Steam or No Steam?

It will be using Steamworks, so Steam will be used.

As someone who was initially (meaning years and years ago) against Steam, I have to ask how long people are going to try to avoid it and what they have against it.  I have no complaints about the Stardock store, but Steam is simply easier and faster.

People who don't like Steam don't know anything about it.  OR they just like spending way too much on games (Steam is so cheap).

You don't legally own any games in your Steam account. If you read the steam EULA, you are buying the game licenses on behalf of Valve, who then own them, but make them available to your account. There is no further ongoing obligation by valve to ensure that you retain the rights to these indefinitely, in the event of ... well ... anything.

Perhaps people that don't like Steam know more about it than you realise 

That's true whether you use Steam or not. You don't buy software, only a license to use it, be it from Steam or directly from the developer or publisher. I don't necessarily agree with it in principle, but there it is. Unless the software is offered without drm there is no real difference, and that is far from common outside of the indie scene. It has also been said, more than once, that contingencies are in place in case Valve HQ is destroyed by aliens. I have a vast Steam library and I'm not the least bit concerned about losing access to my games.

You're missing the key difference here though (I'm aware of the "buy the game" vs "buy the license" distinction). If you purchase a license from a non-steam source; you own the license (even if it has DRM). If you purchase a license from Steam, Valve owns the license. You are literally buying a license from a game publisher and gifting it to Valve, who promise to let you play it through their Steam platform (in other words, DRM on top of the fact that Valve own the license). But there is nothing in their EULA guaranteeing any access to those licenses in the event Valve closes shop or similar, though. I'm not even sure if there's anything stopping them from simply stopping you from playing with no reason (though they'd be fools to try that).

Don't get me wrong; this isn't a dig at the game for going steam-only, and the price and convenience make it worthwhile to buy on Steam in most cases (and I have quite a library), but buying from Steam is very different (legally) from buying from most other sources. There are definite reasons why gamers would want a choice, and I have opted in the past to chose non-steam over steam versions of games.

For games you buy on Steam that use Stardock's registration, you can also redownload it at http://download.stardock.com.

I get the difference; my point is simply that the real world result is the same, except that buying through Steam provides a lot of advantages that you won't get elsewhere. I like having a choice, but I nearly always choose to buy through Steam even when another alternative is available.

What don't I like about steam? I don't like how the steam client constantly updates itself and forces me to update before I can do anything. I don't like how I need to sign in/start Steam in order to play the game I purchased. I don't like how my games force updates on themselves, preventing me from playing until it downloads whatever huge patch awaits (even if I intend to only play single player and my mods were only compatible with the previous version). I don't like how for many games it constantly pops up the steam overlay to tell me about a CD key I never need to enter. I don't like the pop-up ads that come up every single time I turn steam on, or restart steam. I don't like the little achievement messages that pull me out of my game and draw attention to themselves.

Yes, I know that these also apply to Origin or UPlay or any other always-on digital platforms. Yes, I know some of this stuff goes away if you specify it in the settings for each game profile. That's not the point. The point is that sometimes I would prefer to just get the game, install it, and start playing. No pop ups, no auto-updates unless I specify otherwise, no auto-syncing, no forcing my computer to run steam and be connected to the internet.

Remember how much complaining there was about DRM when it first came to be? Steam is DRM. Every time you try to play the game, and it says you cannot play unless Steam is running, it's DRM. It's an extra step, an extra login if you switch computers.

Are there benefits to Steam? Of course! Download any game you own whenever you need, no searching around for a patcher, easy mod support, community features like friends and chat, achievements, save game sync, etc. But that comes with a price, a price that is very evident when you have flaky internet.

And god forbid you ever get your account hacked or banned. For the convenience of putting all your eggs in one basket, thousands of hours of gaming, thousands of dollars spent, all in one place for the stuff you paid for...one day Valve can decide that you no longer get access to any of that. And there's nothing you can do. You pay for the privilege of using their service...Valve owns those game licenses and lets you play them.

Of course I use steam, I've used it since 2003. I don't go out of my way to avoid it. But just because the original fears of "what happens to my games if Valve goes under" have gone away doesn't mean I'm not aware of what I'm sacrificing for convenience. Don't discount the negative opinions of Steam just because it's "convenient and cheap", there are legitimate reasons not to put absolute faith in one company. Hell, even EA used to be looked on as a leading company in the industry, a shining beacon of what could happen if artists were given the influx of cash necessary to make their creative dreams into reality. Times change, companies change. Just ask Maxis, and Bioware, and Westwood, and Mythic, and so many others what happened after they put their blind faith into one company.

i   steam

I don't think it's blind faith. I don't have blind faith in anything, much less a for-profit enterprise. What I do have is confidence in Valve, Stardock, (et al) to look after their own interests; and it just so happens that their interests and mine are the same. I want quality games and services at competitive prices, and they want to offer them. It is in their interest to make me happy. If that changes, so will the amount of money that I give them, and they know that.

I'm not much of a steam fan either. It is no huge issue to me though.

However, being able to config the hell out of it begs the question why I should be required to have something called Steam in the first place. Some would expect to be able to run the game just on its own, like they do with games bought elsewhere. I realize Steam is simple to use for many, but other people simply don't want to have an extra piece of software which they have to config to whatever settings.

I got the beta via Steam, maybe I go with the redownload from Stardock indeed once we leave the beta stage (I wasn't aware of this back then).

Steam is like Google. They're in your home, at your work, on your phone. They see and know all. Fortunately, I like both companies so far. They bring a lot of positives to my life thus far. When that changes, I'll fulfill my role in capitalism and go to their competitor. In the end everything comes down to money.

Never had FA. If you already had the files when Steam did the "second-long installation" then you must have gotten them before, either from Steam itself, or from another source. Whatever it is, saving time on follow-up installations is a rather weak argument for Steam in my eyes.

No, that's not correct. All licenses involve some kind of contract with the game publisher, true. But Steam adds another layer of ownership into the mix, whereby instead of the contract being between you and the game publisher, there are now two contracts - between Valve and the game publisher (eg, the one you just bought for valve), and between you and Steam. Valve can null and void your entire library because they sit in the middle of all the contracts. Worst thing a game publisher can do without steam is make you lose just one game (or games by that publisher, possibly), but ONLY if their EULA has such a clause, which it may not. It's entirely possibly to a have a steam library of games whereby if the games were bought outside of steam, the publisher would have no way or right to deny access to the game under any circumstance once the license is purchased (especially for offline singleplayer games), according to the EULA. So steam is very clearly different, and strictly worse, from a licensing perspective. Their model is also not strictly necessary, except to allow them to control your account - there's no reason steam couldn't just act as a market place and game manager instead of Valve taking ownership of your licenses.

A court can't magically force a company to stay open; if Steam shuts down their servers, it's end of story for all your games. They don't have any obligation to retroactively patch games to work without steam or provide you with a non-steam version if one exists. You wouldn't be able to play the game that non-steam uses could keep playing, and you couldn't legally acquire the non-steam version because you don't own a license to that game, you gave the license to valve.

As for the case where they just stop you accessing your account, it's one thing to say it won't hold up in court, but are you going to spend tens of thousands of dollars in court fees fighting it, when your library probably could be re-bought for less?

Having said all that ...

Again, the convenience of steam wins out, and I use it extensively. I'm not a conspiracy theorist who believes this WILL happen and we must boycott steam. But there are real, legitimate concerns with the model.

Could there be a clause in the Steam EULA which explains that if Steam were to shut down the all licenses for games in your library would be transferred to you?

Also, worst case scenario that Steam shuts down and they don't transfer any licenses. Do you think it would be feasible for individual publishers to implement an emergency system that would validate a prior purchase you made via Steam and thereby allow you to obtain a new license directly from the publisher at no extra cost?

Steam is my Home   

Steam has consistently and repeatedly shown that they handle their contracts in a reasonable and responsible way.  They also tend to force people who sell through their store to have reasonable policies and contracts as well.

On the other hand, if you are buying from some other parties, you will often times find that they have erratic and sometimes terrible policies toward their users.

So I've found out that Steam generally works out in my favor.  I fully expect that the customer experience from most of these small time developers especially would be substantially worse than what Steam provides if they didn't inject themselves.

Would I prefer it if everything was DRM free and I could own everything license free?  Yeah, sure.  But I'm also enough of a realist to admit that that isn't going to happen in most cases, and don't blame Steam for the fact that it isn't.  I've also experienced much worse than Steam in a lot of places. 

Depends on the game's EULA - some prohibit on-selling/transferring, and it may depend on local laws too (local to where Valve is based, I would imagine). The individual publishers would then need to help out with making those keys work on their own platforms (steam keys are often specifically only for steam), as well as making non-steam installers/versions that work without steam.

Sure, though that would be up to the publisher. 

There are many solutions to the issues, just none of them are in any kind of contract or legally enforceable.

I agree, though Steam doesn't entirely shield you from dodgy companies with terrible policies (though they have a good track record when this does occur).

I'm only pointing out what the Steam EULA means from a legal point; I don't actually expect steam will go out of business anytime soon, or pull any kind of shifty with your account.