to announce they're becoming a rental platform.

Summary: Steam is far, far from perfect, but it's already marginally better than rental. I would prefer to see Steam encouraged to move to a more customer-friendly model rather than simply reframe their current business practices.