I was talking about Steam going out business and they have said that will unlock all games if this happens (and if somehow they didn't I'm sure Firaxis would release a patch that did). Steam going out of business is the only scenario in which I would need the security of a physical copy, otherwise I can use the electronic one.

Other scenarios include your Steam account getting stolen, Valve deactivating your account, or Valve otherwise removing your access to the game. Should another company ever acquire Valve, they may make changes to your account per the Steam subscriber agreement, or via an updated agreement.

The above scenarios are unlikely but possible, and represent flaws with the service.

I hadn't thought about having my account stolen, that would suck, though that's a risk for any online service and I'm sure it's something I could get resolved without too much trouble (the issue being how long it would take). I'm not worried about Valve randomly deactivating my account or removing access to the game though any more then I'm worried about my bank randomly deactivating my savings account and saying they are going to keep all the money. Both could theoretically happen, but both are outside the realm of things you should realistically worry about and would result in massive lawsuits and loss of business.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/112/1122096p1.html

All of which are much less likely than you losing a physical copy of the game, along with the dvd case containing the serial.

I disagree. I know several people who have had Steam accounts hijacked. It is a common practice and the thieves are quite clever with their phishing and hacking methods.

Another troubling policy: If your account is VAC-banned while hijacked, Valve will not remove the ban. Many stolen accounts are used for cheating and many get banned via VAC. Enjoy.

Valve could easily verify this by checking connection logs and such. It's a terrible policy because it puts convenience (for Valve) ahead of the customer. I'm inclined to condemn a system that assumes that its users are potential cheaters.

But hey, that's old-fashioned. In a Mark Zuckerberg world, you take whatever your license agreement tells you and you like it, or you are a defective person.

I have complex random password, I have verified my email adress (so nobody can change my Steam password without access to my email) and I have very good security setup in my PC. I never give my password to anyone

I am confident in security of my account and I agree with Valves policy that user is responsible for accounts security.

Apply the parent/grandparent situation:

If non-tech-savvy users are likely to get hijacked, then the system needs to accommodate them. Most credit cards have fraud protection (if your card is stolen or cardmember account hacked, you are not liable for any charges incurred, if you report the issue within 60 days or so). Valve's customer policies are inferior to those of the major banks? Ouch.

Or consider this situation: If someone steals my car and then hits a pedestrian, should I be charged with manslaughter? But I locked it and it had an alarm system!

Also, anyone can be hacked. You can be the most paranoid user in the universe, and there remains a possibility that your information will be stolen. From the perspective of IT security professionals, you must assume that security breaches will occur, and plan responses accordingly. The, "my security policies make me invulnerable, so puh!" approach is inappropriate.

Blaming the victim is more convenient though, yes? All victims of crime are at fault for the ills wrought against them.

This is just an argument on principle. Most game players are tech savvy, regardless of age. Using Steam is cheaper for game companies and they aren't going to go out of their way to accommodate a tiny portion of potential customers. The security policies will improve over time, but you're losing sight of perspective if you think Steam needs to be as secure as a bank. In the end it comes down to capitalism. Enough people are happy with it and from the game companies' point of view, the extra cost to accommodate those who aren't is not worth it.

FWIW, while I prefer to buy the boxed game ot have the manual and something solid to hold on to, I would much rather have the game ask for Steam to be running, rather than the old way of having to put the cd in before playing.

Ah, the eventual descent into ad hominem. Because I, by pointing out obvious and troubling flaws, must be on an illogical crusade (in your terms).

Pardon me.

I could buy Elemental only thanks to stardock plateform, because there is no box in Europe. It's quite similar

Anyway, the need to be online to play sucks, above all for a game that rich in single player... I hoped I could play it at university during breaks, but obviously I won't I'll play elemental instead