You can get deals just as good on Steam's competitors.   Also, not using the Steam Store- if there's a billing dispute, it's a lot less likely to end up with Valve bricking your account.   I'll use it if I have no other choice, and it's something I really want, but that's very unlikely.  Most times it's someone I know who made a game that is Steam-only, those are the only times I've really used the store in the past year or so.

While such a thing is very unlikely, if I can reduce slim odds to none at a minimal cost, no reason not to do it.

Since I made this exact point, I'll defend it.  Without Steam Legends of Grimrock and Warlock:MotA don't exist (as two popular examples).  Nor does any other game at that level.  Steam provides those companies with access to a slice of the market that big-box retailers stores don't, thereby making their products viable when they otherwise wouldn't be.  

PC gaming is special because of the vibrant and diverse array of games you can choose from.  Without Steam, and services like it, that's gone.  

No, without Steam those 2 games may (or may not, I mean come one, no Steam doesn't mean there are no alternatives, KickStarters are not Steam exclusives are they?) exist.

My contention was with your rather absolute statement on the plight of PC Games without Steam.  I have no strong opinion about Steam itself, it is what it is, and either you want to use it or you don't.  I'm fine with a majority of people liking it and using it, and I'm fine with my choice not to use  it meaning that I skip some games I may have otherwise tried.

There's still plenty of content out there for me at least, but then again I don't have the urge to try every new title that comes out either.  Well, I may have an urge, but I don't have the time, there's plenty on my plate as it is.  The only downside I see for me is when/if Steam truly acquires monopoly status and 99% of games do not provide an alternative to purchase other than Steam (or even there, requiring Steam to run the game no matter where the purchase occurs).

That hasn't happened yet, and I don't really care to enter a debate about the likelihood of it happening either.

What makes me angry is that they lock you out of your games UNTIL you accept the new EULA.

That is a load of Grade A BS.

True. They basically hold the money you paid for those games hostage. Is that legal?

Seems like a new EULA should only apply to games bought after the new EULA was implemented, anything else should be grandfathered back to particular version of the EULA that you agreed to during purchase. So, yeah totally Grade A.

It is interesting... if they are essentially getting people to "sign" under duress the new EULA before they get back to their games, doesn't the presence of duress mean that any contract agreement is unenforceable?

I'm sure the original agreement contained a clause allowing Valve to amend its terms and defined the available remedies. I don't know enough about contract law to say how a court would rule.

Isn't there some law against making people agree to a contract that is overly difficult or long to read?

I don't think I've ever seen an EULA on closed-source software aside from ours that doesn't have a 'Vader' clause.

I have yet to meet someone who has had their account suspended. The rules are basically common sense rules. If you don't access steam with a hacked client or try to steal other's accounts, you have nothing to worry about.

I'll say this:

I really hope Stardock doesn't go to mandatory Steamworks again after Rebellion.   You should be selling the game on Steam, but you need to keep SDC as an option for all future games.

Valve just has too much capability to go evil very quickly for me to ever trust them fully.  I'll use Steam, but I don't purchase AAA games on Steam ever.

This would be my vote, as well.

Monopolies almost inevitably work against the consumers' best interests ... in the long run, if not in the short ...

Having had more than my fair share of experience with arbitration and federal/state and county courts, I would say that if you want to talk about Kangaroo courts, it's definitely not arbitration.

Lawyers looking to prey on businesses love county courts because they can run up the legal costs massively and help force a settlement. They tend to be very plaintiff friendly, regardless of how frivolous the case.

Is your arbitration experience versus other corporations or versus individuals?

Statistics such as these: http://centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-mandatory-binding-arbitration-corporate-end-run-around-civil-justice-system

I know, may be a biased opinion piece, but it does cite sources- states that at best, consumers win 5% of the time, and employees under 1%.  This is why I'm skeptical of the process (I'd be less skeptical with a small business, but Valve is a billion-dollar megacorp)

I also think your experiences may be different because you are not a large corporation, and arbitrators aren't financially reliant on you like they are larger companies.

Again, I do hope that in future (I understand why you did what you did for Rebellion, but I wasn't that interested in Rebellion)- that you offer both Steam and non-Steamworks versions of your games, especially your single-player games such as FE.  It's not that I hate Steam, it's that I want choice and I don't trust Valve entirely.