I couldnt get steam to run ANY games at all until I downloaded the beta thing. I am not really fed up with Steam otherwise, I am just fed up with the choices that some game companies make regarding it.

For example, Gas Powered and Supreme Commander 2.

No more should be said, other than WHY THE HECK DID THEY HAVE TO GO WITH STEAM ONLY?!?!?!?!?

I don't like the auto-updates. Sometimes the new patches suck, and usually they're late (sometimes very late) being released. I thought that could be turned off though? I also don't like having to look at adverts and popups for crap I don't care about if I just want to play a single player game. If I get nostalgic for reinstalling HL2 or something, half the time I don't install it because Steam is a hassle. Not a large one, but much more so than installing every other game that I own.

Arguments of usefulness and DRM aside, there is one hugely compelling reason I will never, ever use Steam to buy a game. If you get banned, you loose all of your games. If my account get hacked, oh well. If my opinion differs one too many times from someone who has the power to do so, I could be suspended, or banned, and oh well. No matter how unlikely the scenario, it means that they don't get my money. I know that the $50-$100 I spend elsewhere a month on games doesn't hurt them, but it does help their competitors.

Having Valve's games on Steam is not the same thing as being "forced" to purchase a third party title through the system. Forced referring to the inability to purchase without the use of Steamworks.

Yeah, and I am saying it's not the same. Any of the publishers can ban you from their forums, their services or a game. It's usually one game and not necessarily your entire account (Bioware has banned people across games before it seems). In any event, Steam ban's you, it's from your entire library and no refund, all publishers, all platforms, everything. It's not the samething as having EA ban you from an EA game. Stardock will do the same thing to you, but at least they force refund you.  I've heard of steam banning people for doing a chargeback on them, a chargeback because steam wouldn't refund a double charge or a gift given that was never received.

Nesrie, have you ever considered enrolling as a Paladin? They usually have a similar level of fevor when dealing with the 'undead'. (Maybe its just that avatar's stare. Following me around the room, that constant glare... umm what was I saying?)

I really don't like the account banning stuff. I have a lot of stuff on Steam and put a lot of effort in to say WoW. The idea that they can take away my 'belongings' (those licenses don't belong to me actually) with no recourse, no real reason and no 'due process' (like a trial in criminal law) scares me a little.

I don't do anything wrong but that wont save me. Even cheaters (online) deserve to only be cut off from online play.

Steam frustrates me and many people. As far as I know, they are actually allowed to destroy your copies and/or not give you refunds.

To elaborate more on the decision for SteamWorks: during the development of Supreme Commander 2, GPG had to decide how to implement their Multiplayer Matchmaking service. There were 3 options basically: the GPGnet client, GFWL and SteamWorks. Luckily they went with SteamWorks and according to GPG they didn't regret it, since SteamWorks provides a very stable matchmaking and more important for Supreme Commander specifically: a stable connection setup service.

The GPGnet client is old, outdated and bugged. It only provides very, very basic connection facilitation and if they would have used GPGnet, they would have reprogrammed the whole client from scratch (the developer who originally designed the GPGnet client does not work at GPG anymore).

I personally do not have any experience with GFWL, but from what I hear, the connection facilitation is quite awful and there are a lot of other issues.

The fact that SteamWorks is a good and stable solution is not a "blatant PR-speak spiel". It was the best option for GPG, since it provided them with a good and stable solution without having to create an in-house solution and thus it saved time and money (both of which were lacking for Supreme Commander 2). I am glad they went with that and not with the GPGnet client, GFLW or any other custom solution.

I still don't understand what you are getting at. Maybe there is a general misunderstanding here. I'll try to make things clear.

• Supreme Commander 2 can be bought from every retailer that offers it, not just online through Steam.
  
  
• Supreme Commander 2 uses SteamWorks, a free development and publishing suite, which contains APIs for various Steam modules. Supreme Commander 2 uses it for matchmaking, connection facilitation and online leader boards. According to GPG is was easy to use and the connection facilitation works excellent, especially when considering, that the Moho Engine from Supreme Commander 2 uses peer-to-peer networking. If you compare it to Supreme Commander / Forged Alliance and Demigod, you will see how well it works.
  
  
• Since Supreme Commander 2 uses SteamWorks, a free development and publishing suite, which contains APIs for various Steam modules, it is tied to Steam services.

It doesn't matter if that phrase sounds like "PR talk". There is no need to phrase it differently, just so that it doesn't sound like "PR talk" for Nick-Danger.

I assumed that you and he knows, that if a game uses SteamWorks, the game is automatically tied to Steam (since SteamWorks essentially an API for Steam services, for which you have to use Steam itself in order to use them).

That's where SteamWorks is different from Impulse::Reactor. The Impulse::Reactor API provides functions to directly communicate with the Impulse servers for the various services it offers, without having to have the Impulse client installed for example. It's completely standalone.

SteamWorks being tied to Steam or more specifically the Steam application on each user itself may or may not be arbitrary, but that is something you would have to ask VALVe.

(And the consecutive question would be, why they decided to use SteamWorks and that's why I tried to give an answer to that too.)

Of course SteamWorks is not the sole reason for the game being tied to Steam. They may as well have chosen GFLW for matchmaking etc. and Steam for DRM for example. Steam as a DRM service most likely factored in the decision to use Steam or SteamWorks too.

I'm focusing on the steam _only_ part because I do know about steamworks (well, as much as is reasonably discoverable to us civilians -- for example their API Overview) ie as you say here:

I focus on Syneptus' 'why steam _only_' question because what I've learned about steam/steamworks tells me that 'steam _only_' isn't for the benefit of the gamer (because it limits his/her options), it's for the benefit of Valve by increasing market share, collecting more information -- aggregate, individual, and personally identifiable -- that they share with unnamed third parties, getting their software to run on more computers (see the above API Overview link for some of what it does), etc.

Steam may be the best thing of its type since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean making the game steam only (as per what Syneptus meant) is in the player's best interest, and is why your answer to Syneptus left me... unfulfilled

Thank you for your polite replies, and if I mine have been less so, my apologies.

@Nick-Danger: it is or can still be in the player's interest, due to how well SteamWorks works for the game. Syneptus might prefer a game which is tied to Steam and has a robust matchmaking and connection facilitation system, over a game that does not use Steam and has a potentially crappy multiplayer system (as seen in Moder Warfare 2 for example).

Also the "Steam only" part only limits the options in such a way, that the game will not be sold on other online distribution services, but is still sold in regular retail stores.

-I don't want unnecessary third party software running in the background to play a single-player offline game

-I don't want steam collecting info on me, including unspecified personally identifiable info

-I don't need steam to find me MP partners

-I don't care for achievements, in fact I think they detract from games

-I don't need steamworks anti-cheats as I don't play with cheaters (just old friends)

-I don't need steam to make a game difficult or impossible to play via LAN or direct IP connection

-I don't need steam DRM to be constantly running (beyond a one-time authorization)

-I don't need steam monitoring my computer for game file fragmentation or out-of-date drivers and whatever else it does

-I don't want steam being the 800# gorilla with its market share

-I don't need to have my legally bought games rendered useless if steam bans me for innocuous reasons (like disputing mistaken charges)

Nothing steam provides can't be done, and hasn't been done, in other ways -- ways just as effective.

Steam is used not because it benefits players (as shown above) but because it benefits publishers and steam.

Some like steam and I'm glad they can get it.  Some don't like steam and that some games give those folks no choice and force steam upon them, not good.

Actions speak louder than words.  If publishers truly thought steam was a benefit to all players, and if players were truly what they cared most about, then it'd be optional not forced.  The reason it isn't is because it benefits publishers to make it mandatory.