Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ChristianSt

  • Rank
    Super Action Fan
  1. First of all: Your statement "However until Act 2 arrives you need a Steam account for now. That’s true." is just wrong. DF has said they have altered they plans and will release a DRM-free Act 1 basically ASAP (most likely this month). OpenSource and DRM are different things. They are somewhat related (especially on an ideological level). But dragging in OpenSource into a DRM-discussion isn't really helpful. As others have already said in this thread, there are peoples that really have problem with the Steam-DRM: e.g. offline-play doesn't really work for them. Also the "You can download and install on any machine" has some restrictions to it: you can only download it and play it on machines with the same OS. Wanting a version for a different OS than the machine you have Steam on doesn't work. So I couldn't download my legally bought Broken Age on my Windows-PC where I have Steam installed and move it to my Linux-PC where I don't have Steam to play it there. It would be like you need a PC with a working sound card to download MP3's. Yes, companies are allowed to use DRM or other things. But in my eyes DRM is something I'm absolutely not OK with. Nobody can force me to buy a PC game only if I also buy a car on top of it. A company can sell a game only on top of a car buy. But I can just skip on it entirely if I don't like that car. The same applies for DRM. I will treat any product with DRM simply as non-existing for me. If there is an awesome ebook that is on the market right now, but it is sold only with crappy DRM like on Amazon? I will not buy it! The author will just miss a seller (or maybe if I'm in the mood (and it is available) I'll buy a dead-tree-version, which has no DRM). But the links you posted even seem to imply that DRM doesn't do anything useful for the company in question. Other than frustrating people that legally buy their product. And I personally don't like to engage with companies who think that I'm just some sort of criminal that will distribute their product as far as I can. If that is the case, it would be just better to drop DRM (since DRM isn't free) and just treat paying costumers not like criminals.
  2. The vote lacks some more fine-grades. I would back the same pitch with the same goal again. An important point of that was the documentary. For example I did not back Massive Chalice because the documentary level I was interested (download of it), was at the $50 level and I didn't had that much interest in the game itself. If they had the same reward structure as on DFA I would have most likely chipped in for $30. So the reward structure/price point is a relevant factor, too. And personally I would like to wait to actually play Broken Age before making that decision. Which is another point that makes me hesitate a bit - that initial Act 1 was not planned to release DRM-free. But DF said they changed that and will release it soonish (this month), so I'm forgiving on that. Without that change it would make it quite hard to convince me to back again. I think even without the Documentary I might back again, if the pitch/game sounds interesting. I backed other Games, too - and I can't say right now that I'm unsatisfied with what I have seen so far. But I couldn't play Act 1 so far, that might change. To sum it up: I would say it is quite likely that I would back another similar KS.
  3. I loathe DRM/streaming/rental rights/similar stuff myself and will not spend a single cent on it . But that doesn't entitle me to insult others who are fine with that (for whatever reason I might have or they might have). All such behaviours causes is that it weakens your position (which is mine, too, so that's why I'm angry about it), because any argumentation on that basis just ends in needless flaming. (And that is probably the best case) @Contract: can you show/point to anywhere where DF said the DRM-free version will be available the moment any non DRM-free version from it will be publicly available? Or that it will be available for anything other than the complete game? facts. Which you simply don't have. (Unless you are saying you have made a separate contract with DF)] @"At first they told as simply their nonense of act 1 an 2 over and over again": When did this happen? The only information on Act 1 (related to Steam/DRM) release is Update 31: "Act 1 Steam only". After that they made two posts in this thread to say they are looking into it and then in Update 35 they said "Will happen, ETA next month", with an comment here that said basically ASAP. And if you say that the released the Cave DRM-only (which I can't say anything on, also it makes a difference if they said they will release a DRM-free version or not), then following to your own logic you should only blame yourself for the current situation...
  4. If that would be the common opinion, than DF would have been actually stupid to try to get us a DRM-free version even now... Because from a rational perspective if you don't even try to care about the company any more, why should they try to do something for you? I see this more as a error/screw-up. Such things happen, and you can fix them and learn from them. But if people pop up and just say such thing like you do, it doesn't help anyone. And if you say that is naive on my part, then I will only answer that I personally think it is better to be a bit naive than to be so deeply cynical. And on the part "Indeed they owe me a DRM free version. That was part of the buyers contract at the time of payment.". I'm not even sure if you could do anything legally about it, if there would be no game at all. Kickstarter/Crowdfunding is possible a pretty complicate legal situation. Also as others said (and I can't argue anything about that), technically even without the old release plan of Act 1 Steam only, you still would get the DRM-free complete game. And DF never did say they wouldn't do that. And on top of that I haven't heard anyone said "all version will release at the same moment". Sure I think it should be the default assumption, but it doesn't make it to something you could argue on legally. Insulting other peoples also doesn't help anyone to take you serious, at all.
  5. @MacCave: On some level you are right - but on some level it is possibly to say that you are wrong. I think you are somewhere on the right site, but you should be at least more polite. [And it doesn't really help if you still complain after someone did what they could to help you. That just seems that if they can't do exactly what you want them to do, they shouldn't even start bothering, because you will still complain either way.] @MusicallyInspired: On some level you are right - but on some level it is possibly to say that you are wrong. I think you are somewhere on the wrong site, but at least you are polite about it. The problem is that imo a game that is described for "we get it DRM-free and on Steam" has first of all no clear meaning of time. I think if someone says X and Y, and not saying that one will be later, they should arrive on the same time. So a release schedule should take this into account. And if it is somehow not possibly, then a few reasons would be good. I have no problem that some delays happen for whatever reason. Such things can just happen. But this (initially) wasn't just a delay. Despite the problem with DRM on Shadowrun Returns, HBS managed to release a DRM-free (though backer-exclusive) version alongside the public Steam Launch. And I don't see any fundamental reason why this should be impossible with Broken Age. And SRR got also split into multiple parts, though how these parts interact for SRR (game+expansion) is different than how Broken Age is organized (part 1+part 2). While splitting the game in multiple parts makes the whole process more complicated it also doesn't change the fact that Act 1 had public launch. It is somewhat problematic to change the release plan without taking previously made statements into account. And in my eyes "Steam only release of Act 1" and "DRM-free game" are just incompatible with each other. So it would be good to know why that decision was made. [The only "reason" I have heard was that Act 2 deployment will be easier. Yes that is a nice side effect, but from that standpoint it is DF's fault to split the game in the first place.] Also DF is only a group of humans - and humans make errors. Errors can happen and maybe just nobody caught it somehow (probably because many people who had a chance didn't realized it or had (for them) much more important stuff to do). And if that happened, what should DF do? The only thing they can do is pretty much just fix it ASAP. [Ok, from that standpoint it is probably a bit troublesome that the update seems to imply that it is something DF is nice enough to give us, and not something we should have*. At least I haven't heard any statement that says that this is an error of some kind.] With the (quite limited) information we have gotten I think it isn't completely fair just to chastise DF. And mostly it doesn't help our cause at all. (On the other hand I would agree that more information would be a really good start to clear such problems.) We will see how DF will act in the future, but I have a good feeling that they won't do something like this again. If they should do this again (which I really think they won't), then yes I would say my (currently regained) trust in DF is lost (and then most likely unrepairable). *I'm not saying that this is DF's opinion on it. I think only that the update can be read in that way.
  6. Could things have been better? Sure. But I think under the given circumstances this is a good solution - and better solutions were probably just not possible on such a short time. If we still had some months before public release, then maybe it would be possible. But I think we can't seriously expect DF to have an instant solution. And at least I think that DF will plan better in the future. And if that is the case, I'm fine with waiting a few weeks. It would still be much better (for all!) if the problem wasn't there in the first place, but that ship has left the bay long ago. (The only thing that I find a bit nebulous it that ongoing talk about the Beta. Somehow I just read it in a way that Beta=Act 1=Public Release, which doesn't make any sense to me. But I'm just going to pretend that it doesn't mean anything relevant or that I just misunderstands what DF tries to say with that.)
  7. Yeah, have just received the update. Thanks for changing the release plan to include a DRM-free Act 1.
  8. I'm not asking to get a Windows and Linux version. But why I can't simple choose what version I want? It's like I go into a store and buy a Windows game, and at the checkout I get told "sorry, but you can only buy a Windows game if you show us that you have a Windows PC". That is the same ridiculous thing as Amazon does with eBooks: Why need I some kind of "registered kindle device" to buy an eBook? Yeah ok, maybe I have used streaming false here (but that is mostly because I have no experience with Steam, I just said how it feels to what I heard from it, maybe I should have made that clearer), but from a technical point of view streaming is pretty weird to start with (since it is a download, but only a "temporary" download. But I don't want to turn this into a discussion what streaming is or not)
  9. My point was that you only get a "installed" game. Whether it is "installing" something or not, you get only get the the a version that is usable on this system (or might work on others if your lucky), not the version of the game you want to use. Why can't give me Steam not just the "zip"/"installer"/"call it whatever you want" to get the game on the system I want? That is where Steam leaves the realm of being only a download service and starts being DRM. For example if I buy a DRM-free game for a Windows PC, I can just download it on any machine (Linux, Mac, whatever) and move it to that Windows PC. Also it doesn't make things better that Steam doesn't give me any help whether it is moveable or not (and on what circumstances). I personally would compare it with streaming content - I can watch it now (so on the machine I'm on), but I can't move it to another machine to watch it there (without being lucky or circumventing some shenanigans). But if you want to say you don't think it is streaming than I'm fine with it, but it my eyes it just feels like the same.
  10. So either you misunderstood me (I'm talking about the games, not Steam itself) or I'm quite misinformed (which I don't think, since then this wouldn't be a problem). Could I turn on my steam client on my Windows PC, Download something there (for example Broken Age). Move that stuff to my Linux machine (which had never any contact with Steam) and use this something to get an working/running version of Broken Age to play?
  11. Ok, than I'm kinda misinformed about that part, but doesn't change anything for me - (also the argument "because others do so", isn't the strongest one).
  12. On the Steam is/isn't streaming: Basically I think it is streaming: It streams the game installer to present you an installed game. But you don't get that installer. Sometimes an installed game is working fine - but there are circumstances where it doesn't work (e.g. Steam is installed on a different OS than you have on the target platform). Which in my eyes also demonstrated that it is using DRM. I also haven't anything against Steam because it is Steam. I only don't like Steam because they forcing some kind of DRM (namely the installation process) onto all games, whether a game uses Steamworks (or whatever) on top or not. If Steam would change that (so they could deliver truly DRM-free), then I would have no problems with that. But possibly they don't even want to to that, because it would kinda contradict their "Steam Subscriber Agreement", which explicitly say they in fact don't sell any software, but only licenses: (emphasis mine)So according to that they are in fact very generous that there is even an offline mode or that some games work moved. But if they would sort that out (and give proper DRM-free games), then I would have no problem to go and use Steam.
  13. First of all thanks DF for making clear that the situation is understood by you. I really hope there will be a solution for this (although I'm personally kinda skeptical) Thanks for the well written post, though I'm only quoting the part I'm responding to: One problem I have with that is, that by doing so we are just sending wrong signals ourselves: 1) We say we are fine with DRM for now, and if it happens somewhere down the road (maybe even 2-3 years) than we are fine with it. And as I said I don't see a reason to support something (even before it is done/started!) only to wait extra long. [so this plays along the "being treated like 2nd class costumers"] 2) Number-crunching people (I don't know which numbers get crunched from whom and to what degree): If 95% of all DF backers use a Steam-key (even only in the beginning) it is a massively different scenario/message than if only 50% uses the Steam-key [Numbers are random, I don't have a clue how they are/could be, but it shows the problem.]. In the worst case the developer even says: "All users use Steam anyway - so way should I even do DRM-free versions in the future?". And that would even hurt the DRM-free movement in the long run. 3) I'm not sure about how it works, but if there are costs associated with redeeming a Steam-Key, then I don't really need to cause costs for the Steam-version and the DRM-free version. [so maybe that is only a somewhat imaginative reason.] 4) As a way to say: I'm not ok with Steams policy to use DRM itself at all. But if I just use Steam myself anyway, I basically say them "I don't care about that myself too much". So why should they even bother with the idea of changing that in the future? 5) Keeping Broken Age Steam-exclusive for X months is in my eyes not delivering a DRM-free and also adds to strengthening Steam and its position on DRM. [Albeit maybe it was too optimistic to think that a "DRM-free game" means that it will release DRM-free ... ] And yeah, the Oeatmeal comic and the four currencies article (where the animated version comes from), does a good work to illustrate some of the reasons for pirating, which is basically the reason why DRM is just bad: it is only increasing "Pain-in-the-butt-dollars" without doing anything at all. And I value "Pain-in-the-butt-dollars" pretty high myself
  14. Ugh. Because you can't release anything - not full game, not part, nothing - without BETA being before that. If beta would come AFTER Act 1 release (not a finished game release, but still a release) - it would not be a beta at all. So we were promised to Beta Act 1? They never did that - they said we will have a Backer exclusive beta. If Act 2 has a beta-phase and it is backer only, it still would honor that promise. [On that of that I never suggested to release it without the backer exclusive beta... read my post) So your argument says Act 1 = release, so we should get it. The problem is we have no DRM-free release. Yet you say we weren't promised one, so we don't need one. I can't see any logic behind the reasoning you apply here.
  15. I was saying that releasing beta to public without making it accessible to backers at all would of course violate their promise. It was a quote from Vainamoinen who suggested it. There wasn't everything being said or whatever, they simply said that final release will also be DRM-free and that's that. Act 1 is not final release of the game, I don't supposed you would argue with that. Complaining is fine, sure, that's what the forums are for. What personally bugs me are attempts to artificially justify this sense of entitlement with seemingly objective facts that are actually just opinions. "There wasn't everything being said or whatever, they simply said that final release will also be DRM-free and that's that. " They also said only two other things: 1) Backer exclusive Steam Beta. 2) Finished Game on Steam. They never did say that a part of the game (that is not being the finished game, like Act 1) will be released to backers. => It would perfectly fine to only sell Act 1 and not let backers accessing it. (Since they had their beta and will receive the game when it is complete, all is fine) So if that doesn't work - why does it work with the DRM-free version? If you stick to that reasoning it would be be perfectly fine to release Act 1 not to backers at all and just make an exclusive Beta for the complete game before Act 2 is finished ... [The other alternative would be Beta = Act 1. But that is a ridiculous proposal, even DF doesn't consider Act 1 beta. The Steam release is for a more or less complete standalone game which gets a content update (Act 2) down the road.]
  • Create New...