I'm going to just second the sentiment here. I re-bought the games on steam, since I'd prefer to keep my games in one place. However, after completely reinstalling the machine after I replaced/upgraded all the hardware, starting up both galciv2 and soase requires me to find the old stardock account.

This annoys me, since last I checked the deal with registering the game was for when you wanted to update the game itself, back when the game was bought retail. When it's bought on f.ex steam, I expect that the problem of proving ownership has already been proven by the built-in authentication through steam. However, apparently the move to steam (or the act of stardock selling impulse to gamestop, whichever, it seems to have the same issue on impulse now that I check) has ramped up the strictness of the account requirement.

I am categorically against having to register a game with the developer or publisher to play the game (I wasn't overly fond of requiring it to update the game, but I could live with it as a compromise), and I seem to remember Stardock being against DRM which hinders gamers from playing a game if they don't activate the game. What changed?

Anyhow, I'd also just like to point out that because of the problems with starting both galciv2 and soase:trinity etc without unfurling the stardock account, I've decided to give Rebellion a pass.

Due to privacy concerns, Steam cannot share customer information with its partners. We, however, need to know who you guys are when you come looking for support, if you really bought the game, etc. Our product registration system is our way of doing this.

*Removed*

Sir, what you say here don't make any sense.

In the old times, when Impulse was owned by StarDock, and it was a complete standalone DRM/installer, it was just one activation through that system, and that's fine of course.

After Impulse was bought by Gamestop, even Impulse redirect customers to install and verify through STEAM, independent on how you bought it (Impulse or directly through STEAM). For validating the product, it is not required for the game to have an additional DRM activation/mandatory account to StarDock, as ALL customers have already been verified and activated by STEAM. 

Impulse: " IMPORTANT: This game requires the Steam client to install & play" 

To verify non-impulse buyers to give them support, it can easily be done with other schemes, as I mentioned in my previous post.

*sigh* It's no use. People will always complain about DRM. Bug Stardock. I'm not going to look at this thread anymore.

As I said, I guessed how the system works. I'm no developer.

Without a system like this we would have no way to provide discounts to people who bought in a certain time frame.

Let me give you an example:

People who bought Elemental: War of Magic, in 2010 get Fallen Enchantress for free.  But if you bought War of Magic in 2011, the price goes up to something like $20.

How are we able to do that given all the different places people have bought the game? The answer is the system you're talking about above.

It's how we were able to provide a $10 upgrade discount to people who bought say Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment back in 2009.

That's easy to turn on its head, and instead of saying "bought", say "registered". That way you can argue that registering your game gives you an actual benefit beyond just getting access to support. As to getting discounts, I'd assume that's easy enough to get worked out in conjunction with, say, steam, so that they give people who bought their game in a certain timeframe (and they would have a more accurate picture of who bought what, when) a different price from those who bought the game outside of that timeframe.

Take me, for example. I bought the sins trilogy and galciv2 on steam the 03.12.2011, but I didn't try to fire it up until a week ago or so at the most. That's a 6 months gap in your data of my "purchase date", whereas steam has the date and the time. And, of course, my first impression of the game was that I had to register, which I'd never have to do before, so I tried the Impulse version, and it demanded exactly the same thing.

I've absolutely no problem with paying for good games, I only really care if it's a good game, if it's infested with consoleitis, or if it's got some activation or (even worse) always-on DRM. I've gotten burnt on buying games with activation a few times, so I've changed my purchasing habits to the point where I'll wait for a few weeks to see what people say about a game, and to allow for Valve to update their steam page with any additional DRM the publisher/developer deems to put on their game. This has probably saved me more money than goodwill discounts from publishers/developers, as a good amount of games fall off on "is it a good game", even more fall off on "is it infested with consoleitis", and a few actual good games seem to fall off due to activation or always-on DRM as well. vOv

PS: I can prove that I've repurchased the sins/galciv2 games on steam for the convenience of having them there instead of in impulse if need be. I'm not joking.

So, I guess I'll just take this as a confirmation that stardock isn't planning on moving away from requiring that games be activated before you can play them, then, and I'll keep that in mind when deciding on my purchases going forward.