I agree with this, but the "special" versions aren't really Steam's or Valve's fault. Those things are usually dished out/sold by the publishers for advertising and getting first day sales. A lot of the pre-order crap is also done for that reason, as well as to combat used game sales. It's ok to hate these things, but let's aim the hate at the right people, the publishers.

fair enough

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I believe that Store X infringes on my rights as a buyer, then I will no longer do business with them.  I put Steam squarely in this category.

If you as a consumer accept online registration as a condition of a single-player game, you're giving away your rights.  What happens ten years from now if the company is bankrupt and the server is permanently offline?  Your DVD is a coaster, and your direct-download is nonexistent.  This is flatly unacceptable to me.

Yeah, I'd like to get Civ, but I'm not putting up with this crap any more.  No Mass Effect, no Starcraft 2, no Civ V.  No Majesty 2.  No DOW2.  If that's the way game companies want to play it, that's their prerogative.  If I think they're a bunch of f*ckbags who aren't getting a dime of my money, that's mine.  And when I jones for a game, I can always reinstall MechCommander or JA2 or Civ 3 or GalCiv because, hey, I still have the DVDs.

Not bothered, Sorry guys but im a big fan of both Steam and Impluse, both offer very good value, and support. Really looking forward to Civ5, and im happy its locked into steam, because I can buy it cheaply on disk from amazon or somewhere, and then download it anytime anywhere from steam.

While your response to your displeasure is perfectly legitimate, my response is a little less extreme. When faced with a situation like you are suggesting, I will pay less, a good deal less, to make up for that restriction which will probably cost me my ability to play the game sometime down the road. 20 dollars is pretty close to bargain bin prices, and that's what I paid for DA and ME2, which both should work down the road without server access, but the DLC won't. Tropico 3, pretty much all stardock titles now and paradox titles horde their patches behind servers that can disappear so I won't pay full price for those games either. There are really only a few circumstances I refuse to pay for even at bargain bin prices, games made by Ubisoft, for example, or that have installation limits (don't give a shit how many limits they give any limits is not okay to me), and that weird thing where the stripped down pc version of Ghostbusters had no online component but required the Internet to authenticate.

I wish I could find the court results now, but in Australia we've already had a precedent case where a Digital Download company went bust and the courts ruled that since the DD was only a service, and the product had been purchased through the service, the producer of the product was still liable to allow the consumer to use the product.  Thus, all people who had downloaded games through this DD company received DVD's from the publishers of the games distributed through the DD service.

It was likened to purchasing a product through a retail company.  Just because the retail company (distributer) went bust, the manufacturer (publisher) was still liable to allow the consumers to use the products.

So if Steam went broke, the publishers would be liable to ensure the consumers could still use their products, hence we would get DVDs of any games we bought through the service.

In Australia.  I'm not sure what would happen in the United States.

That's actually what I believe.  A (single player) game is a product.  If you buy it, you own it, just like a movie or a CD. 

On the other hand, an online game is a service, and the company asking for registration or setting other conditions on the customer is perfectly legitimate.  It's an at-will situation.

In the US, there's a court case of a botting company vs. World of Warcraft, and I think either way it goes that it will set a bad precedent.  If it goes to Blizzard, I suspect that the game companies will start asking for blood samples and social security number to register a game, and if it goes the other way, then Welcome to World of Botcraft.

International precedent is a very common and very often used method of arguing in courts.  I would imagine that the Australian precedent would weigh heavily in a US court, specially since our society values and legal thoughts are extremely similar.  It's common practice for courts to consider precedents not just from their own jurisdiction, but outside and international precedent as well.

Add yet another dedicated Civer to the "won't get Civ5 due to steam" list. 

Civ provided near all of my gaming needs.  I've just a handful of other games, and rarely play them.  Civ + Mods provided what I needed.  I haven't bought a game since Civ4:BTS and didn't plan on buying any games outside of the Civ series.  I was a guaranteed sale, and a loyal, committed fan of the series... until it was announced that steam came bundled with the game.  I researched steam and Valve; and I read what steams users had to say.  I googled around and read a variety of industry aware opinions.  I am satisfied that I have come to an informed opinion.  I will not buy Civ5 unless steam lessens its hold on the game. 

I do not want a persistent gatekeeper between me and my games.  I do not want some 3rd party using my systems resources, to scan my machine, and then use my bandwidth to transmit my private data to Valve HQ.  I do not want to add another failure point to an already failure prone game.  I do not want to add another security vulnerability to my machine.  I do not want to add yet another piece of software which needs constant updating.  And I do not want to support an entitywho would use ESD exclusivity and forced bundling of their client, to further reduce their competition.  There's more, but that's more than enough. 

I support vendor neutrality and I stand with the publishers and developers who stand against steams methodology. 

I vote with my wallet and pass on Civ5. 

 

The good news for me, is that all this researching has lead me to Stardock!   And then to Elemental!  As soon as I can manage it, I will be buying Elemental and then GalCiv.  I've already installed Impulse to show my support.  Thank you Stardock for doing what you do!

 

Here's to hoping that Blizzard joins the fight!

 

I tend to agree, however that's not what the companies who actually publish Movies, Music and Games think.  As often discussed, it's a growing trend to see an EULA attached to something you buy.  This allows the Movie, Music or Game in question to be treated as a licenced product rather than a purchased one; you don't buy the thing, you buy a licence to use that thing.

Publishers are allowed to charge you for additional copies of a Game because they treat it like a product, however they then treat that same product as a licence by preventing you from doing with it as you please (such as installing it on multiple computers or not playing it online).  This kind of thinking, which is entirely unethical, will soon become international law with the ACT Agreement, which is being negotiated between Copyright Holders and the Governments of the World and is being kept from public viewing because its considered a matter of National Security.

To sum up the Copyright Holders basic position for the ACTA:
You can buy something, but it is not yours - you've just licenced it from the people you paid.  Because its not yours, you have to use it like you're told to use it and are not allowed to use it in any other way.  If the people you bought it from stop it from working, because its theirs, you can't do something to then make it work, and you're not allowed a refund.  If the product only works some of the time, you can't complain because its not yours, and you're not allowed a refund.  The Government or Utility providers, like an Internet Service Provider, are allowed to look through your house and devices that are needed to use whatever it is you've bought to make sure you're using it the way you're told to use it.  However if this thing becomes broken and needs replacing, well then its actually yours and not theirs and so you need to buy another one, and you're not allowed a refund for the broken one.  Oh, and disagreeing with any of this is illegal.

Well, from the publisher point of view, it is understandable that they are trying to be sure that only paying customers have access to patches. Sadly, everything has a drawback associated with it.

seems the new fallout is going to use steam works as well, realy annoying that these games will need steam to run it DRM isn't going to die is it?

I understand that, but then release it 2-3 years after the initial release so we can access it if some company goes down and takes their patches with them. By then, the pirates have moved on most likely anyways or already got it some other way.