This is a video game. You knew about the Steam dependency before you bought it. No one "forced" you at gun point to purchase the game.
I don't buy Ubisoft games anymore, no matter how much I'd like them or how long I've played a series (Settlers, for example). If HoMM6 comes with the same online DRM, I will not buy it -- and yes, that'll hurt.
People who dislike Steam just need to exercise some self control and abstain. It's a product like any other. For me, the Steam connection is an advantage, as I use its features, appreciate the auto-updating, etc.
ARGH.
It's NOT A PRODUCT!
It's a distribution channel!
Or - to put it another way, would you pay to subscribe to Steam -- completely agnostic of any games? If Steam cost $10 a month... or hell... $10 a year, before you even bought a game, but just for the privilege of possibly buying a game through them -- would you pay it?
I'm sure there are those that would but most do not -- it's just a cardboard box in 1s and 0s!
It's the difference between a subscription-based netmusic service and itunes -- no one has to pay for itunes because it's just a delivery channel for what you DO buy (and I'd also note, after a lot of complaining, Apple... again... the king of "my way or the highway"... gave in the market needs and now lets you port what you buy into other systems). However, you DO pay for Rhapsody because you're buying access through their interface, rather than the song itself (and, of course... they also DO offer MP3 for sale individually which DOESN'T require you to go through their interface after you've purchased).
I would also quibble with Steam being a "known dependency" -- my box said nothing about a Steam dependency, solely "internet connection to activate".
Look - this is not a totally foreign concept to me. In addition to having experience buying via other digital channels, I work for a company that publishes professional software and content distribution (for CPAs, law firms, etc). Just last year, our new tax form filing software - which was originally going to be a dll-based thin client, but ended up being a local install - launched. There was a setting - accessible and noticeable directly on the GUI main page - that allowed users the option to save work and work locally. Within the first two weeks - we got the first complaint/question about the need for web access (the online iteration includes practice tips, news updates and other help features, the local client only including the basic tool help files). We didn't complain about "read the help files" or "call customer support, you can do this offline already" -- we immediately released v1.1 where we directly in the install asked upfront "Do you prefer to work offline" vs. "Do you prefer to work online". We linked to a description of the advantages of working online - and what defaulting to working offline would mean, but ultimately -- based on just ONE customer complaint, we did the very small amount of work necessary to make the install work in a way the customer wanted.
The customer is always right, at least, for any IT company worth its salt... That doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off - sure, I've fielded irrational complaints -- but ultimately, you give the customer what they want if it's within reason and realm of possibility to provide it.
In this case - something like our solution, which took all of 90 minutes to code, and just another day to test, I simply cannot imagine it would be any harder for Steam - is an easily implemented solution. If you google "Steam play offline" -- I think the results speak for themselves about the number of people that want this available as a default option.... without needing to look for the way to do it... without needing to go online, then offline...
