The point remains, if there would be enough demand to actually reflect positively year-end closing on that front, the developers would do it. They aren't out on a "promote Steam" agenda, they do what is feasable and reasonable for them. And I'm ok with that.

There are many unique and great indie games I would never have known without Steam (exclusives like Zeno Clash and non-exclusives like SPAZ). "Steam" as a distributer was a bold experiment in 2003 (it could easily have been the end for valve). In my opinion it had a positive effect on gaming as a whole. While there are undeniable downsides on how Steam works, they are far outweighed by the benefits Steam has brought to gaming. And if it is only the "proof of concept" of digital distribution.

Many Steam "phobics" (or hipsters, imo) don't raise valid points in their critizism but simple repeat the age old mantras like ( "I don't own my games", "Steam wants to control me", "Gabe is stealing my food"). Their reasons aren't important for game developers, at least not important enough to warrant any special treatment for those minorities.

And all this talk about "mainstream" being inferior. Please, Baldurs Gate was one of the biggest mainstream titles of its time, same as Duke Nukem or even "console classics" like SMB 3. Half of GOGs catalogue are mainstream titles. Even PS:T was conceived as a mainstream title. In 1999 RPGs were those "high production, mass appeal corner" that today is covered by shooters. People who criticize a game solely on budget or the amount of people who like it are hipsters and idiots. Yes, Modern Warfare isn't the next Anachronox, but it never tried to be. Duke Nukem forever, however (XD) was imo a playable tribute for the old duke 3d and therefore alone just awesome.

That's a very naive position to take, and I really find your condescending tone appalling and insulting, especially given that you choose to ignore the well-established fact that DRM has done nothing for piracy.

DRM costs money to implement. Servers cost money to maintain (exception here: Devs on Steam pay per licence in Valve's cut of the revenue, not a flat rental rate). Technical measures are always circumventable. The question you need to ask yourself is whether this investment is worthwhile and whether it really does bring about the desired effects.

My own experience says that the investment far outweighs the benefits, and this is a position that you'll find a lot of indie devs take. It does little against piracy, serves only to antagonise the portion of the potential customer base that refuses to buy it due to the DRM and simply eats up money.

By the way: Many devs don't use Steam for the DRM. They use it for Steamworks and in the hope of tapping that user base. The DRM is a side effect of Steamwork. Most of the indie games on Steam that don't use Steamworks can be copied out and run without ever starting Steam.

Yeah, well, until you actually ever come to a place where you throw money in a project that is your own doing and you expect it to pay off and suddenly find out that other people manage to degenerate this project of yours in a black hole for you to throw your dollars, euros or PLN in, you are free to believe that buying a game is more important than funding it and whine for DRM-free releases to people who actually spend money from their pockets creating games and do not want their investments cracked on torrents.

Over and out.

Here's a comparison that I find interesting. Replace "MacOS and Linux" by "DRM-free" in the following article (from an indie game dev studio, Wolfire, that created the humble indie bundles):
http://blog.wolfire.com/2008/12/why-you-should-support-mac-os-x-and-linux//

I think it's precisely the same situation. Basically, from a developper's point of view, increasing your potential customer base is good, particularly if you expand into a market that is less crowded. This is true for DRM-free games : if it does not cost you significant money to remove a DRM (or just don't put one at the beginning...) and it can bring you more customers, then it's good for you.

If they don't like to earn money, then they may do whatever they want.

DRM free initiatives like humble bundle are proved many times that DRM free = better. = that's what customers want.

If you don't do what your customers want you go bankrupt. Simple economy for retards. Every business is a risk, and you make moves to minimize that risk. In that case you either apply a DRM to minimize the piracy (hehe, yeah, right) , or you go DRM free to satisfy customers.

Both of the ways are risky. You know only in the end, if your way was right or wrong by looking at profits/debts.

And those are only 2011 statistics, I have read that in 2012 110% of people will not pay for games.

Now you guys are getting ridiculous here. Suddenly, you are starting to argue that unless you fund a whole game you cannot make any criticism to it? Really?

Whilst publishers have the right to put their product on steam and no buyer is "entitled" to demand that they not do so, one of the few benefits of the free market system is that purchaser is entitled not to purchase a product, and encourage suppliers to alter their ways, if they do not like any aspect of it, including the method of distribution.

i don't use steam. i don't want to. i won't buy a product if it is only available on steam.

i personally agree with Mr Palin. I wish more indie developers did not exclusively distribute through steam.

Provided they'd realize that first. Let's look at it this way: You don't seem to see a problem with online activation in 2012 and didn't seem aware of the fact that it can be a problem for other gamers, so why should the indie devs be aware of that, unless someone who actually has a problem with it lets them know about it and explains the reasons. I'm not so confident as you that indie devs are always informed about all available possibilities and why it might pay off to think about them instead of just catering to what they think is "the best" because they love it (and everyone else surely has to love it too?).

It's understandable when indie devs are afraid to take big risks in doing things they have no experience with so far. But actually there are several indie devs who sell their games on Steam and on other, DRM-free platforms, too. Do you think they are just in a better position than the ones who exclusively sell on Steam, or just more idealistic? Whatever the reasons, it proves that it's possible, and if it doesn't pay off, why don't they just stop distributing their games through other channels but Steam then?

Your belief would also make for a fine argument to justify the big publishers' aversion to try and go DRM-free: If such an approach would mean an increase in sales that would offset the additional costs (and legal liabilities) they would certainly do it, wouldn't they? So far though, CDProjekt is one of the few who actually had the courage to try and find out by experience.

Btw, SimonG, I usually appreciate your comments and respect your views and I don't mean any offense but you critizising other for being arrogant and elitist and at the same time brushing off certain preferences of other gamers because they're not yours (or not that of the majority, as you suggest) kind of rubs me the wrong way. You probably don't mean it the way it comes across, just saying.

In the end I guess I agree with bazilisek though. Such a letter to the developer is definitely worth writing if it actually reaches the developers (and if it's worded in a polite way devoid of self-entitlement), posting it to the forums is either preaching to the choir or summoning the same old heated debates ...

Well, we're not exactly in the inital debate anymore, but I personally believe that part of the Humble Bundles success is linked to their cross-platform, DRM-free approach. And the post on the Wolfire blog that I linked a few posts earlier indicates that the guys behind the bundle think so as well.

It would be interesting to have precise numbers to compare between the Humble Bundles and the other, less 'integrist' bundles (Indie Royale, Indie Gala....). I believe that the Humbles are still the most successful ones, so they must have something that the others don't, and to me that is no-DRM/cross-platform.

+1 to OP. As for people saying indie developers like Steam for its large user base, it got a large user base because publishers demanded DRM, which in turn locked people into the platform. Not because everyone thought it was awesome.

Nothing new here.

Trent Reznor did it. It worked really well for him.

Instead of mantras, I can give you testimonials of people loosing access to their games too. It is not as if this does not happen frequently, Ubisoft locks people out of their games for server migration, people cannot play PS3 games in multiplayer during three weeks because of the PSN outage, EA locks people out of their games for misbehaving on forums, people lose access to all of their games in Steam, no reason given. You can call it mantras all you want, but these things are happening and are proving that DRM is a real threat for gamers.

Once again: people buy indie games on steam, because they LIKE steam. They like the service, autopaching, achievements, multiplayer support etc.

ps. steam only games are pirated too, big way.
THIS.

Pay what you want, extra goodies such as soundtracks, whole games added to existing bundles as surprises, a history of very good games in the bundles, and the first ever bundle launched.

True. That has to account for something, we can agree on this one.

But I also believe that the no-DRM/cross-platform stance plays a role. If only because this makes the Humble the only bundle accessible to Linux/MacOS gamers, and the Humble statistics show that these users account for a non-negligible part of the bundle income. So much so that Wolfire actually hired developpers to port games on alternate platforms, meaning that porting games costs money but produces even more money in return.