Well, getting the game through Impulse also required an internet connection- and it's kinda hard to get a game without an internet connection if it's not sold at retail...

 

Steam does have its annoyances though, which is why I wish there will be an option to run the game without Steam.

Ok, these are really bothering me.

I think that figure (98% of PC gamers) misrepresents the industry. According to the wikipedia entry I found on GOG.com:



That is not a small number. Those numbers wouldn't likely exist unless it really mattered to many people.

Alstein (who commented on this earlier with reply 16) is correct on the whole bit on Stardock attracting anti-Steam people. For a while, Stardock developed and owned Impulse. Many anti-Steam customers and developers jumped on board. Impulse was directly competing with Steam and growing fast. Brad said that if someone told him when Impulse just started, that it was going to be as big as it became, he said he wouldn't have believed you. But it grew so fast that looking back, Stardock had lost control over Impulse. Clearly, they couldn't keep up with the demand.

When Stardock sold Impulse to GameStop, it had angered a lot of people. Not just customers, but game developers too. To add insult to injury, the official announcement happened on on an April 1st (April fools). A lot of people were not happy when they realized that whole selling of Impulse to GameStop wasn't a joke.

Be careful with statistics...that is NOT 14% marketshare, which is meaningless anyway since many people likely have games on several different clients...I for example have several steam games, but also some in impulse, origin, and desura...gog also sells some old classics that steam does not, so in some ways they aren't even direct competitors...

So it's still speculation, right? A confirmation would be fine. To clarify: I am not against a Steam-version, I will just not buy it. So, if they make it official, that GalCiv III will be Steam-only, it's ok and I can look for an other 4x game. A Steam-game always means more money in my bag

@ Seleuceia

Valid point. I can see how that number can be misread. I'll make a point to try to re-check my info.

if you dislike steam, you can install, install game, remove steam execs and run games.

 

Unfortunately I haven't been able to do that for any of the games I have from Steam.  That's why I won't be buying GC3 if it's Steam only.  The Steam client has pissed me off one too many times, and I'm seriously considering just looking for cracked copies of all the games I've bought through it, so I can actually play them instead of just waiting for them to load.  The developers and retailers have my money, but I don't have the ability to play most of my games.  Even the GameStop client is better than that.

I for one will not be pre-ordering the game if it is Steam only.  I may not get it at all depending on how much it requires Steam to run.

I don't get why I can't just download the game from the same web page I download my other Stardock software from.  Failing that then GoG or even the Humble Store are both acceptable to me though I'd really rather have a disc copy.

If the game requires steam running in order to function it directly violates Stardock's own "Gamer's Bill of Rights" which states:

"Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game."

In this case Steam is the download manager/updater.

 

 

 

 

 

Something wrong is whit your pc, or just send ticket to steam support. Im using steam since 2004 (~2008 to buy games from there), never had any problems whit steam itself. For me its best "gaming platform" on the market. When i changed os or hd (recently i buyed ssd/win8) i didnt have to install all that games, i just copied entire steam directory (120gb) and everything works. Very usefull.

But always good to have a choice, so non-steam ver would be nice.

In a different thread I started, I asked what the delivery would be, and Island Dog said Steam, and there would be no boxed version.

Also, if you look at the bottom of this page:

https://www.galciv3.com/store

It says, "All game code will be delivered through Steam when available."

So at this point, it sounds like they plan on delivering it exclusively through Steam. Anything can change though.

-HM

 

Having trashed many games (CIV V and Skyrim coming to mind, and reason I won't be getting SimCity V) simply because I found out after the fact they can't be played without Steam, running, I'll just accept my loss in paying for the Elite Founders version of GCIII.  As suggested however, if Steam is just for downloading/updating and does not require a check prior to running the game then I'll grudgingly accept it.  Simply stated - I do not Trust Steam and has slowed down every system I've had it on and is constantly using bandwidth which considering my limits and slow connection is more than a minor annoyance.

I'm on the anti-steam bandwagon.

 

I don't have Steam and having to make yet another account at another site to get 1 game is not something I look forward too.

Call me old-fashioned but I like to have a physical version of what I buy in a nice cardboard box. Should Steam (or any online distribution platform) go belly-up, I can at least continue playing the game with a physical version.

 

In short; I don't want to make yet another account at yet another site and I want the security that I can still play the game if Steam dissappears.

People are living in a world of dreams to think this will not be a Steam Release. Its a financial no-brainer for a Games House to have third party distribution etc.

 

There is no way this will be independently released - not a chance in hell - get used to it.

Nobody here is against a Steam-release. It's the Steam-exclusive part we are arguing against.

Having the choice to buy GalCiv 3 from other digital distributors too would not only benefit us customers, but also Stardock, because they could reach a much larger part of their target audience.

 

 

 

Here's the problem, and I used to post about this regularly as a warning to the industry; Steameorks.  We need it. It's not just good, it's amazing. And it's free except that it relies on Steam to be installed.

This is why I was pouring so much effort into impulse::reactor. I put my best game developers on it. I basically sacrificed Elemental for it. But GameStop abandoned it. 

 

I understand that. Could you then at least make the game so, that it doesn't require Steam to be running in order to play? Divinity: Dragon Commander, for example, does this, and it also uses Steamworks.

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if Brad wishes he'd never written that thing.  The only references I ever see to it these days are to throw something back in his face

 

As he said above, Steamworks just works.  That's how all great assimilations have worked throughout history - make it not only painless to join, but also the best choice.  Then, eventually, make it the only choice.

 

I understand peoples' concerns with Steam being a SPoF, and it could happen, even if it's something like Gamestop when they ruined Impulse. But, in the mean time, I'm one of those weirdos that likes Steam and have re-bought games when they've gone on that platform (on sale, of course.)  I've never had an issue with the service and it makes migrating to a new machine a breeze.  (Even with Impulse, I still had to go through and detect each game install individually.)

I disagree.  If steam is needed as a download manager, it's not necessarily being used as DRM.  If you can shut steam off after you download the game, the gamer's bill of rights stands unbroken.

This is specifically mentioned in the FAQ.

 

I'm in favor of a non-steam version, but steam itself is not a deal breaker.

You disagree with what? Please reread what I wrote, specifically the first sentence you quoted.  Here, I'll retype it for you with with emphasis added:

-> IF THE GAME REQUIRES STEAM RUNNING IN ORDER TO FUNCTION <- it directly violates Stardock's own "Gamers Bill of Rights".

How does this differ from what you said?  You disagree then restate the same thing I said.  I did NOT say EVERY Steam game violates the "Gamers Bill of Rights" and I did NOT say I knew how GalCiv3 specifically would use Steam.  The FAQ is somewhat vague in that it doesn't mention Steam at all and I for one would like explicit clarification that the game can be run without Steam running (not just running in offline mode) and still function.

Probably because people believed in the principles behind it and he championed them then turned around and starting violating them when it became convenient to do so.  I'm not against a Steam release, I'm for a non-steam release.  I back a lot of kickstarters and buy a lot of humble bundle games and MANY of them have BOTH Steam and non-steam versions.  It's entirely doable and companies both larger and smaller than Stardock are doing it just fine.  Even if they choose to use Steam for distribution and updates it can be done in such a way that it doesn't have to be running to play the game single player.  I'm not talking about running in steam offline mode either, there are games as others have pointed out that simply use it for distribution and updates so you can run the exe without it auto-launching steam and you can even uninstall steam and the game will still function... it just won't be updated anymore.  I'm fine with that.

Good for you, you like steam.  I guess that means we should all have to then right?  Those of us who don't like it aren't trying to prevent it from being released on steam, we aren't trying to change your feelings on steam, we're just asking for an alternative as well.  Frankly it's ridiculous we even have to explain why we don't like Steam to Steam fans in order ask for an alternate release option.

 

My bad.  I misread what you said and thought you were saying that Galciv3 will violate the gamer's bill of rights.  Rereading that, I see your point.

 

 

Yep, that's totally what I said.  You've got me all figured out.  Especially that part where I said that I understand your concerns and see how they could come to pass.

It shocks me to see Frogboy come out and post this, and then everyone just... ignores it.  Some people continue to argue the point for him, but no one directly responds to / acknowledges his actual point:

Steamworks is just too good to pass up.  Whatever he might want.

I call bull! Star Citizen and Minecraft are two good examples of the contrary.

 

I acknowledged it above, because it is a very good point. 

 

 

It certainly can be done without Steamworks, but Brad is pointing out that it makes life a lot easier to do what he's trying to do.  Also, Star Citizen and Minecraft are both true indie projects.  One is super-low resources, AI, etc and was able to be organically grown along with the user base.  It was never intended to be what it became - a release like GC3 will need to be planned from the ground up.

 

And Star Citizen...well...that shouldn't be used as an example for anything.  That guy was going to make the game the way he wanted to make it with no regards to ease or good sense.  :)  He's a mad man...and then, we kickstarters went and gave him a $20M (and growing) budget...

 

EDIT:  And, it should be noted, Star Citizen hasn't released anything except for a hanger simulator so far, and even that's really rough.  It's a long, long way from release, so we shouldn't put too much stock into promises and plans until things get nailed down a bit more.