There's levels of what one finds acceptable (or if workarounds can make it acceptable). In my opinion, Steam is unnecessary spyware, and the fact it uninstalls itself stupidly (Windows or Linux), and due to a mistake on Linux (since corrected, I believe), destroyed data, makes it 100% unacceptable to me; I refuse to take the chance that their crap software will destroy data. The reason for data destruction on Linux was non-standard installation directory, and since I'd do that, it becomes a major risk I will not take.
And that's more info than I care for them to have. Gog without Galaxy has no such mechanisms in place, thus less data is collected. I know security, and information collection / leaks are a security threat. How much so, is up to individual circumstances and persons; for me, I don't feel like letting Steam have that info.
I put that "(in my opinion)" for a reason; I fully recognize that my threshold for if something is spyware or not, is lower than others (spyware not necessarily being malware). Unless you're using cash in a shop (and even that might no longer be true with facial recognition cams), a purchasing history is inevitable when purchasing something tied to an account. Just because I have accepted that, doesn't mean I have to accept everything else.
I condemn Steam as spyware because of all the extra info it collects (that it's public by default is just an extra bit of "no" on top). Gog doesn't collect that info and I'm okay with doing business with them. If Steam didn't collect that info, and didn't need a client (thus no phoning home and no potential data destruction), and the game itself were DRM-Free (no built-in phone home, or other clients or DRM), and they opened Workshop for people to download without Steam (ala manually putting mods into a Gog version), then I would consider doing business with Steam for DRM-Free games. Ergo, not hypocrisy.
Maybe with Galaxy they do (and maybe they say if they do somewhere)? I don't know, I don't use Galaxy and haven't looked into it (which makes for consistency with my dislike of the Steam client).
Stating my opinion when asked, about why I don't want to use Steam, and stating the multiple big points for me, that make it unacceptable, is not "shoving it down people's throats".
The fact it's necessary to phone home for one to play the games (even occasionally if one puts it into offline mode, I believe (ala Denuvo every 2 weeks needing to phone home)), is the definition of DRM. The fact you need their software installed is also unacceptable to me; I've no need for their crap software that has destroyed data. Gog doesn't need a client; one can download all the installers, dlcs, extras from a web browser (or a third party utility, like lgogdownloader if one finds that acceptable). One also doesn't need to run the installers, but can use innoextract, if one feels like not trusting Gog's installers.
If the specific game allows for downloading, removing Steam and then the game will still run, for very strict DRM definition, it wouldn't apply. I don't trust the client to do things properly, and in one case, it's provably done things catastrophically wrong. Since I need it to download the games, I lump it in with the Steamworks DRM it has. With DRM, in general, equaling "Digital Restrictions Management" as the best, shortest definition I've heard.
So I'll grant you that me calling the client DRM with no exception, has a personal standard, less mainstream standard to it. Of course, as a well reasoned personal standard, I'm not going to suddenly disagree with myself and start using it.
Except on the site it clearly says "DRM-Free Content", and that's a requirement to get a game on Gog. There's certain areas where they are less than stellar on the DRM-Free front, if you start nitpicking, and they need to work on that. I'd guess in (much) greater than 90% they are DRM-Free even when nitpicking.
As for "holy grail praise", where do you get that? I point out where I see a Gog version being better than the Standalone version. In the poll I linked, they committed to supporting the Standalone version because there were enough purchasers who didn't want the Steam version at all. If their reasons are similar to mine, they might accept a Gog version which might be less burden on the Automation team, since ditching the Standalone version isn't an option.
Well, at least not without a new poll to see what's changed in 2.5 years. And not forgetting the raw numbers of people who'd be affected, not just a percentage; there's going to be more Steam users due to that being the only version for about 2 years. That'll decrease the percentage, though might not be a small number (e.g. 1% of one million is one hundred thousand).
Okay, how about Stardew Valley (one person, day-0 launch on Gog), or Inside (which got on Gog when they removed Denuvo), or any of the current "in dev" titles on Gog?
Everyone, with very few exceptions, has to deal with "piracy". A DRM-Free version doesn't suddenly make people "pirate" it more. Hell, it might reduce "piracy" numbers.
Some people care about not being treated as a probable criminal from the start, and wouldn't purchase because of that; a lost sale due to developer or publisher decision to add DRM.
Some people might "pirate" the game when they've bought it, to get around the DRM; no lost sale there.
DRM-Free is not equal to "piracy", nor does it increase the risk.
This is non sequitur, but I believe they've sold many more than 20k copies of Automation. Actually, the number of forum members is 38000 (rounded down) as I write this. The only way to buy/play the game for a few years was via Standalone (which used/uses your old forum account and the old forum was ported to this new discourse software). Assuming only half of the accounts correspond to Standalone sales, that's 19000 (I'd bet more than that are actually sales). I'd bet they've made many more than 1000 sales on Steam in 2 years.
That is such a stupid argument.
Can you guarantee the Automation devs will do a good job finishing their game? No. You can't. Why? Because people lie, always.
Except they've been doing a good job for more than 5 years. It's safe to say they've proven, through consistent action and results, they're going to do a good job. (Baring outlandish hypotheticals, of course)
Can you guarantee the Automation devs will keep updating the Standalone version? No. You can't. Why? Because people lie, always.
Except they've said they would 2.5 years ago in the poll I linked in the first post. They've also been doing it for 2 years, and when the launcher download broke due to their web host change, they fixed it within a few hours. Again, consistent action and results.
Can you guarantee GOG stays the way it is? No. You can't. Why? Because people lie, always.
Except for the past 9 years they've stayed DRM-Free.
There was an issue where they started using passwords on the installers as a workaround for stupid web browsers. Gog users made a big fuss about it being DRM (and it definitely was an unintended consequence) and it got reversed.
There was an issue of them ditching their "one world one price" policy. Gog users made a big fuss about it, and Gog implemented a price guarantee; if it costs more than the US price, you get the difference as store credit.
I could list more examples, but this is getting massive as is. Point is, in some respects they've changed away from their stated tenets, except they are still DRM-Free and their client is optional (I don't use it and still get my games and updates). If at some point they do change on either of those, I'll have to reevaluate my being a customer of theirs (and highly likely will stop being one). Until then, they've proven through action to keep DRM-Free as a core, unwavering tenet (DRM is a boolean, so they can't compromise like "one world one price").
If it's the Standalone version they ditch, true. They can't ditch the Standalone version, too many customers refused the Steam version. If a Gog version could replace the Standalone however, they could (I believe) reduce their workload by some, which should be better than not reducing it at all.