| generic-user-1 said: if my internet is away i just play steamgames in offline modus? |
Offline mode means that you have 1 month to connect again. Don't do it and the games won't work anymore, until you connect again. If your account is banned by any reason, you won't be able to connect and will lose all your games.
| mornelithe said: Not for me, I love Steam. Way way better than anything Microsoft has to offer, and they'll always have a larger library. |
We still didn't saw what they can have to offer. Life can be a surprise!
But you have a point: MS can even get all the games that Steam gets, but the previous released game won't probably be re-released that easily. Steam scores one important point.
| Captain_Tom said:
Also is the PS2 really a good example? Let's see, 360 came in last (Again), the Wii won by 10%, and now both the Wii U and X1 are getting curbed stomped yet again. Oh and the PS2's success was nowhere close to Steam. Anyways why would someone who says this sillyness be out of the loop? Because they don't realize just how good Steam is NOW. It is constantly evolving and getting new (FREE) features. What could MS' own service possibly bring to the table that would be worth dropping my massive Steam library? Nothing. |
Netscape had a 95%+ monopoly, just like IE. It's bigger than Steam's share. BlackBerry was the only cell phone for entreprise use/e-mail. Nokia was the absolute market leader. IBM was the be all end all of computing in the 80s. These guys were way bigger and more relevant than Steam. And praise? BlackBerries were dubbed "Crackberry" because their users were almost addicted to them. Old Nokia phones are remebered until today.
I would argue that PS2 is a bigger success than Steam. It was in 1/4 households in the US. It sold 1.6B games. Looking at the top selling Steam games of all time, the list isn't more impressive than the PS2 one. Is likely that PS2 sold more software than Steam ever did.
I'm not out of the loop. But your point is that MS can't do anything better than Steam because it is to good. It doesn't make sense, everything can be surpassed with the correct investment and direction. And again, they don't have to make you drop your library, just have to make you start buying more from them. Your only argument is that Steam is to good to be surpassed. Most companies that believed that ended up being dethroned by a new guy. BlackBerries were perfect, until we saw what an iPhone can do. Netbooks were great, until iPad showed us a new way to get that quick web surfing. Sony TVs were the premium experience until everybody got a Samsung. Nokias were the best phones ever but now everyone has a Apple or Samsung. Music meant walkman, now it is iPod.
What I see on this thread is that everyone holds Steam in a way higher account that it should be. This is technology. 7 years ago the best phones were Nokias with Symbian, Windows Mobile devices and BBs. Where are they now? Dead or in life support (or their successors are). The real sillyness is on people that think that anything is written on stone in technology. I'm just presenting a hipothesis. I presented my reasoning. And until now, nobody gave me a contrary argument better than "I like Steam" and "no way".
