Very well articulated point. If I'll buy a game as opposed to register to some online subscription service, ala Netflix, then I want as much of the game as possible to be independent from some third-party internet service.
In addition to the above, I take exception to vendor-specific client being integrated into the games for the following reasons:
- It makes the distribution of the game, or at least the complete game with multiplayer features and updates, dependent on said vendor (even if you can run the game with the vendor software offline, the game-maker might not be legally able to sell the game via other services unless the vendor-specific software is removed from the game which may either be impossible or greatly reduce features) and that's not good for healthy competition among vendors.
- Unlike the Steam-client, the GOG client doesn't run on Linux. That means that any game that is tightly coupled with the client, in addition to being bound to the GOG store, will be bound to Windows and won't run on Linux.
I get that some game-makers may want to integrate online features (multiplayer, ladder, etc), into their games, but if their intent is to sell their game as a product and not a service, then they need to:
- Gravitate toward a free (as in free speech) cross-platform standard library for such features that is supported across vendors
- Decouple as much of the game from those features as possible so that you can still play single player (and preferably LAN as well) offline
I find the current trend from bigger vendors to lock-in games with their proprietary "online" libraries (Galaxy or Steam or something else) disturbing. It's reminds me of the hardware lock-in that console games have.
PS: Beyond the social implications, my personal preference as a gamer is that I don't care all that much about all that ladder/achievement/social crap. If you force me to connect to the home base in singler-player or remove Linux support in order to enable those features, I'll be far less likely to buy your game.