Posted February 15, 2012
Posted February 15, 2012
Posted February 15, 2012
No, it's only easier. When everything is established it can be very easy to send your files to steam and also to a drm-free distribution platform. You don't need to implement anything in you drm-free release, so updating is easier and connected with less problems, and that's in fact better for the product.
Posted February 15, 2012
You can't really blame indies for not beeing retail.
Whenever I go on a trip etc. I still have enough time to prepare and make my games "offline ready".
Demanding from a developer, who is already on a very tight budget, to make adjustments only to appease a minority of gamers isn't something I consider a resonable request. Every additional "plattform" puts a severe strain on already short ressources. Especially a "homebrew" solution for distributing a game from your homepage.
If the new approach would mean an increase in sales that would offest the additional costs (and legal liabilities) the developers would do it.
Most indie developers come from a modding or demo background and will probably share your sentiment in general. So give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing.
Posted February 15, 2012
Unless you've actually spent money on a project before it was released (or you were part of the creation/development team, or you've the publisher, your opinion on where and how the project will be released, is non-existent. Simple as that.
We are customers. We are the Legion. (wait, different forum). We are the most important part of this chain. Without us, they (developers) would starve to death. Without us, there would be no gaming industry at all.
In Poland we have such saying Nasz klient nasz pan, which google translate to "Our customer is king".
That's why my opinion is the most important.
ps. you guys should know that Tim Schafer and Co are right now thinking about releasing their kickstarter project DRM free also.
Thanks to those, who were whining about it through the Net.
If those guys wouldn't voice up their opinion, Tim Schafer wouldn't even know it's a problem for many gamers.
So, in the end, we are customers, we have right to ask the developers to change their minds.
And as they want our money, and our support, sometimes they change their mind. And this is the proof we are right speaking about Steam-free releases.
Post edited February 15, 2012 by SLP2000
Posted February 15, 2012
Whenever I go on a trip etc. I still have enough time to prepare and make my games "offline ready".
Edit: Btw, today it's easier to publish games then in 2005 - also without steam.
Post edited February 15, 2012 by DukeNukemForever
Posted February 15, 2012
We are customers. We are the Legion. (wait, different forum). We are the most important part of this chain. Without us, they (developers) would starve to death. Without us, there would be no gaming industry at all.
In Poland we have such saying Nasz klient nasz pan, which google translate to "Our customer is king".
That's why my opinion is the most important.
Thanks to those you now have pledged almost 1.8 m $, which means they can take these costs into consideration + that he already have a (largish) company set up...
Post edited February 15, 2012 by amok
Posted February 15, 2012
Sure, I know you are right about Steam being legion and stuff.
But, somehow, some developers want to get money also from people who don't like to use Steam.
And it's not that I'm the only one, there are many of us, and we are customers. I think I'm speaking for all those who are not happy with Steam-only releases.
And I don't see why some people have problem with other people voicing against Steam-only releases. Did we do anything bad to you? Did we made some games never appear on Steam? Are we asking developers not to put their games on Steam?
To all:
As I said - this is important for us, and it doesn't affect you, so If you don't care, please stop asking us to stop anti-Steam crucade etc. Why do you even bother, after all?
But, somehow, some developers want to get money also from people who don't like to use Steam.
And it's not that I'm the only one, there are many of us, and we are customers. I think I'm speaking for all those who are not happy with Steam-only releases.
And I don't see why some people have problem with other people voicing against Steam-only releases. Did we do anything bad to you? Did we made some games never appear on Steam? Are we asking developers not to put their games on Steam?
To all:
As I said - this is important for us, and it doesn't affect you, so If you don't care, please stop asking us to stop anti-Steam crucade etc. Why do you even bother, after all?
Post edited February 15, 2012 by SLP2000
Posted February 15, 2012
SLP2000, I asked you earlier if you spent a dollar in the production of a game, to believe you have the right to say where and how you want a game to be released. The story with Schafer, which you so... victoriously mentioned by editing your original post, simply proves my point, that if you spent money in the production of a game, you can voice your opinion and -most likely- you will be heard.
Schafer was thinking about releasing the game on Steam and had a 400k budget for a reason. If he hadn't started the Kickstarter thing going on and actually asking people to vote with their money in advance, but had just found a publisher, made the game and released it, no one would have any right to say "you know, why didn't you release it DRM-free" or whatever.
In short, you will be really heard if you spend your money beforehand (when it actually matters), not if a game comes out and you start whining about its release, threatening developers that you won't buy their game again.
Schafer was thinking about releasing the game on Steam and had a 400k budget for a reason. If he hadn't started the Kickstarter thing going on and actually asking people to vote with their money in advance, but had just found a publisher, made the game and released it, no one would have any right to say "you know, why didn't you release it DRM-free" or whatever.
In short, you will be really heard if you spend your money beforehand (when it actually matters), not if a game comes out and you start whining about its release, threatening developers that you won't buy their game again.
Post edited February 15, 2012 by Fifeldor
Posted February 15, 2012
"Inferior"? No, that's you putting words into my mouth. I said "unsophisticated". There's a difference. Whether you perceive that to be negative or positive is up to you. I don't claim to shy away from mainstream titles, but I am open-minded enough for unusual game concepts and unusual narratives.
The word "unsophisticated" is a way of an expressing a empirically established fact - that the Steam user base will for the largest part flock towards games with established licences, realistic guns, swords, shields and gore and that depend on extremely well-established gameplay and narrative conventions. In other words - "they don't want new and revolutionary stuff".
I didn't mention or mean the GOG user base specifically as being more or less sophisticated, but now that you do mention it, the GOG user base is rather more sophisticated insofar as they take an interest in the games that established these conventions as opposed to the games with the greatest production values.
The bulk of the Steam userbase, on the other hand, does flock to those games with high production values.
And therein lies the problem. Indie developers simply don't have the resources to produce a game with the acting talent and technology such as motion capture used in games like Call of Duty. They don't have the means to wow these people.
The word "unsophisticated" is a way of an expressing a empirically established fact - that the Steam user base will for the largest part flock towards games with established licences, realistic guns, swords, shields and gore and that depend on extremely well-established gameplay and narrative conventions. In other words - "they don't want new and revolutionary stuff".
I didn't mention or mean the GOG user base specifically as being more or less sophisticated, but now that you do mention it, the GOG user base is rather more sophisticated insofar as they take an interest in the games that established these conventions as opposed to the games with the greatest production values.
The bulk of the Steam userbase, on the other hand, does flock to those games with high production values.
And therein lies the problem. Indie developers simply don't have the resources to produce a game with the acting talent and technology such as motion capture used in games like Call of Duty. They don't have the means to wow these people.
Posted February 15, 2012
To be honest, I assume this letter wont have enough backup from customers to make any studio change their practices due to potential sale losses. I assume most customers don't care about the same things I do and that most people only move when their money is at stake. So when I address a developer with these issues or post a thread about it, I try to do the arguments not from a business point of view, but from other points of view I consider more fundamental, like ethics.
In summary, this letter can be read from the perspective of sales, but I'd prefer if the indies that read it understand the moral implications of the problems I speak of. Well, the point about Steam becoming too powerful may not have other point of view than the business one.
All in all, I'm not looking for a legion of supporters telling nobody that they wont see their money "unless", but to put into the spotlight issues that I think affect us all and that should be discussed, in particular by the indies. I really think many small studios have not even given a second though about what does it mean to release with DRM or to release only in one DD platform and if this helps making them give that second though I will be satisfied. I still wont buy their game if they release it with DRM, but that is secondary.
In summary, this letter can be read from the perspective of sales, but I'd prefer if the indies that read it understand the moral implications of the problems I speak of. Well, the point about Steam becoming too powerful may not have other point of view than the business one.
All in all, I'm not looking for a legion of supporters telling nobody that they wont see their money "unless", but to put into the spotlight issues that I think affect us all and that should be discussed, in particular by the indies. I really think many small studios have not even given a second though about what does it mean to release with DRM or to release only in one DD platform and if this helps making them give that second though I will be satisfied. I still wont buy their game if they release it with DRM, but that is secondary.
Posted February 15, 2012
People were whining on the kickstarter page about drm free version. A lot.
In short, you will be really heard if you spend your money beforehand (when it actually matters), not if a game comes out and you start whining about its release, threatening developers that you won't buy their game again.
After all - what's so wrong about asking developer to release DRM free version? I just don't get it, why you have something against it.
ps. and no, I'm not spending money on Steam games (before or after it's released)
Post edited February 15, 2012 by SLP2000
Posted February 15, 2012
The problem however is that after almost 15 years of non-DRM in PC gaming, torrents thrived (and are still thriving). Piracy is fucking huge in PC gaming and that's not without a reason, nor it's without a reason that the worst DRM is on PC alone and not on any other platform. Asking from an indie developer who spent 20k$ to create a game, to give it DRM-free or with the less-worst DRM is like someone asking you to give them your car with a full reservoir, or with at least enough gas to drive to the next state or country.
Unless you've actually spent money on a project before it was released (or you were part of the creation/development team, or you've the publisher, your opinion on where and how the project will be released, is non-existent. Simple as that.
