It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Okay, I'm convinced that anyone backing this for the DRM-free principle has grounds to be dissatisfied that it's not available for all.

Regarding separating Berlin, I think that it's a reasonable decision considering that they're aiming for $20 as the retail price for the base game.
Post edited April 13, 2013 by ET3D
high rated
They sorta forgot to mention that they had a publisher pulling their strings and calling all the shots. That may have made all this derping about DRM being good and vital and a necessary thing all the more understandable. It would also have significantly reduced support for the project. What's the point of Kickstarter if it doesn't help devs break away from the usual publisher bullshit?
avatar
jackalKnight: I still can't get over how hypocritical this thread is.
People on GOG continually go on about how much they hate paid DLC and refuse to buy it. The moment a game comes out with DLC exclusive to another platform, they whine about not getting access to said DLC and complain about how GOG handles patching compared to Steam (hell, I can even remember people bitching about how GOG's version doesn't grant access to Steamworks!)
Not everyone here hated the DLC purchases coming out for GoG. I certainly didn't... but then again, I come from a time when expansion packs were pretty normal for PC games. The only thing I think sacrosanct regarding GoG's sales practices is DRM. I don't want it, I tend to make purchases that avoid it (which is why I support the Humble Bundles), and I don't like it in nearly any form it could come in (I'm not fond of the GoG games that require CD-keys... key authentication is DRM, whether GoG wants to admit it or not).

And I say this as someone who still uses Steam. I'm not saying that Harebrained should avoid it completely. Hell, I'm glad they are distributing through it. I'm just mad that my DRM-free copy stops at the Berlin DLC, and I can't hope to collect every part of the game in some DRM-free form.
avatar
the_bard: Yes, and I also find it slightly ammusing and annoying that there are people in this thread that had nothing to do with backing this project, trying to tell those that did how to feel about it. If you are one of those people, do us all a favor and fuck off.
I do have to disappoint you - I pledged.
avatar
Siannah: I do have to disappoint you - I pledged.
I was speaking in general. It was not aimed at your post. My apologies for the confusion.
avatar
orcishgamer: You know what, if you backed it, say so, say what level you backed it at if you want. Exactly how much skin do the ones doing the bitching actually have in this?

I pledged at $125.

If you can't write something resembling that (with an above 0 number in the pledge amount) I really fail to see what exactly you have to feel "lied to" about.
Oh fuck off.

What's next, "Yeah, there have been a string of robberies, but you were not robbed so you have no right to complain!"

People are looking at this and being empathic (or sympathetic, I get those confused) to those who funded under the guise that the entire game would be DRM-free, and now is only going to partly be DRM-free. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with people being pissed off at a string or robberies (or any other crime) in their community even if they specifically were not robbed.
avatar
Kaldurenik: Sooo they cut down one of the stretch goals to sell it as a dlc? Well... Thats sad... I though the point was that everything in the stretch goals would be added for EVERYONE no mater what when you buy the copy of the game.
avatar
Siannah: They didn't cut down a stretch goal. The additional city is available to backers DRM-free.
Stretch goal does not mean "part of the full game for everyone". You can't expect additional content free for you, because OTHERS but money down.
But from my understanding they did. Kickstarter is here to help devs or people make the game they want to make by giving them founds. In short one could say that they took parts of the kickstarter money and then said "we will make a dlc with this" And yes i know people that BACKED the project will get the DLC. However people back projects because they want to see it being made. They want the game and ofc as much content in it as possible.

Stretch goals are just there to hype people so they can get more money for the CORE GAME they want to make.
It do not say "we want to make this game and DLC with the money". Or did they say that they will take money from the kickstarter and make dlc out of it?

Me? I back projects because i want the game. Im against any "backer only" content. Anyone that buy the game should have the same CORE game whenever they buy it 5 years after release or if they backed the project. Or are you saying that people that buy it on release or lateron are not paying for the product?

Anyway its wrong. And its a major hit on how much one can trust people when they do like that.

Not that i backed the project as i did not have at money at the time. But now? Im just happy that i did not. I would be very angry if i got to know my money is being spent for them to create dlc.
low rated
Wow financing a game now = getting robbed and Gabe Newell is apparently the Nazi Party.
Any respect I had left for the "principled" stance of the anti-DRM crowd has evaporated by this point, especially since they effectively screw themselves whenever someone talks about incorporating a game with DLC into GOG. You've basically ensured that the only company that will use this site for new AAA releases is CD Projekt themselves! But hey, you've supported the "new indie revolution" of games that sell 4 times as much on Steam as they do on GOG, and then go whine when the indies aren't as cheap as you possibly want them or that GOG "doesn't market them well" (as if GOG had the marketing budget/reach on Steam).
Don't hate the games, hate the players.
avatar
orcishgamer: You know what, if you backed it, say so, say what level you backed it at if you want. Exactly how much skin do the ones doing the bitching actually have in this?

I pledged at $125.

If you can't write something resembling that (with an above 0 number in the pledge amount) I really fail to see what exactly you have to feel "lied to" about.
avatar
Immoli: Oh fuck off.

What's next, "Yeah, there have been a string of robberies, but you were not robbed so you have no right to complain!"

People are looking at this and being empathic (or sympathetic, I get those confused) to those who funded under the guise that the entire game would be DRM-free, and now is only going to partly be DRM-free. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with people being pissed off at a string or robberies (or any other crime) in their community even if they specifically were not robbed.
Sorry dude, anyone bitching that they were personally promised something (which has been precisely what several have said) AND didn't back it are the ones that can stuff it. That's not sympathy, that's wholly unjustified entitlement.

I'm a backer, I don't need your sympathy because I'm not angry, I'm getting everything I was promised, which was, frankly, a fuckton. I'm getting a DRM free editor that the devs used for shit's sake!

Hedwards can be pissed and feel like he was lied to if he wants, HE backed it. I think he's wrong, but if you want to stand in solidarity with him, rock on.

If, however, you (if you are a non-backer) want to act like you were personally lied to, you're the one that can cram it.
avatar
stonebro: I'm going to make myself unpopular and state that I really don't see the issue here.
Don't worry, I already beat ya to it;)
Post edited April 13, 2013 by orcishgamer
avatar
jackalKnight: Wow financing a game now = getting robbed and Gabe Newell is apparently the Nazi Party.
Any respect I had left for the "principled" stance of the anti-DRM crowd has evaporated by this point, especially since they effectively screw themselves whenever someone talks about incorporating a game with DLC into GOG. You've basically ensured that the only company that will use this site for new AAA releases is CD Projekt themselves! But hey, you've supported the "new indie revolution" of games that sell 4 times as much on Steam as they do on GOG, and then go whine when the indies aren't as cheap as you possibly want them or that GOG "doesn't market them well" (as if GOG had the marketing budget/reach on Steam).
Don't hate the games, hate the players.
That's nice, we don't really care what you think either.

Fact of the matter is that many of us wouldn't have backed the project had we known that it would wind up being a Steam exclusive for anybody who bought at or after release.

As long as people like you go to great lengths to avoid admitting that HBS lied to get funds they wouldn't have otherwise gotten, things will never change. It looks like our only option might be to just not back any games on KS and hope that they realize why we aren't doing it.
avatar
Navagon: They sorta forgot to mention that they had a publisher pulling their strings and calling all the shots. That may have made all this derping about DRM being good and vital and a necessary thing all the more understandable. It would also have significantly reduced support for the project. What's the point of Kickstarter if it doesn't help devs break away from the usual publisher bullshit?
People keep getting confused about this.

THEY HAVE A LICENSING AGREEMENT FOR THE IP. Their statements lead me to believe this is self published, they simply had to license the IP from MS, who owns, at the very least, video game rights to Shadowrun (they may own everything, FASA may have been dissolved).

It's a licensing agreement, all indie KS who use an existing IP and don't wholly own it will have one of these.


EDIT: I should clarify, getting a publisher when you have an existing product can still be beneficial, and since you aren't begging for development money and them shouldering a lot of risk you stand to make a much, much better deal. Even if they chose to use an existing publisher, for example to distribute in some parts of the world, they may stand to benefit from KS anyway, because the publisher is largely cut out of the development loop.
Post edited April 13, 2013 by orcishgamer
low rated
avatar
jackalKnight: Wow financing a game now = getting robbed and Gabe Newell is apparently the Nazi Party.
Any respect I had left for the "principled" stance of the anti-DRM crowd has evaporated by this point, especially since they effectively screw themselves whenever someone talks about incorporating a game with DLC into GOG. You've basically ensured that the only company that will use this site for new AAA releases is CD Projekt themselves! But hey, you've supported the "new indie revolution" of games that sell 4 times as much on Steam as they do on GOG, and then go whine when the indies aren't as cheap as you possibly want them or that GOG "doesn't market them well" (as if GOG had the marketing budget/reach on Steam).
Don't hate the games, hate the players.
avatar
hedwards: That's nice, we don't really care what you think either.

Fact of the matter is that many of us wouldn't have backed the project had we known that it would wind up being a Steam exclusive for anybody who bought at or after release.

As long as people like you go to great lengths to avoid admitting that HBS lied to get funds they wouldn't have otherwise gotten, things will never change. It looks like our only option might be to just not back any games on KS and hope that they realize why we aren't doing it.
Good. The whining won't be missed and nothing will change in regards to most non-CD Projekt publishers' catalogs because of the ways you've conducted yourselves in this, and numerous other, threads.
Attitudes like this are (ironically) why I feel I have to utilize Steam simply to get a fuller catalog of games in addition to GOG. It's also why GOG will continue to exist but never really expand beyond it's core userbase (because they're so off-putting to people who come here for the GAMES rather than the endless activist screeds).
avatar
orcishgamer: Sorry dude, anyone bitching that they were personally promised something (which has been precisely what several have said) AND didn't back it are the ones that can stuff it. That's not sympathy, that's wholly unjustified entitlement.

I'm a backer, I don't need your sympathy because I'm not angry, I'm getting everything I was promised, which was, frankly, a fuckton. I'm getting a DRM free editor that the devs used for shit's sake!

Hedwards can be pissed and feel like he was lied to if he wants, HE backed it. I think he's wrong, but if you want to stand in solidarity with him, rock on.

If, however, you (if you are a non-backer) want to act like you were personally lied to, you're the one that can cram it.
To an extent I agree with you, the folks that are complaining about the DRM and didn't back to make it DRM free really should think long and hard about what they're entitled to.

But, OTOH, I backed it so that people would be entitled to have a DRM free option available, and that's the aspect which bothers me the most. I wouldn't mind the Steam option being an option, but it's hard for consumers to vote with their dollars if the option is buy or don't buy, having GOG or a DRM free option would permit people to say that they want the game, but don't want the DRM.

I'm a bit cranky and probably overreacting to an extent, but right now things are rather stressful in general and I really don't appreciate the piss off sentiment that I'm seeing from HBS.

At bare minimum they should be offering a refund to the folks that backed the DRM free game, I'm not really sure how many we are, but honestly, if it was so many that they go under, then they deserve it and hopefully it sends a message to MS and the rest of them not to engage in such shady tactics in the future.

When all is said and done, it's rather poor of them to damage the KS reputation for their own needs. I got me mine, so you guys can just worry about yourselves is not good when you're talking about smaller studios as in the long run they do need to band together if they're serious about their customers.
avatar
jackalKnight: Good. The whining won't be missed and nothing will change in regards to most non-CD Projekt publishers' catalogs because of the ways you've conducted yourselves in this, and numerous other, threads.
Attitudes like this are (ironically) why I feel I have to utilize Steam simply to get a fuller catalog of games in addition to GOG. It's also why GOG will continue to exist but never really expand beyond it's core userbase (because they're so off-putting to people who come here for the GAMES rather than the endless activist screeds).
I'm getting to the point where any post of yours I see all I read is "blah blah blah. blah blah... " An ignore feature would be handy on this site.
high rated
avatar
hedwards: That's nice, we don't really care what you think either.

Fact of the matter is that many of us wouldn't have backed the project had we known that it would wind up being a Steam exclusive for anybody who bought at or after release.

As long as people like you go to great lengths to avoid admitting that HBS lied to get funds they wouldn't have otherwise gotten, things will never change. It looks like our only option might be to just not back any games on KS and hope that they realize why we aren't doing it.
avatar
jackalKnight: Good. The whining won't be missed and nothing will change in regards to most non-CD Projekt publishers' catalogs because of the ways you've conducted yourselves in this, and numerous other, threads.
Attitudes like this are (ironically) why I feel I have to utilize Steam simply to get a fuller catalog of games in addition to GOG. It's also why GOG will continue to exist but never really expand beyond it's core userbase (because they're so off-putting to people who come here for the GAMES rather than the endless activist screeds).
It's not whining, I backed a DRM free game, and they're not delivering it. Steam fanbois like you disgust me.

I would be fine with Steam being an option, they need a wide user base, but I'll be damned if I fund a Steam only game.
avatar
jackalKnight: Good. The whining won't be missed and nothing will change in regards to most non-CD Projekt publishers' catalogs because of the ways you've conducted yourselves in this, and numerous other, threads.
Attitudes like this are (ironically) why I feel I have to utilize Steam simply to get a fuller catalog of games in addition to GOG. It's also why GOG will continue to exist but never really expand beyond it's core userbase (because they're so off-putting to people who come here for the GAMES rather than the endless activist screeds).
avatar
the_bard: I'm getting to the point where any post of yours I see all I read is "blah blah blah. blah blah... " An ignore feature would be handy on this site.
I probably should stop responding to him. Whether or not one hates Steam, the fact of the matter is that many folks backed a DRM free game and are getting a game that's Steam only for future players. Which is something that is completely reasonable to complain about.

Folks like the GP who are just riling things up really need to STFU and GTFO, bottom line is that if HBS had made it a Steam only game they may or may not have received funding, but you wouldn't have all of us complaining about being lied to. The folks that felt strongly would have just not funded it.

Would it have been funded? Probably, but it also is unlikely to have received the same level of support.
Post edited April 13, 2013 by hedwards