Same here for me, I'll use Steam to install and update my games but not to run it or have it running in the background. You would think that with all these online security/privacy issues going on lately people would learn to have everything under their control instead of some third-party.

Steam can be quite annoying for me.

The reason is I have multiple in-home family members that game, and to switch profiles on installed machines gets annoying.. Also I sometimes game with my kids, and if I have to purchase different copies for each one of them it gets expensive, and is something I rarely do. If I do, I wait for deep discounts, and then make the purchases. But I won't buy 3 copies of a $40 game, that's for sure.

I know most licenses factor a single user, but this is impractical for most families. So I GREATLY appreciate a non-steam version of products.

Not to mention easier control over finishing your game first before moving on to the next patch which will break your save.

Thanks for the tip, charon2112! Either way, I've shied away from Steam except to play the occasional FE:LH.

I felt I should be a little more clear r.e. my previous post.  When I said 'the shortcuts simply stopped working' that doesn't clearly express what was going on.

Essentially, I would click on the shortcut, which after a small number of seconds would generate some sort of launch error message, i.e. the intermediary would attempt to launch and fail.  But by bypassing the intermediary and going to the game.exe directly, I solved my problem.  so, as I stated the intermediary/launcher was what was failing.  The shortcut icon didn't simply stop working/started pointing to oblivion or whatever.

This has happened with GalCivII, Political Machine2008, and I think at least one Elemental install, which is why I suspect the Steam updating client and not just three different Stardock games.

My concern with this is if the intermediary/launcher client becomes 'integral', this workaround becomes meaningless.  The fact that I even need to do a workaround in the first place is not a good thing in of itself.

And yes, I turn off autoupdate in the background for all of my Steam games, but the steam client/game in question does still require you to log in/phone home occasionally, at which point the STEAM client will sometimes autoupdate itself.  THIS is where I suspect the problems are creeping in, but I'll leave that to the programmers to figure out.

In the meantime, I'll state again. GOG awesome.  Steam bothersome.

This is unlikely

Being tied to retail means they need a distributor and thus tied to a dead fast release date as well.

Given the immense success of Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion with ZERO retail distribution (100k copies and growing) I don't think Brad is going to go through the hassle of being shackled to a retail release schedule.

https://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=2738

Stardock has had immense success without retail distribution. They are unlikely to create a boxed version when it makes little financial sense and doesn't give any benefits to the community.

Note as a side anecdote. I didn't pre-order Civ5. On launch day I went to FIVE Gamestops in my area. NONE of them had it at launch. NONE. (I was going to Gamestop because I had a bunch of gift cards to burn and this was pre-steam wallet). I bought it on Steam because I couldn't find it in retail! (and yes I live in a major metropolitan area)

Not to mention that they make a lot more money per copy sold digitally than at retail. This is true for everyone in the industry (except retail, of course). They actually come out ahead by selling 100k digitally instead of 125k at retail. Making and shipping boxes is expensive, and shelf space isn't free.

Gamestop always does that. They're a pawn shop first and a new game retailer second. I've been told flat out that you need to pre-order a game if you expect to buy it there. I just walk across the street to Future Shop instead, which somehow manages to stock games despite not being a dedicated game store.

That's actually false. No where in US copyright law does it state that I am not allowed to hand my copy of a game to a family member or friend as long as it doesn't involve creating a duplicate of the game. Only if I started making duplicates does it start violating copyright. Granted US Copyright Law is horribly outdated in this digital age.

Not being able to share your own personal copy is an issue. It means that I am not allowed to use the copy that I am suppose to own as I please within certain guidelines of again duplication and public distribution. When you buy from Steam, you don't actually own the game rather you're a given a indefinitely long license. Maybe you don't mind it, but for some people that rubs them in the wrong way.

I've seen various maths on this but given that most digital stores take 30% margins (only the Humble Store, from what I've read, takes a much much smaller cut, so if you want to support devs, use thier Humble Store if possible). With the 30% margins, that more or less wipes out the 'savings' you get from not using physical distribution. Basically the 30% margin from digital stores is pretty much close to the margins required for physical distribution. If it's better, its maybe 5% better than retail. It's not the gigantic windfall difference most people think.

Of course say we look beyond margins themselves. Whether that's just at a digital store normally, or say you put a 75% off fire sale, unlimited inventory means everyone, everywhere can take advantage of that pricing. And you don't have (aside from when steam inexplicably runs out of cd-keys) an inventory issue to deal with. Where as in physical retail you could never stock 1000 copies of a game to fire sale at 75% off. Also it's easier to take advantage of the long tail. Magicka could never have sold 1 million copies at retail. The reality is that the 'majority' of the PC gaming market is on steam, not in retail. If you want to reach your target market Staem is the way to go (whether this is 'good' or 'bad' is open to interpreteation)

For consoles that's an entirely different problem of course.

Note that I was simply comparing the 30% margins of digital distribution, vs the 'theoretical' savings of removing the physical distribution part.Mostly in respect to the thought the digital distribution would 'reduce' the cost of games by removing the physical distribution costs. the reality is that those savings are almost entirely negated by the 30% margins of digital stores.

Note the $16 per boxed game is likely the cut between the publisher and developer of that 60-70% left over. Again all those numbers are incredibly complicated mess of accoutancy black magic. If you self-publish then you get all of that pie, but that may or may not be possible for some devs, depending on how you negotiated your contract with a publisher (if you have one). Certainly digital distirbution can negate the need for a publisher, which means a dev can get more money than physical publishing. But only if you were savvy enough to negotiate that as part of your publishing deal.

Absolutely. Digital distribution gives devs much bigger power to reach a broader audience with little cost to them as setting up a website and putting up a Humble store is basically brain dead easy and costs peanuts (relatively). And the 'long tail' model that physical retailers cannot and do not want to take advantage of (inventory costs money!!) is possible in the digital realm. The successes of titles like Magicka and even GalCiv2 itself (which Stardock says still accounts for 10% of their revenue, wow) definitely show the power of digital distribution

Also if you want an example of 'digital distribution done horribly wrong'. Ubisoft sells some games digitally via DigitalRiver (not Uplay). They have a WONDERFUL policy of allowing you unlimited downloads. For 30 DAYS. After that you had to PAY for additional 'download insurance' after 30 days!?

WHAT

THE

HELL

huh?  I own all of the DW up to Shadows, and I have no limitations.  If you have valid keys contact Matric Games for a new download link.