It will be using Steamworks, so Steam will be used.

People who don't like Steam don't know anything about it.  OR they just like spending way too much on games (Steam is so cheap).

That's true whether you use Steam or not. You don't buy software, only a license to use it, be it from Steam or directly from the developer or publisher. I don't necessarily agree with it in principle, but there it is. Unless the software is offered without drm there is no real difference, and that is far from common outside of the indie scene. It has also been said, more than once, that contingencies are in place in case Valve HQ is destroyed by aliens. I have a vast Steam library and I'm not the least bit concerned about losing access to my games.

For games you buy on Steam that use Stardock's registration, you can also redownload it at http://download.stardock.com.

What don't I like about steam? I don't like how the steam client constantly updates itself and forces me to update before I can do anything. I don't like how I need to sign in/start Steam in order to play the game I purchased. I don't like how my games force updates on themselves, preventing me from playing until it downloads whatever huge patch awaits (even if I intend to only play single player and my mods were only compatible with the previous version). I don't like how for many games it constantly pops up the steam overlay to tell me about a CD key I never need to enter. I don't like the pop-up ads that come up every single time I turn steam on, or restart steam. I don't like the little achievement messages that pull me out of my game and draw attention to themselves.

Yes, I know that these also apply to Origin or UPlay or any other always-on digital platforms. Yes, I know some of this stuff goes away if you specify it in the settings for each game profile. That's not the point. The point is that sometimes I would prefer to just get the game, install it, and start playing. No pop ups, no auto-updates unless I specify otherwise, no auto-syncing, no forcing my computer to run steam and be connected to the internet.

Remember how much complaining there was about DRM when it first came to be? Steam is DRM. Every time you try to play the game, and it says you cannot play unless Steam is running, it's DRM. It's an extra step, an extra login if you switch computers.

Are there benefits to Steam? Of course! Download any game you own whenever you need, no searching around for a patcher, easy mod support, community features like friends and chat, achievements, save game sync, etc. But that comes with a price, a price that is very evident when you have flaky internet.

And god forbid you ever get your account hacked or banned. For the convenience of putting all your eggs in one basket, thousands of hours of gaming, thousands of dollars spent, all in one place for the stuff you paid for...one day Valve can decide that you no longer get access to any of that. And there's nothing you can do. You pay for the privilege of using their service...Valve owns those game licenses and lets you play them.

Of course I use steam, I've used it since 2003. I don't go out of my way to avoid it. But just because the original fears of "what happens to my games if Valve goes under" have gone away doesn't mean I'm not aware of what I'm sacrificing for convenience. Don't discount the negative opinions of Steam just because it's "convenient and cheap", there are legitimate reasons not to put absolute faith in one company. Hell, even EA used to be looked on as a leading company in the industry, a shining beacon of what could happen if artists were given the influx of cash necessary to make their creative dreams into reality. Times change, companies change. Just ask Maxis, and Bioware, and Westwood, and Mythic, and so many others what happened after they put their blind faith into one company.

I don't think it's blind faith. I don't have blind faith in anything, much less a for-profit enterprise. What I do have is confidence in Valve, Stardock, (et al) to look after their own interests; and it just so happens that their interests and mine are the same. I want quality games and services at competitive prices, and they want to offer them. It is in their interest to make me happy. If that changes, so will the amount of money that I give them, and they know that.

Steam is like Google. They're in your home, at your work, on your phone. They see and know all. Fortunately, I like both companies so far. They bring a lot of positives to my life thus far. When that changes, I'll fulfill my role in capitalism and go to their competitor. In the end everything comes down to money.

No, that's not correct. All licenses involve some kind of contract with the game publisher, true. But Steam adds another layer of ownership into the mix, whereby instead of the contract being between you and the game publisher, there are now two contracts - between Valve and the game publisher (eg, the one you just bought for valve), and between you and Steam. Valve can null and void your entire library because they sit in the middle of all the contracts. Worst thing a game publisher can do without steam is make you lose just one game (or games by that publisher, possibly), but ONLY if their EULA has such a clause, which it may not. It's entirely possibly to a have a steam library of games whereby if the games were bought outside of steam, the publisher would have no way or right to deny access to the game under any circumstance once the license is purchased (especially for offline singleplayer games), according to the EULA. So steam is very clearly different, and strictly worse, from a licensing perspective. Their model is also not strictly necessary, except to allow them to control your account - there's no reason steam couldn't just act as a market place and game manager instead of Valve taking ownership of your licenses.

A court can't magically force a company to stay open; if Steam shuts down their servers, it's end of story for all your games. They don't have any obligation to retroactively patch games to work without steam or provide you with a non-steam version if one exists. You wouldn't be able to play the game that non-steam uses could keep playing, and you couldn't legally acquire the non-steam version because you don't own a license to that game, you gave the license to valve.

As for the case where they just stop you accessing your account, it's one thing to say it won't hold up in court, but are you going to spend tens of thousands of dollars in court fees fighting it, when your library probably could be re-bought for less?

Having said all that ...

Again, the convenience of steam wins out, and I use it extensively. I'm not a conspiracy theorist who believes this WILL happen and we must boycott steam. But there are real, legitimate concerns with the model.

Steam is my Home   

Depends on the game's EULA - some prohibit on-selling/transferring, and it may depend on local laws too (local to where Valve is based, I would imagine). The individual publishers would then need to help out with making those keys work on their own platforms (steam keys are often specifically only for steam), as well as making non-steam installers/versions that work without steam.

Sure, though that would be up to the publisher. 

There are many solutions to the issues, just none of them are in any kind of contract or legally enforceable.

I agree, though Steam doesn't entirely shield you from dodgy companies with terrible policies (though they have a good track record when this does occur).

I'm only pointing out what the Steam EULA means from a legal point; I don't actually expect steam will go out of business anytime soon, or pull any kind of shifty with your account.