Why? Steam simply offers the superior service. If you expect any kind of governmental instance to interfere with a company who is simply offering the best product, I expect you're quite the fan of communism as well? Because that's what you have if you stifle those who are ahead in order to create a level playing field for those who can't deliver on the same level. You're asking for somebody to kill the free market and introduce a planned economy for all DD services just because you can't live with a simple DRM scheme.
If you think that exclusive is bad, what about the console exclusives? What about all CoD DLC being locked to the XBOX platform for the foreseeable future?
It's just a product of the free market.
The fact that laws and consumer rights are behind is not Valve's fault, neither are they exploiting their position. As a DD provider they are heads and shoulders above the competition, but in no way do they enjoy a monopoly. They've done nothing to hinder other providers in their publishing of titles that are on Steam. In fact they embrace it, allowing keys purchased elsewhere to be activated on Steam. The assertion that everybody instantly converts to a Steam fanatic and proceeds to only buy their games on Steam from that moment on once they've got a game on there is obviously false.

I really do like the new interface in Civ V, at least what I've seen of it so far. And I'm all good with ranged and siege combat units. Good stuff!

Saying "Using Steamworks makes it more likely for future games in the series to use Steamworks" is tin-foil-hat talk. The fact of the matter is that Steamworks, as a DRM, works less well than (for example) SecuROM.
The fact of the matter is that there is no serious competitors to Steamworks in terms of multiplayer systems. GameSpy is old and disliked, GfWL is too restrictive towards the developer and Impulse Reactor, Desura and Battle.net 2 aren't available yet. As Alpha Protocol demonstrsted, Sega isn't wedded to Steamworks, the DRM, but in terms of multiplayer service, Steamworks is currently the best service in the market.
As for Fallout: NV, three letters: DLC. Difficulties getting the Fallout 3 DLC via GfWL has been well known, and again Steamworks is pretty much the only other game in town.
To summerise: if you build a better service, they will come.

I was talking about distant future where Steam might gain market dominance or even monopoly no matter the reason they gained that position. Market authorities responsibility is to make sure that does not happen you know as it is ALWAYS bad for both consumer and market in general. Gaining such position does not need superior product, on the contrary, the average consumer generally choose what is most convenient for them. This is what happened with windows as while there were superior products available function and feature wise MS' product offered convenience and ease of use. Over time other product makers dropped out of makert either volunterily or by for by force (MS used every dirty trick in the book, many of them illegal. Market authorities stepped in too late for the MS competitors). Now MS is able to maintain it's monopoly (MacOS nor Linux offer it any real competition and help MS keep market authorities at bay most of the time) by sheer size of it's market share and are able to overcharge pretty much any amount from their products as there are no viable alternatives. When ever someone attempt to make a move to using competing product MS can step in and make offer they can't resist as MS can easily affort to undercut it's profits in one place, even sell at loss as rest of the market provides them quite enough profits. We suffer from the end results even today.
You're talking about completely different platforms where porting would not nessarily be finacially viable. If you want to make proper comparison, it would be only one store chain being able to sell computer games in your country and no one else could.
As DD provider (talking about store it self) Steam is hardly anything to talk about. Both GOG and Gamersgate offer far superior DD service as they don't offer DRM (in GG case, it''s up to developer/publisher what DRM they use), don't require client, don't force autoupdates (I consider this a feature, autoupdate is only usefull for exclusivly multiplayer games), allow make fully functioning backups that don't require internetconnection for installation (again in GG case as long as DRM chosen by Dev/publisher allow it), no € = $ rubbish and so fort. GOG is simply the best DD service out there, only GG comes even close. Only reason anyone uses Steam is convenience of having all multiplayer features (steam offers no usefull singleplayer features at all) bundled with it and it's ability to make great offers due to large market share it has cornered for it self. Do you really think that if Valve sold steamworks multiplayer platform as separate product to developers (with no attachement to steam store) it would ever have gained the market share it has today? I personally don't give rats ass for multiplayer features so every single feature steam offers either is irrelevant or hamper my gaming experience.
I already pointed out why it would be utter madness for other DD services to offer games with steamworks in their store if you bothered to read my whole post earlier. It's because it's tied to steam store, a competing DD service and it would be extremely bad for their business to forward their own customers to steam and force them to sign in another DD service to play games they both from themselves. I don't see steam encouraging their users to go buy games and try alternative DD services now do I? And no, I definately don't wan't other DD services to adopt Steam strategy as that would eventually mean that each DD service would have their own exlusives that users of other platforms could not buy without joining the DD services that offer the exlusive game. Games should be sold in all/most DD services and multiplayer platforms should be separate from stores.
And while the situation is not as dire as I posted YET but steam exlusives are clear sing of steam having large enough market share that developers can ignore rest of the potential customers and DD services to be profitable. And the convenience of having all those extra features that developers would have to develop them selves or buy elsewhere is as much a trap for devs as it's for customers as using it once makes it more likely them more likely to use it again in future and eventually they either sack or lose (due to them forgetting the knowhow due to lack of practice or them leaving voluntarily) all the people that could have coded similiar features in case they would want to try to sell product for whole market.
I'm hardly in favor of communism, quite the opposite (I'm finnish, we are born with hatred to it as well as russia in general. Note that socialism =! communism and I do favor goverment limited control over sertain services (welfare mostly, I live in welfare state afterall), infrastructure (in order to provide infrastructure to whole country, not just where most people live) and national resources.) but I am pro consumer choise activist and favor authorities controll over market when ever it benefits the consumer. I'm also firmly opposed against large corporations and their goverment influence due to their exessive lobbying. Goverments are ment to represent the people as whole, not corporation (at all actually) or rich exlusively. Corporate lobbying and their political financing should be forbitten by law.
Lol, my rant veered quite far from steam, now did it? ;-p Or civ5 for that matter. *grin*

Convenience/ease of use = superior product from a market perspective ;)
I never agreed to governments regulating the open market especially when a firm achieves an important position on its own merit and not through sketchy moves. But that's for another topic.

Were we talking steamworks as a multiplayer platform multiplayer platform alone, I might agree with you if it was separate from steam (might, I don't play multiplayer at all as I've said milliojn times by now). But by tying it to DD service makes it one of the worst multiplayer platform out there.
Also do you consider Internet Eplorer superior to other browsers available? What about Windows Media Player? Or WMV video and WMA audio formats? There were and are superior, both ease of use and convenince vice as well as feature and function wise out there. All of MS products gained their market share because they were bundled with windows (convenience here comes from them being available with windows, not from their usability) or due to having access to knowledge and fuctions that competition could not replicate due to not having access to same Windows core functions as MS did. Had someone forced MS offer them separately, either MS would have had to spend more on development or other superior products would have pushed them out of market. As no one did, we all know the end results all too well.
Do note that you would not be deprived out of anything if steamworks multiplayer part would be forced to be detached from Steam, you'd be more likely to benefit as Steam store would have to compete with other DD services with it's own merits (customer support, DRM policy, user policy etc.) rather than rely steamworks to push up its sales. Same goes for steamworks as multiplayer platform. This is why EU forced MS sell windows without Windows Media player (but forget to ban selling version with it ending in total failure) and forced MS to include browser choise window so consumer can choose what browser they use.
You have to realise that big companies are controlled by shareholders and their only concern is to make more money. They don't care how it's done, thus big companies will do anything their corporate executives think they can get away with (including disbanding the company and selling it's assests if shareholders can profit more from it in short term). Worst thing is that shareholders can't be held liable for what the corporation does even if they basically force the executives do something shady. This is why I'm also against stock market and Ltd./LCC's in general. Owners should either be held liable for the actions of the companies they own in whole or in part or they should not have say what company does at all.
So you support monopolies and companies that have gained dominating market position? They themselves are mark of failed free market and will do all in their power to stifle any attamps to compete with them wether it's 'legal' or illegal.
You don't seem to understand what purpose the market regulating authorities have. Their goal is to make sure no sincle corporation gains monopoly or dominating market position and to ensure that no one hampers competition in free market (so no agreeing to setting prices, no dividing market between competitors, no buying out competitors if it leads to less competitition etc.). You also seem to fail to realise that if a company attains dominating marketshare or monopoly it can maintain it's position due to it's market share alone so no need for being innovative, wasting resources in providing better service etc. They can simply use money to get away with everything and get what ever they want.

The irony of the above post is that Valve is a privately owned company, so the guff about shareholders is irrelevant in this case.
Even if Steamworks was banned from bundling in the client, I'd say they would still be in a very good position, probably still market leaders, because some people only use Steam, and I would imagine people will forgo retail to get the client version, especially for multiplayer Valve games. Hell, they could probably survive on Counter Strike sales alone.

Well even if it's today, do you believe for second it won't be turned into Ltd./LCC or what not the moment the price is right. I'm sure EA, MS or some other big player (even Apple could as was speculated at some point, they too have money to spare. Heck even Google could be seen to want to expand to that field, it's already messing everywhere else in the internet.) could make an offer Valve's owner could not resist. Do you enjoy imaging any of those as your new benevolent overlord ;-p.
Well obviously Steam would stay in good position for many years even after market authorities would step in as that would mean Steam would be in danger of cornering the DD market.

Well, the new interface IS indeed nice looking. I like the sound of the new diplomacy engine. The tactical options have been enhanced.
But apparently nobody gives a shit, so fuck it.

I give a shit...
I'll be buying Civ 5 on release day.

Ehh... I'm not saying retailing a Steamworks-free version is impossible (see: Torchlight), but from what I've heard Firaxis is using quite a lot of the Steamworks APIs, so replacing them may be difficult, and releasing a Steamworks-free version down the line may be too much effort for not a lot of profit. We'll see, the Civ Fanatics forums seem to be largely against Steam, but we all know how well video game boycotts go. Although, picketing the developers in person... yeah.

I'm starting to think hexagons are actually a worse idea then squares. If your setting up battle lines it only allows units to attack in 2 directions instead of 3. I still like the idea of single units per hex though but will have to see how well they balance it out.

Still have to see how it shakes out, but this is the first Civ game in a while that has me actually interested. I think the ranged combat is a welcome change, makes sense and gives units better differentiation.

Well there goes another year or two of my life down the drain.
Thanks a lot Civ 5! :P