Now, I know that none of that list should require steam to always be running, and there is no specific benefit to having it running at all times (except the auto-updating, and the fact that I can buy and install games to my home PC from another location), but it's a small price to pay for an otherwise very convenient service.
Not for me, and that is the difference between us.
Just to clarify something, I'm not a Steam-hater. I don't think Steam is evil, or any of that nonsense, some fanatics like to spout. I just don't like having to use it.
I tried Steam a couple years ago. First when Half-Life 2 came out, then again in 2010. About two years ago I stopped using it, because I didn't like the experience. It felt too restrictive for me. The whole "Agree to our new SSA, or say good bye to your games"-business last year didn't make me want to go back either.
If you like to use Steam, then that is fine. I'm happy for you. I, however, prefer to have a choice where to buy my games, and to have control over how and when I play them. With the continuing move to Steam-only releases, the former is less and less possible. Though there are gladly still exceptions. The latter, however, is often restricted through the Steam-client. It doesn't matter, if that is because of publisher-demand or not. The result is the same.
When FE:LH came out, I got a free Steam-key fo it, because I was one of those, who pre-ordered E:WoM. I liked FE, but not enough to go back to Steam for LH. With GalCiv, however, I am willing do so, because I love the series.
Frogboy already said in this thread, that a non-Steam release is not going to happen. So, all I'm asking for now is, that GalCiv 3 not require the client to be running in order to play.
That isn't unreasonable, is it?