Quoting arstal, reply 329Many of the anti-Steamers have said they're willing to pay extra money or lose features to have it not on Steam. That should tell you something.
That's what they always say. But it hasn't stopped Half-Life 2, Left 4 Dead, Empire: Total War, Modern Warfare 2, etc. to be huge commercial successes.
First: So being a 'huge commercial success' is your #1 priority. As I'm not a part of 2K or steam, and I'm instead a gamer, my #1 priority is a game be fun and not force me to run an unnecessary third-party program in the background to play single-player offline -- especially when the company is making enough that that requirement isn't necessary, and is only a way for the suits to have even more money-hats than they already have.
From your posts it's been obvious you're not arguing as a gamer but as a corporatist (and, of course, there's nothing wrong with that).
Second -- we know the result of the decisions made for HL2, LFD, etc. We don't know what the results would have been had the decisions been otherwise. You can speculate or cite studies that estimate (have you any?) but that's it.
Regarding Civ5, we won't know how their decision to force steam would compare with making steam a choice. Even if we knew that, knowing the long-term effect is something else. I've been a civ fan for almost 20 years, since day 1. Many companies today, especially in the US, are short-sighted, looking from quarter to quarter instead of the long run - decades, generations, even centuries.
EDITED TO ADD:
Third -- Has anyone claimed that not forcing steam will cause Civ5 to not be a 'huge commercial success"? I haven't, and I haven't seen that claim.
If not, then yours is the fallacious argument Strawman.
In fact, arstal who you replied to, said the opposite -- folks would pay to not have steam forced upon them -- making Civ5 and even greater commercial success.
