There isn't anything anyone can do about Steam apart from voting with their wallets. I don't plan on keeping my preorder. I don't plan on buying it even if it's on sale. I don't plan on even thinking about it, either. To me, when a company shoves DRM down your throat, that tells me that the game they're selling probably isn't worth buying in the first place. I have never once played a game and said, "That was so good it totally makes up for the DRM."

Maybe Valve and Acti-Blizz will miraculously destroy themselves with that DOTA lawsuit going on, but that's wishful thinking at best, given how much money each company makes.

Pretty much this. A lot of Steam's features seem really pointless to me and don't add any value to a game at all. I've always felt that any kind of DRM lowers a game's value, be it Steam, Origin or GfWL. Why should I have to have an annoying client running in the background just so I can play a game?

Steam may not take up a lot of space in the background, but it has been a nightmare on a daily basis for me from day one. I lost count of the number of times Steam tells me that it can't connect to the servers, or the games are 'unavailable,' yet I still have an internet connection. And offline mode is half-assed at best. Funnily enough, unlike GfWL's offline mode, you have to be online to even use it. Why even call it offline mode?

It makes me sad to see another dev go the Steam-only route. I'm surprised that, of all the companies, it would be Stardock and the folks behind the gamer's bill of rights.

I don't get it.. what is so inconvenient about steam? Is there something other than being required to be online to play?

I just don't appreciate being tracked every time I boot up a game.  It's my game, my business when I play it.  But also the online thing, too--I like to be offline altogether unless there's a good reason to be online.

Does Desura offer the features your looking from from steamworks?

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the communities' resistance to this is particularly relevant...this is a small community, and I think they are hoping rebellion opens this game to a much larger market...

Even if every person in the current community decided not to buy rebellion, simply putting the game on steam could get so many new people that it would still be more profitable...

Wrong.  It's a checkmark option.  Automatic patching yes/no.

Mark your profile private.  You can't stand seeing your own gameplay stats privately? 

See your previous posts.  According to you yourself you know nothing about STEAMWORKS and don't care to know.  So how would you know that "every other feature can be replicated by SD, if they choose to do so"?

Growing consensus?  Yeah and guess what?  You constitute the 'few' in terms of potential sales.  Games are made successful beyond some DEV's wildest dreams on STEAM everyday.  Just look to indie devs like the DEFCON devs for stories that make the alternative (not going with STEAM) sound like the dumbest move a DEV could make.

At the expense of alienating every loyal SD customer, that without which, SD would not exist?

I see your point though, it's a shame profitability is the new focus of SD.

But Sins Trinity is already on Steam without Steamworks. I want them to sell it on steam, just not require people who buy directly from Stardock to use it.

It would be perfect if they could run sell it either way.  That said, it's a business and as a business it would be stupid not to use Steam's success. 

It's the 80-20 rule.  No matter what you do, 20% of the people will never be satisfied.  Doesn't mean they are "wrong"--it's just not possible to please everyone.

I won't be alienated.  You don't speak for every loyal SD customer.  

And it's a shame that a privately owned company wants to turn a profit?  Really?

I'm not interested in furthering a debate....

FANTASTIC, Thoumsin!