I think you are falling too easily to the other extreme. Because it's not like we can't do anything. It really depends on us, on creating - so to say - a critical mass that will force companies to start doing things the way we, consumers, prefer.
Not long ago, before releasing Super Street Fighter IV AE on PC, Capcom declared that they will sell it with always-online DRM. Then people started ranting and complaining. And guess what? When they saw that they really might lose too many customers, they changed their idea and said that they would only go with online-activation DRM. Of course, at that point, people stopped whining - everybody happy, because we have to activate just once and be online only for some additional features. But makes you wonder: what would happen if they still had been complaining? My guess is: they would remove online DRM at alll... It really depends on us - or rather - on the majority...

I would argue that that's only because people haven't started en masse rebelling against it. Not that it's a given that they will, but I think these sort of issues are far too volatile (not sure if spelled right -___-) to say for certain. The war hasn't been lost, simply because there hasn't BEEN a war yet. Very few people are rebelling against DRM. But people tend to get fed up with things, and the more time there is for them to get locked out of their accounts, lose all their music, be unable to use a product they bought, etc, the more they will lose patience with DRM--or at least the sort of overt DRM that causes those problems. Humans don't start resisting something until it's made itself a big enough annoyance. It's actually quite easy to stop DRM, or anything that you see companies doing that you don't like: You stop supporting them with your money and make it clear why.

I have faith that mainstream culture will eventually do what it does best... start whining and complaining. Whether or not people will make the hard choices to send a message to publishers... that's uncertain. That sort of thing requires a group with some real dogma to get started. You get enough pushy opinionated loudmouths preaching about the horrors of DRM, and you start changing things. But if GOG is any indication, we've got plenty of those, bless them. I came here pretty much neutral about the whole DRM thing. Now I'm at least irritated by it, enough that I'd consider not buying a game with bad DRM.

As I said, I think the fact that a lack of DRM is being flaunted as a desirable feature is a good sign. Plus, this is an issue of the "little people" vs the big bad corporations... and we all know how much people love getting on board those sort of bandwagons. So I don't think it's worth throwing in the towel just yet. It's not a given that the anti-DRM movement will succeed... but it's not a given that it will fail, either. That only becomes a given when there's nobody left who cares. And that's far from the case.

Hmm... I am a developer, so let's see...

Option 1: I have to create my own billing system, buy / maintain servers for transactions / patching, buy / maintain servers to provide a cloud-game-saving ability, buy / maintain servers for tracking gamers' profiles / stats / achievements / friends, invest more in marketing the game.

Option 2: Contact Valve, let them know that I want my game to use Steamworks, and just send them the game's files. They'll take care of the rest.

I wonder which one is better...

EDIT: Same thing goes for every other digital distribution service. And while using only Steam as the platform on PC might be a bit limiting, they've decided that the effort that is required to dev / publish for other platforms on the PC is greater than the potential financial benefit.

I agree on every level. Well put.

I think you are forgetting one crucial thing. Well, you're not making games for yourself. You're doing this for us - gamers. You need to publish them the way it's convenient for us. And if majority hated Steam, you would have to abandon it as well - no matter how you love it...

I think your problem is that the majority likes steam...

Yes, I know that :D
But that's not my point here. All I wanted to say is that sometimes developers and publishers tend to forget about clients and do whatever is convenient for them. And then later they are complaining about piracy.... (see: Ubisoft or EA)

More or less everybody always does what is convenient for himself. The inner logic of the market implies that what is good for the companies is also what is good for the customers because the customers are free not to buy something. They vote with their wallet. I certainly agree that the market is not perfect and inefficient and maybe not so mature to cater to the needs of all gamers. But in general I am happy that everybody does what is convenient for him. It's the principle.

Therein lies my dilemma. 3 out of the last 5 new titles I was intending to purchase required Steam, the other 2 were both tied to Origins. When I limited my search to games that require no internet activation there is nothing left that looks good to me. So I come to GOG and pick up older titles that I missed out on for one reason or another and I have quit looking forward to new releases.

Regarding that asinine "nobody is holding a gun to your head to buy games" arguments; forcing and the use of force are completely different concepts in the world of laws and business. Putting a gun to someones head as way conducting a business transaction falls under Assault, Extortion and possibly Theft. When a product or service that a customer wants comes bundled with an unrelated product or service they do not want it is called Tying or Third Line Forcing and it falls under Anti Trust Laws.

The game publishers put out a list of recommended requirements for their games, This includes a list of the necessary hardware requirements. You obviously need a PC to play a PC game, but the publisher cannot specify a specific make or model of PC. They give you requirements for the graphics proccessing, but they cannot state an exact video card that must be used. The game publishers cannot require you to have AVG anti virus installed as a prerequisite to installing their game, nor can they require that you have Firefox set as your default browser every time you start the game. These requirements would be considered Third Line Forcing and the publishers would be open to Anti Trust litigation. So when I state that Steam is forced on the consumer it is not simply hyperbole, it is the actual legal definition of the business model being used.

So I restate my question; If Steam is such a great service, why must it be required? Why is it not allowed to stand by itself on its own merit?

But being required is part of its own merit, you see. As KavazovAngel pointed out, Steamworks is convenient for the developers. If they had a better framework to use, they'd use that instead.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.

Under Option 1 are you implying that you cannot produce a game unless it contains those features?

Under Option 2 are you implying that no other online distributor will simply accept the files and do the neccesary publishing themselves?

I seem to remember that you could produce a game 100% Steam free for sale at any outlet of your choice, but if you choose Steam then you send them the complete game and they add in Steamworks, not you.

So, basically you are happy that EA is cutting their new game (ME3) to pieces even before it's released. Good for you. But let us see how far they can go with that attitude, because I don't think everyone's as tolerant as you are. And even if they can go away with that, I don't think they are treating customers in a fair way.

There are always the DRM Free indies if you're craving something new which isn't on GOG.

You forgot Option 3: Have Steam turn down your game and then sit on it for all eternity. :P