Wikipedia informs me that Dragon Quest only had two main-series non-remakes in the last 3 generations.

All Marios are basically the same game, just updated for the capabilities of the console they are/were on.

Ico?

As for Nintendo, enjoy Mario 17.

Which is precisely why I haven't bought any Valve games ;D

I was referring to non-Valve games on Steam.

1) These days I'm without an Internet connection usually whenever I travel, though not too long ago I lived in a place with no Internet access, so my gaming machine was without Internet access for 6 months. I have a gaming capable laptop, so idiotic requirements aside, I can game while away from home.

2) Offline mode in known to occasionally demand once-off connection to the Internet before activating. Even putting this aside, the requirement to have Internet access, even once off, to play a single player game is ludicrous. Fortunately, cracked versions (you know, those versions this protection is design to prevent) ironically don't have this issue.

3) Since your counterpoint is a mere assumption, I will simply counter with they assumption that at some point they will completely screw it up, as Live has.

As for the unnumbered point about Valve unlocking games if they go under, I happen to agree that Valve probably would do this. However they may end up in a situation where they have no choice or no opportunity, and as digital distribution grows other services will appear which are not so favourable to the end user. And don't say that people would not use a more user-unfriendly service, since half the pro-steam argument is that this kind of DRM is invisible to the average user, they would not know the difference. Steam gets the focus at the moment because it is the biggest one, but it won't be the only one.

If there was any real benefit to these limitations there might be room for debate here, but they achieve nothing but to add extra points of failure, and make the illegal versions they are trying to stamp out seem all the more appealing.

Steam does offer some very nice features, if you're into that kind of thing (I personally prefer real life to SocialGaming with my InternetFriends), but none of these require the DRM that is built in. Yet, people just accept the whole package because of the positives. Anything is ok in the name of more easily accessible entertainment, eh.

So intentionally breaking their games is ok, because the pirates are there to fix it for you?
"Hey Joe, that car I just sold you will stop working in 5 years for no particular reason."
"That's ok Bob, I know a guy who can fix it for me."

Spectacular. Personally, in that instance, I am tempted to go to the pirates for the game in the first place.

Anyway, you know as well as I do that most 'prospective customers' know nothing about this, won't research it, and will never know unless it bites them in the ass. This doesn't change the fact that Steam adds unnecessary points of failure to games, it just means that the ignorance of the masses is being used in 'spreading the disease' so to speak. That nobody notices does not make it right or acceptable.

As for not being not being forced to buy Steam games, what if it happens that games are Steam-only? Sure I'm still not forced to buy them, as in put-a-gun-to-my-head forced to, but what if we (shock horror) attribute some actual cultural worth to games as we do to literature and cinema? In that context, I think the folly of enforcing degradation on them for the sake of productisation is obvious. Of course, this argument holds little merit these days, as most games are still mindless entertainment, and the ones that aren't are mostly on consoles anyway. Nonetheless, the only games I tend to spend time on are those that aim to do more than serve the short attention spans of mindless consumers, that have some lasting worth, so I am more militant again this kind of DRM than most.

Games that get turned off remotely are no issue however.

Download first, buy later if it works. Solves many problems.

Live is survivable due to offline profiles (though I hope you don't miss the ability to backup/transfer your save games). Anything store purchased which requires steam, avoid.

Features like the game disappearing along with the steam servers? Features like needing an Internet connection to run a single-player game you've already installed? Features like a server problem at their end wiping out the save games of you and numerous other gamers?

Sign me up.

Seriously though, the download anywhere is nice. It's not like I can take my DVDs of my games to another PC and install them again. Oh, wait...

Unless, as they are going down, another company takes them over. Would, say, EA be so generous I wonder? As you say, who knows. Well, I know that my store-purchased DVDs will work until they physically degrade. Enjoy your uncertainty.

You prefer to rent your games at purchase price, and get less for your money to boot?

The game's content will also suffer. Look at console FPSes. Crap on consoles due to the gamepad, pretty bad on PC due to being limited to work to some limited degree on a gamepad. All games designed for all platforms? I'd go back to non-interactive media.

To knock off 4 and 5, stop making multiple-platform games. Just put them on the platform that sports the largest share of your target demographic. Sell FPSes to PC gamers. Sell JRPGs to PS3 gamers. Balance will be restored to the world etc.

On the contrary, dumbed down games for the masses outsell intelligent/artistic games pretty much every time.

I wasn't referring to the rating per se, but rather the phenomenon I just referred to above.

You mean the eve-o rickrolls also feature a forum, right?

And the self-satisfaction of game developers will help them get around the limitations placed on games as a medium due to their perception by the populace at large... how?

I take it that intentionally aiming the game in question at a smaller target demographic will be explained to the shareholders by you?