mystral: I agree that Steam can be a huge cost-saver for indie devs, especially for those games that have multiplayer, but the fact remains that many people pledged to Shadowrun Returns on the basis of them promising a DRM-free version. And now they seem to be breaking that promise at a time when those people can't take back their money.
The moral obligation to provide said DRM-free version should outweigh any of the financial benefits of Steam.
Pheace: Don't get me wrong, I certainly agree it's ambiguous at best to eventually do it this way, although I can see why they made the decision. I do think I would've at least expected future DLC to be released with the no-DRM versions as well.
The moral obligation part ... nnnggg... difficult. I get it, and if they really hammered on the idea of it being DRM-free during kickstarter, then I probably agree. However, I think a lot of kickstarters seem to mention DRM-free not so much as a way of making a DRM-free statement but rather as a way of saying they'll guarantee a downloader for you of their game, and those tend to be DRM-free anyway in relatively low cost game development. But yes, if they clearly stated pushed on the notion of DRM-free then that's how it should be really.
In the end though, personally I feel their biggest obligation in the end is to make a kick-ass game, as best they can, and not get bogged down by moral decisions on DRM. But I guess that's an easier way of thinking for me since I'm not that bothered by the mild DRM's, and I understand that not everyone agrees with that.
I don't think the game being DRM-free was really one of their main arguments on the project (it was mostly about doing a traditional Fallout-style RPG using the Shadowrun setting), but it was there. And if it hadn't been I might not have pledged.
Also, the second city they said would be the first DLC was a stretch goal, and it was expected to be part of the main game, not a DLC, even one that all backers would get. Frankly, asking for more money to make something part of the game, and then deciding to sell it as a separate part anyway is morally dubious too.
The two together, well, they're basically making a part of the game that we backers paid for Steam-only, and making other people pay more for it, that is definitely not very ethical imo.
That being said, I agree that doing a good game is more important than doing a DRM-free one, but quite frankly I don't see how providing mod tools and letting the community do their own mod support as it's always been done could be a problem for them. As for the DLC, I would have no real problem with it being Steam-only if only the first DLC wasn't content included in a stretch goal that was achieved.
Nergal01: Hm, that's a bit of a bummer. : /
So what does this mean? Can I just integrate my DRM-free copy of the game (that I'm gettingm anyway since I backed the game) into Steam so I don't have to buy another copy there or what?
Backers will get both access to a DRM-free version, and a Steam code. You won't have to buy the game on Steam.
If you don't have a problem with using Steam, and don't care about mods or DLC, then this won't be an issue for you (or many other backers I'd assume).