Reread what I said. It's not an opinion when it's a verifiable fact. Check out also what "OldFatGuy" said. Those that hold an "opinion that there is noting wrong with them" are verifiable in the wrong and causing harm to themselves and others.

*sigh* You are missing the whole point I was making. My point was not about Steam and your thoughts about DRM, it was about the unnecessary name calling of "idiot"

*sigh* I have no idea when it became "inappropriate" to call someone what they are.

Well, if nothing else changed, then no.

But if it became an actual "rental" service, then I'd never give them money again.

I'd feel a bit better, but I would still see it as that, a rental store. Games you get there are subject to your ongoing agreement to whatever changes Valve makes to their TOS or your games are blocked from you.

I would still treat it as I do now. A last resort for a game and only at an extremely discounted price.

Being frustrated doesn't make anyone right and one's own preferences superior to others though. Imagine a fictional situation where enough gamers aggressively push for a boycott of services like Steam that the industry moves away from them and they go bankrupt. In that case those gamers who supported the boycott changed the videogame industry in a way that affects everyone, even those who really liked Steam and now have to put up with - from their perspective - inferior or more complicated services, pay higher prices or even switch to console gaming, and they'd be pretty frustrated just because of those "idiots" who campaigned against Steam. Everyone has different priorities, and there is no objective truth that DRM-free gaming is the most important of them all that everyone has to adopt. I'm very much in favor of DRM-free gaming myself, but calling people with other priorities idiots won't change anyone's mind, it will only come across as egocentric and extremist.

It would make a big difference to me if they started calling it "renting games". How long do you think it would take before the "rentals" disappeared from your library because the rental period was over?
On the plus side, it would clear up the steam backlog. I doubt they would do this though, it would piss off too many of their customers and they would just be shooting themselves in the foot.

My opinion of Steam would still be negative. As a consumer, I prefer to own the products that I spend my money on, which makes me already have a less than favorable viewpoint towards Steam. Advertising it as a rental service would do little to change that, although I would at least give them props for finally being more up front about how their service operates. Overall though, my opinion would remain negative.

In regards to Netflix, my opinion is neutral. Netflix is great for checking out a bunch of movies for little cost, but in the end, I still prefer to purchase and own a movie I am fond of. Other than trying it out for a month as a free trial, I have little interest in the service.

There is a major difference between the two though, and they are honestly not comparable. When you purchase a game nowadays, you are almost always FORCED to tie that product to Steam or another service, instantly turning that physical copy into a "subscription" anyway. Heck, most of the time you cannot even find a physical copy to purchase anymore and Steam is the only option. With movies, at least they are still free of this nonsense, and I am not forced to tie them to Netflix or another service. As a consumer, so long as I have options the way I do with movies, I am happy. With games, our options are rapidly disappearing.

I know physical products are dying out and eventually none of this will matter, but I honestly think that is incredibly sad for so many reasons. Control over your own purchases, sharing, preservation, etc.

True. I tend to call them idiots because they're perfectly willing to give up their legal rights in exchange for a minor convenience.

satellite. Brutal. Thankfully, I don't have THAT issue at least.

It wouldn’t change my opinion, nor do I think that it would have a considerable impact on their customers’ opinions. Steam’s conditions are clear: all games are attached to the Steam client. For that you get good deals and access to a huge catalog. I doubt that another label would have any lasting impact.

I would even say that GOG and Steam are very much like in this regard, as both will grant you a perpetual licence to a game, but not ownership of a copy outright like you would have with a DVD. In that sense neither are sales, they’re mere licences. The only reason why you are allowed to download your games on GOG or Steam is because you are a licensee. Likewise you are not allowed to resell your games to others, simply because you are the licensee and not the owner of the copy (although this is subject to debate of course, given that there are some precedents in the EU now). Even though games on GOG are DRM-free, that doesn’t mean that no legal restrictions apply. It only means that the copyright holders haven’t taken any technical measures to prevent people from ignoring their copyright. The terms of those licences are different of course, on Steam you need to use the Steam client whereas on GOG you don’t. However, if Steam would cease to exist, you would have no access to your games anymore. But that is also true of GOG, as you won’t be able to download your games again. It may even be possible that each of your licences is affected too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-removes-game-order-of-war-challenge-from-user-libraries/

Nope.

If your so-called "preference" actively harms me, it certainly is my prerogative to point out that it's a problem and inferior.

Well, according to the update at the bottom of that article only the multiplayer portion of the game was removed due to the server shutting down and the single-player is still available. That's still not great, and I'd much prefer developers include multiplayer that wasn't at the mercy of central servers, but it makes Steam's actions a little more understandable being that the multiplayer component of that game had become completely useless.

That said, I still don't completely trust Steam although I think they know that there would be outrage if they removed a paid-for game without some kind of understandable rationale and will avoid it as best they can. But, yes, I'm as nervous as anyone else (or more so) about having games depend on some central server to run and I hate the thought that entire games (or portions of games) are becoming completely unplayable due to the fact that it's not cost-effective to maintain the central server they depend upon. I think that's more of a developer problem than a Steam problem, since Steam seems more than happy to provide access to the games as long as there's still something to provide access to, although Steam could certainly take a more active stance against it such as GOG does with DRM.