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

×
avatar
trancejeremy: But Steam wants all games to be reliant on it somehow, so they came up with Steam Workshop to try to get games that otherwise wouldn't need Steam to use it. What's worse, to try to centralize and control modding.
From Steam's end this is obviously another way of customer binding people to the Steam service, however I can also see why publishers wouldn't mind this since it also works as an additional layer of DRM in a way. Unless a mod is dual released on places like the nexus, it will be exclusive to people who use the workshop, which by extension means it's only available to people who legitly own and thus bought the game. Since people tend to want to have everything available to them lest it feels incomplete, it's just another way of pulling people to actually make a purchase.
avatar
FantasyNightmare: So how will DRM-free versions be able to get any DRM?
avatar
JMich: I know it's a typo, but thank you for the laugh :)
Holy crap XD, thanks for pointing that out. It's b/c they both start with D & are 3-letter acronyms! XD
avatar
FantasyNightmare: I wonder how much Valve was paying them...
avatar
Pheace: I don't think you realize how much of a benefit Steamworks is to smaller developers, it's not just the premade infrastructure for mods and multiplayer but also the handling and hosting of the game and patches/DLC. It's a vast difference, one Brad Wardell from Stardock also mentioned as a big benefit of it. This is the part competing platforms should be competing on really, not just the store part.
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.

That being said, I'm not a hardcore Steam hater although I do prefer DRM-free games, so I'm probably just going to play the game on Steam if I have to, but the devs can forget about getting any more of my money.

What the devs seem to be missing is that their game has gone from being in a very niche genre with very little competition to one where lots of games are in development. Pulling this kind of stunt definitely won't help them against their competition.
avatar
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.
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.
Post edited April 10, 2013 by Pheace
avatar
amok: Yes, the only reason a game gets on Steam is because Valve bribes them.
Yes, because platform holders never pay for exclusivity rights, do they? *facepalm*.
Post edited April 10, 2013 by jamyskis
avatar
amok: Yes, the only reason a game gets on Steam is because Valve bribes them.
avatar
jamyskis: Yes, because platform holders never pay for exclusivity rights, do they? *facepalm*.
Facepalm right back at you, as there is no exclusivity deals in here at all....
Post edited April 10, 2013 by amok
avatar
jamyskis: Yes, because platform holders never pay for exclusivity rights, do they? *facepalm*.
avatar
amok: Facepalm right back at you, as there is no exclusivity deals in here at all....
Because, of course, you're well aware of all of Valve's internal licensing deals aren't you?

The Steam fanboyism on this forum is starting to descend into fucking insanity, it really is.
Post edited April 10, 2013 by jamyskis
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?
avatar
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.
avatar
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.
avatar
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).
Post edited April 10, 2013 by mystral
avatar
mystral: 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).
Thx for clearing that up. : )

Well, I'd prefer it if I could just use my DRM-free copy to get mods or buy those DLCs, but if I need to use Steam for that, I'll do it.
low rated
avatar
amok: Facepalm right back at you, as there is no exclusivity deals in here at all....
avatar
jamyskis: Because, of course, you're well aware of all of Valve's internal licensing deals aren't you?

The Steam fanboyism on this forum is starting to descend into fucking insanity, it really is.
The game is sold frigging DRM free elsewhere. Yes, steam has managed to work out a nice little exclusivity deal there. I guess my fanboyism is blinding me.

The anti-Steam sentiments on this forum is starting to descend into fucking insanity, it really is.
avatar
amok: The game is sold frigging DRM free elsewhere. Yes, steam has managed to work out a nice little exclusivity deal there. I guess my fanboyism is blinding me.

The anti-Steam sentiments on this forum is starting to descend into fucking insanity, it really is.
Yes, and the DLC is following DRM-free with it, isn't it?

Get your head out of your arse.
Bah, another game to check off the list. i'm glad i did not back this. Oath breakers.
low rated
avatar
amok: The game is sold frigging DRM free elsewhere. Yes, steam has managed to work out a nice little exclusivity deal there. I guess my fanboyism is blinding me.

The anti-Steam sentiments on this forum is starting to descend into fucking insanity, it really is.
avatar
jamyskis: Yes, and the DLC is following DRM-free with it, isn't it?

Get your head out of your arse.
The DLC distribution is different. It has nothing to do with exclusively.

And while I may have my head firmly in my arse (nice and warm, by the way, I save a lot on hats) , I can at least manage to find it.
low rated
I was reading the Kickstarter update and thought to check by GOG to see the shit flying. And I am not disappointed.

I don't really see the difference between this and Torchlight II or LoG, (apart from some unconfirmed DLC that may or may not be released in the future.). And they said they are using an "Account system" for the social elements. So it isn't really news at all. The game itself will be DRM free.

While this could have certainly handled better in terms of PR, I predict a drop in sales for about 0,5%. Heck, refunding the game to those who wouldn't back it anymore would probably be cheaper than setting up and maintaining the infrastructure on their page for the DRM free version. (Hyperbole and slight trolling)

I am very happy about backing the game and it is one of the very few games I am actually happy for a deluxe box edition.