From a developer standpoint going pure Steamworks

1) Single point of patch management and distribution. Every store has it's own 'methodology' of packaging the game or patches. This means you create a patch then have to go to each store, use their tools to make the patch in the way they want, test it, then deploy. This inevitably means Store A will be slower than Store B but faster than Store C. So even if you discount the deployment headache of repackaging the same patch multiple times, the userbase then keeps screaming "when is MY platform being updated"

2) Matchmaking, Steam does all the matchmaking infrastructure for you. Search for game, enter, play. Sure you can go direct IP after you come to the forums nad create a thread and try to get a bunch of people together.

3) Whether you like them or not Achievements are now part of the gaming 'culture'. They are basically standard in games nwo. There are probably people who will buy GalCiv3 who have never played a game WITHOUT achievements. And if you want them on Windows, the ONLY option now is Steamworks (since GFWL is basically officially 'dead' since everyone is tripping over themselves to migrate away from it)

That's odd becuase the Steam depot doesn't list the FE LH executable as having a public key sig thta would require Steam.

Blackop2

http://steamdb.info/app/202970/#section_config

FTL

http://steamdb.info/app/212680/#section_config

FE:LH

http://steamdb.info/app/228260/#section_config

GalCiv2

http://steamdb.info/app/202200/#section_config

And GalCiv2 definitely launches without Steam

I'm not 100% sure but it 'appears' that FE:LH shouldnt launch steam in theory.

I think what  Gaunathor's concern is one of order - you're booting the game, then killing the client, showing that Steam is required to run the game.  He'd like to be able to just load the game without having to have the Steam client start at all.

 EDIT:  Crazy formatting hiccup in that post, seems to want to link to my profile...

Gaunathor has the same issue with LH, so not sure why the Steam depot implies otherwise. Again, I personally don't care, but just thought I'd relay the information to others.

And I installed my GalCiv2 through Impulse/Gamestop (yep, I'm an old customer, like many of us), so that runs standalone just great. It's a great deal to get a Steam key for only $5 right now for the GalCiv 2 bundle, but I'm not one of those crazy people that has to buy games multiple times...

-HM

I've been guilty of that multiple times if it gets down to "eff it" price...I almost snagged that $5 deal, but I'm pretty sure the exe's in my MY Downloads section in my SD account don't require GameStop.

Yeah, you can simply download the installers from the Stardock store. I didn't realize that until AFTER I reinstalled the Gamestop app. One question I have is whether those installers are fully patched. I know back in the day Impulse was the only way to be sure you get the patches (that, after all, was one reason to register the game), but I suspect know the downloadables are fully patched.

-HM

Whoops, goofed post.

Exactly.

Don't worry about it. With the exception of the Ultimate Edition, they have only recently become available to download directly. The last time I checked was around last February or March, and they weren't there yet.

They are. If you mouse over the link for the installer, a pop-up will appear with the version-number mentioned at the top.

Steam has worked out tremendously well for me.  I find it extremely convenient, so I would prefer a Steam release.

I saw the installers had a version number, but I couldn't easily figure out what the latest version of the games actually is to confirm.

No big deal...I installed all three GalCiv2 games via Gamestop last weekend and it went fine. It was a bizarre coincidence that I decided to reinstall the games...I never expected a GalCiv3 announcement this week!

-HM

I didn't realize the "Gamer's Bill of Rights" had an expiration date.  It's not 1791 anymore either yet the U.S. Bill of rights still applies.  I thought they were supposed to be principles not specific implementations.  It doesn't say for example you have to release a game on any specific media type that would date it.  The closest thing is the last one that says the physical media shouldn't have to remain in the drive when the game is installed to the hard drive.  Obviously that's an easy one to uphold if the game is digitally distributed since there is no physical media in the first place.  Otherwise the principles behind the Bill of Rights are just as valid today as they were when they were presented.

I've not forgotten and sure things are better today but just because things are better doesn't mean you should just throw out those principles.  I don't believe anyone here is trying to equate Steam with SecuROM or some of the other worse DRM schemes tried in the past, I know I'm not.  I don't even believe anyone here is objecting to the game having a Steam release, again I know I'm not.  We are just asking for an alternative as well.

Abiding by the Gamer's Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.  There are plenty of new and upcoming games that have both Steam and non-Steam versions.

No, that's not the only reason why.  There are a lot of people that don't like steam for a lot of different reasons.  I could sit here and explain every reason I personally don't like it but that may very well be different for the next guy or even the OP.  The OP here simply asked for an alternative version, it didn't bad mouth steam in any way.  The fact is some of your customers don't like steam.  They found out that the founders versions are steam only (something not very obvious since steam is only ever mentioned in very small print) and requested there be a non-steam version available as well.  I really don't see why we should have to justify our preference or why steam fans feel the need to chime in on how great they think steam is.  Some people like steam, some people don't, that's not a terrible thing.  Those that don't would like an alternative version and expressed that desire, what's so bad about that?

Again I don't believe anyone is attacking Valve in this thread, I know I am not.  I really don't understand why asking for a non-steam version of a game always has to turn into a giant Valve/Steam advocacy thread.  Reasonable people can disagree on things, it doesn't mean one group is stupid or insulting the other.

I appreciate you tried to make Impulse work.  I'm not really sure what that has to do with this discussion though.  Saying it was Impulse or Steam and impulse lost is a false choice.  Lot's of games are released with Steam and non-Steam versions.  Some are even released on Steam but don't require it to run and examples have been given in this thread.  So Steam isn't necessarily a violation of the Gamer's Bill of Right however a majority (though not all) of Steam games DO use it as DRM.  It's not unreasonable then to ask which is the case for GalCiv3.  Your FAQ says it doesn't require a connection to run and the only DRM is to log in to download and get updates and that's possible with Steam but depending on how much of SteamWorks you implement a lot more may be required or has to be specifically handled by the program (steam related options disable when not running Steam but the game still works overall.)  You seem to be unaware if your games function without Steam or not so if you don't even know how much it requires it why is it so bad that your potential customers ask?  I don't have any Stardock games from Steam, all of them are non-Steam so I can't test how it was in the past.  Even if I could though just because your previous games didn't require Steam doesn't mean GalCiv3 won't.  So again, we're asking for assurances from the developer that the game will not require Steam to run.  I really don't see why that's such a bad thing to ask for.

I'm not putting words in peoples mouths.  I'm responding to direct quotes.

This isn't a poll.  The OP asked if there could be an non-Steam release because there are some of us that don't like Steam (for whatever reasons, we don't all fall into one single category).  No counterpoint is needed, this isn't a steam popularity contest.  If you go to buy a car and ask for a Red one do you really want to hear everyone who likes blue cars to come up and tell you how they like their cars blue? Why could you possibly want a Red car? Red cars are so 2008! If the car company makes two colors they're signing a suicide pact! Those of us who don't like steam know that people do, we aren't trying to change your mind or asking that you don't get a steam version.  It's really not necessary for everyone who likes steam to let us know every time we ask for a non-steam version of a game.  Just because we asked for a non-steam version of the game (in addition) doesn't mean we are attacking Valve or Steam, you don't need to defend it.

I agree they were bad examples but it really wasn't hard to figure out what the poster was trying to say without nitpicking the specific examples.  I don't have a ton of steam games to give better examples but I know they exist and Dragon Commander has been cited by others (though I can't verify having only the GoG version myself).

I backed Shadowrun.  During the Kickstarter they promised a DRM free version of the game.  Only after the Kickstarter closed did they reveal that the DRM free version would not get any future expansions or the editor I believe.  The reason they claimed was because they didn't actually own the Shadowrun license (you would have thought they'd have figured that out before they launched a Kickstarter) and Microsoft (who does own the license) was requiring them to use DRM.  Microsoft supposedly granted them a special exception for Kickstarter backers but only on the core game and the expansion the kickstarter funded and not on any future expansions.  Fortunately they were kind enough to refund me my money but they give them impression at least that they had every intention of releasing a non-Steam/non-DRM version of everything and it's only Microsoft's Shadowrun licensing requirements that prevented it.

I realize that was a joke but I'm not sure Stardock getting some help through crowdfunding would be a bad idea.  If making a non-steam version costs so much then why not make a kickstarter and make it clear that the game is coming out for steam no matter what but you can kickstart a DRM-free non-steam version.  Heck you could even put a disc version as a stretch goal.  Also it doesn't have to do everything SteamWorks does.  You can just have the code check if steam is available and if not disable the steamworks functionality. (This is what I hear the Steam version of Dragon Commander does though I can't verify it personally)  If you do go the disable route with a kickstarter version though then just make clear up front what will be disabled.

I did check this for LH.  You did to launch the game, but not to run it. 

What I wanted was for launching to not require it, in case Steam got stupid.

The fact that Dungeons of Dredmor and Mount and Blade did this means it's not impossible.

Now, for GalCiv III, I can see MP/achievements requiring Steamworks- or perhaps the game has a ton of direct integration with Steam.

 Where did that $20mil estimate come from?  That sounds like (my guess on)  the budget for GalCiv III (At least the base game)  in its entirety.  Am I about to get a lecture from Stanley Whitefin, the Science Shark?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US7RbhjMo78

Edit: now I want Science Sharks as a minor race in the game (maybe an aquatic planet)- they can play well with the Snathi.

I tried this, but LH always quits after a couple seconds, once I terminate the Steam process. I'm really curios why it works for you and Frogboy, but not for me.  

Are you perhaps running the beta for 1.4? Maybe that's it. I only tested version 1.3.

Same here.

Edit: Nope, the 1.4 beta still quits, if I terminate Steam.

Buggy releases too. 

Stardock could develop their own achievements system engine and reuse it improve it as time goes by. Creating new engine for creating a new game? Ok. Creating an achievement system? Nope, that costs money and that you could reuse it is moot.

I don't blame them (developers) for trying to maximize benefits. I don't blame them for adding silly achievements (altough I understand that some are gameplay control points) that hardly feel like you achieved anything worth the effort. It's a pity that a badly used system seems to be "Must have". Fortunately for GalCivIII, Steamworks is more related to multiplayer, but a hypothetical GoG version could do without achievements. Lands of Lore? No achievements. Lords of the Realm? No achievements. Baldur's Gate? No achievements. King of Dragon Pass? No achievements. And people buys them. And not all of those buyers are "old farts".

Well I mean you could devote the resources to it, or you could just suse Steamworks which is free. Sure your efforts aren't technically 'wasted' if you consider it in the long term. But It is a metric of resource allocation vs time and such. Engines' aren't free (Unreal costs somehting absurd like one MILLION) so you can at least justify the up front cost there. Given that steamworks is free, it's hard to justify the up-front and on-going costs. No matter how you slice it 0 dollars generally wins.

Certainly I'm not saying all games NEED them. I personally don't care one way or another. But it's more or less 'standard' now or at the very least expected by a farily significant part of the gaming community. Maybe it'll go the way of the dodo eventaully. I mean I love adventure games and all, but 'pixel hunting' being dead in modern adventure game is an improvment in my book. One can only hope QTE dies a horrible death soon.

People brought up Star Citizen earlier, which was a complete run-away success for crowdfunding and has raised over $20M and counting.  Brad was tongue-in-cheek saying, "If I had that much, I'd do anything you want."

20 Million is a ton of money for just the production side of a video game (note many figures for 'budget' include massive marketing budgets while the production side is a lot less). At $50 a copy you'd need to sell 400k copies to break even (and that's not even taking into account the 30% cut from most stores and such, so even 400k is 'ideal case').

That said, sometimes more money can be more of a curse than a blessing.

Yep, it is.  That's why I was exercising caution earlier about waiting to see what Star Citizen eventually puts out.  I'm a backer and I'm optimistic, but man, the potential for it to crash and burn is high.

AH ok.  I just tried it like that and it did that.  :(

That gets back to the warnings I gave back in 2010 about Steamworks. If someone wants to create a credible alternative, we'll happily look at it.

Did you CEG encrypt the executable? The steam launch only triggers if the exe is CEG protected in theory. Its certainly possible to have the game launch without Steam from a purely theoretical standpoint.

That is true.  The US Bill of Rights supports amendments. Therefore, I'm repealing the 4th item on the bill. Problem solved.

That's great! 

I don't think anyone is suggesting you explain every reason. But a couple examples would be reasonable.  You're asking for a significant sacrifice from game developers. It seems reasonable that you provide a rationale for your request that doesn't involve some abstract principle.

We welcome people giving their preferences and views.  But it's exceedingly unlikely there will be a version that doesn't use Steamworks. Steamworks, for example, would make it a lot easier to support MP on any potential Mac or Linux version of the game.  

I'm not sure how many games really are released with a Steamworks version and a non-Steamworks version. I'll take your word that it's "a lot".  But there isn't going to a be a non-Steamworks version of GalCiv III because it would require too much time and effort on our part to do that. For starters, it would have to be a non-Multiplayer version of the game, requiring its own installer, requiring the removal of achievements, AI data mining, in-game mod support, etc.  In short, it would be crippled.

I don't mind people asking for features. I think that's great.  But I can't promise that we can give everyone, everything they want. 

I don't think so.  I run the game from the build directory (I.e. I compile my own builds).  My guess is that it has something to do with achievements being activated or something.

I don't thing achievements are, in itself, a big thing. When we made Impulse::Reactor we had achievements, matchmaking, leaderboards (which Steamworks doesn't have), mod libraries, etc.  The last game that really made use of all that was, ironically, Elemental: War of Magic which was, from an Impulse::Reactor point of view, amazing (the multiplayer setup behind Elemental was beyond anything I've seen for a 4X even now and it ended up being disabled in later builds sadly because we couldn't support the infrastructure without third party usage).

With Impulse::Reactor, in Elemental, you could, from within the game, upload a mod, map, etc. to a shared library and your friends could then download and install them all within the game.

Now, getting back to more relevant discussion:

In Galactic Civilizations II we had the Metaverse:

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=map

You could see a given player's stats:

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=player&id=45

or an Empire's stats:

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=empire&id=2924

and top tournament stats:

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/index.aspx?g=topscores&m=0

And a mod library

http://library.galciv2.com/

And GalCiv II was single player.

Moreover, we could scrape this data to help the AI by finding out what technologies players researched and in what order. How they designed their ships. What improvements on what planets worked. What build orders they used, etc.

Stardock was only capable of doing this because it had the Impulse team (back then, Stardock Central but we were working on what would become Impulse::Reactor even then).

But we don't have this capability now.  That went with Impulse.  But with Steamworks, we can do this sort of thing again.