The threads at the Obsidian forums discussing a DRM-free release and GOG have been consolidated:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60084-merged-drm-discussion-thread/

My vision went red when I discovered that the original threads were gone and thought that Obsidian had censored discussion of a DRM-free option. Thankfully, that is not the case. ;-)

On the other hand, i think almost every major game on kickstarter started as Steam only, and ended as DRM-free.

Most of those will end up here or Humble Store. We'll see some really big games (Double Fine adventure, Wasteland 2, etc.) being sold as DRM-free. It will be something new for the market (TW2 is not enough), and a lot depends on the sales. If they sell many units after the release, it's possible that more developers will start selling DRM-free at day one.

I reject the notion that DRM is a sign of less consumer rights. If anything, DRM makes right holders more exposed to legal trouble. The right holder has more options of "enforcing" his rights, but we haven't lost a single right.

And I don't see games "disappearing" more or less than those of the '80s and '90s. Heck, if DRM causes piracy than this is actually a good thing, since the abandonware scene was better at preserving games than most companies.

From the Kickstarter comments section

David Linhart 8 minutes ago

Obsidian answered two of my questions, don´t know if it was here or not, but for the info:

"As for the engine, we should be talking about that pretty soon. I can tell you that it will be a combination of 2D and 3D. Characters will be all 3D, while backgrounds will be a combination.

And, we hear you on GoG - we've been getting a lot of those requests."

That's disturbingly true.

That's great news. I was hoping for something like that. They will probably be able to save resources and time not having a fully 3D game.

This is good. I've enjoyed every Obsidian game I've played despite their lack of polish and post-release support, and even though it's become trendy to shrug them off as technically inept. I think they've done good work given the issues they've faced with publishers from day one.

I'll back this to support the company and will put more money into it if they officially commit to a DRM free option. Either way I hope they do well with this, and prove that they can put out a good, solid game on their own terms.

I am also curious to see how well these games sell, but we do have to remember an additional factor concerning games developed from Kickstarter projects: Some of the initial sales that would be expected for a game developed under a traditional model have already been accounted for as Kickstarter pledge rewards.

Rephrased: These types of games may have a smaller audience than more mainstream games, and chunk of those audiences will not be purchasing the game at release because they will be receiving the game as a reward for pledging to the Kickstarter project.

Examples:

- Double Fine Adventure: 87,142 adventure fans will not be contributing to initial sales (unless they buy an additional copy for gifting, etc)

- Wasteland: 61,290 post-apocalyptic rpg fans will not be contributing to initial sales (unless they buy an additional copy for gifting, etc)

If these games gain a larger audience (which could well happen if the games are excellent and good word-of-mouth generates additional interest outside of the expected core audience), these numbers could be more-or-less insignificant, but still it's something to consider.

---

These are of course just my speculations. Not trying to argue anything in particular, just sharing thoughts... so please don't take it any other way.

I think that's six of one, half a dozen of the other, no? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't really matter whether money comes from post-release sales or Kickstarter pledges as long as it's enough to sustain the developer.

I got a similar reply:

Sure, but you should keep in mind that even 87k (highest) in terms of sale is not that much.

I see it that way (let's focus on DFA):

They can make their game at no costs, they have their salaries secured. Even if they don't earn a penny, then they had job during the creation of the game.

But after the release, they have all the money from the game (except fees for Steam/GOG etc.) which should be no more than 30%.

They would never get such share from a publisher (in some cases I read, after the release devs got nothing).

I expect that those games would sell at least 250k (and I'm sure that with godd reviews those can easily hit 500k). And if they sell 250k units for 20$, then they should earn $5.000.000, after the share (70/30) they would get 3.500.000 bucks.

Not bad, I say.

The day Chris Avellone replies to one of my tweets/PMs is the day I die a happy man.

Sounds ToEE:ish, which is good, sort of.
Good looks, should be way faster to make than true 3D areas.
No zooming, rotating, or "real" light and shadows.

3D characters means no jerky movement, yay! Loved that in ToEE.

In terms of the total actual revenue for the developer, yes. Was just pointing out that a direct comparison of initial sales between a Kickstarter-funded game and a traditionally-funded game would be at least somewhat skewed if it didn't account for Kickstarter rewards (at least factor them as 'preorders', etc), and that these games might have smaller audiences and thus those numbers might be significant. But on the whole I'm onboard your thought train. :-)

PM him that you want to donate $100k to PE, but you can't because Kickstarter only allow 10k, and I'm sure he'll reply to your PM.