Which economic theory are you referring to?

Unsure if it has an actual name.  I do know that this was stated as fact as an inefficiency in several econ classes I took.  I believe it's based on discount rates.

If it's a "standard" economic theory, it would have a name.

Ah, there's no real name, it's just called Risk Aversion theory. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis

This sounds like part of it also.

At this point, competing with Steam is like competing with Walmart. You can do it, but you'll never get there.

I gave up on the whole anti Steam thing a long time ago.

Meh depends on what you mean by anti-steam. If your referring to actively seeking information about games then choosing not purchasing games which require it then i'm still anti steam. If your referring to attempting to sway others opinions or purchasing habits.. i never really was anti-steam.

In my opinion, this is a farce.  Of course they have "Oongo-bagillion" accounts; you are forced to use them by various games now.

FORCED!!!

I just bought Fallout New Vegas, not realizing I would have to use Steam to activate it, and it installed to the Steam files I already have (never given an option, it just did it to those folders).

It seems to me that this is akin to forcing a million people to eat spaghetti (by force, no less), and then claiming your spaghetti sauce is the best because over a million people use it.

All this does is further my hate towards steam.   Half-life is probably the best game I've ever played.  I've owned Half-life 2 for years, and have never played it due to my disgust form Steam and their "what we say!" attitude.  I've even heard HL2 is better than HL1, but I still cannot get past their obnoxious arrogance of superiority.

In case it wasn't plain;  I dislike, and have no respect, for Steam! (the above just being proof of their idiotic arrogance)...of course you have 30 million accounts;  many people HAVE to make an account simply to play a game they alread paid $50 for and were never given a chance to play it WITHOUT Steam.  I think having that option would significantly decrease their numbers, as there is no way I would have a Steam account if I could avoid it.

Okay I see what you were getting at. Of course I know about risk aversion, but I've never heard professor or an economist generalize "large" corporations like you were mentioning. It sounded to me more like something you might hear in a business course than an econ one as I am pretty familiar with economic theories (not all of course).

I mean we know some large corporations will take very big gambles right... just look at the mess that almost brought the financial industry to its knees. I do think you are right though, the bigger names seem less inclined to take a risk on say new and untried experiments although, as I mentioned before, Nintendo certainly took a very big risk by selling a console with very little power compared to the others in the same generation. It can happen.

As for the DRM issue, there are too many people running around "proving" DRM is profitable compared to those who say clearly it isn't, as in a costly attempt that doesn't actually work.

You don't have to be Pepsi to Valve's coke, but you need to at least be its Cheerwine.

As long as most companies are willing to make money by putting games on your service, you'll get something.  Also, Steam may massively screw up at some point.

Steam MAY screw up is not a good argument >.>

It is when you're still making money regardless.

X may do Y is never a good argument