Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
hipposexxxy

to Steam or not to Steam ? DRM is the question

Recommended Posts

Alllll right, and a time stamp maybe?!

I mean, I don't want to see anything of the game yet, and they're playing 50 fricking minutes of it. Also, I believe interviews not cut down to less than 10 minutes mean the journalist is incompetent or overly enthusiastic about the product he is supposed to review. ;)

So we're talking August/September right now.

Actually, that was my guess months ago. ;)

you never actually addressed anything that I wrote.

Jesus.

You wrote "Steam Act 1 is extra", four times.

Steam Act 1 is not extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what actually happened: You compared the valid request for a DRM free version of Act I with an improv billion dollar demand. You did this because you wanted to communicate that

(a) you found those requests to be exaggerated and

(b) you thought them to exceed the promises of the Kickstarter tiers.

Wrong, you missed the point. It was a sarcastic response with a ridiculous proposition to a similarly sarcastic post by ChristianSt with another ridiculous proposition. I did that because I wanted to communicate that using ridiculous comparisons doesn't quite work in trying to prove your point and could equally be used both ways.

See, he just basically wrote the same post again? probably missed my response completely

You contested each and every one of those bullet points with the hastily added idea that the Steam version of Act I was supposedly already a bonus for backers. You did this to

(a) uphold the idea that requests for a DRM free version are exaggerated and

(b) uphold the idea that the literal promises of the Kickstarter tiers still have relevance.

The "extra" idea however isn't even supported by the greatest Valve fans in this entire thread. Had Double Fine released their first episode on Steam without giving 'that bonus' to backers, the community would be in an entirely different mood right now. Heck, it would be an entirely different FORUM. Mob mentality abound. Customers getting Act I four (and possibly, let's face it, up to seven) months before all backers? Whooo-hoooo, imagine the press alone! That would result in the first kotaku article I'd actually enjoy reading in my life.

And you would personally rip this forum to shreds for not getting your "extra". And that would be because you would feel that you are objectively being ripped off by Double Fine for good.

Why would I care if anyone used this point before or not? It's not like I'm supposed to be part of some hive mind.

For now Double Fine just gave us the Steam beta it promised, if they canceled that - of course that would be directly violating what they promised and there would be an uproar. Personally I actually would be for them releasing Act 1 simultaneously for both backers and non-backers - because right now we have situation were legitimate customers are unable to get it via legal ways, but can easily pirate it - and this is just lost revenue for Double Fine.

Putting words into my mouth and imagining me doing stuff I wouldn't do is all fine and all, but for now you never actually addressed anything that I wrote.

Speaking of "Putting words into my mouth" - where did I make that post you responded to? ("It was a sarcastic response with a ridiculous proposition to a similarly sarcastic post by ChristianSt with another ridiculous proposition.")

I don't have the feeling that you responded to any of my post and certainly I can't remember writing sarcastic posts with ridiculous propositions. So before complaining about other people putting something into your mouth, you should stop doing that yourself.

If you agree with "For now Double Fine just gave us the Steam beta it promised, if they canceled that - of course that would be directly violating what they promised and there would be an uproar." that should mean there should be an DRM-free version to: You have said yourself that releasing Act 1 to the public after the beta is closed would "directly violating what they promised". But everything they said that isn't the Backer-exclusive Beta was said for both Steam and DRM-free. So if you could be complaining about the missing Backer-Steam-version in that case, I certainly can complain about the missing DRM-free-version now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steam Act 1 is not extra.

You probably got personal promise from Tim back when Kickstarter began, because for all of us it sure wasn't expected.

Speaking of "Putting words into my mouth" - where did I make that post you responded to? ("It was a sarcastic response with a ridiculous proposition to a similarly sarcastic post by ChristianSt with another ridiculous proposition.")

Oh, I'm sorry I mixed you with Babaganoosh13. My bad.

He took "reading Kickstarter pledge description literally" to the point of absurdity, on which I replied taking "expecting from Kickstarter what wasn't promised" to a similarly absurd point.

You basically repeated what he said though for some reason.

You have said yourself that releasing Act 1 to the public after the beta is closed would "directly violating what they promised". But everything they said that isn't the Backer-exclusive Beta was said for both Steam and DRM-free. So if you could be complaining about the missing Backer-Steam-version in that case, I certainly can complain about the missing DRM-free-version now.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alllll right, and a time stamp maybe?!

I mean, I don't want to see anything of the game yet, and they're playing 50 fricking minutes of it. Also, I believe interviews not cut down to less than 10 minutes mean the journalist is incompetent or overly enthusiastic about the product he is supposed to review. ;)

It's some kind of an experimental "play the game/developer commentary/interview". It has actually a lot of good info and good questions, and they don't get too far into the game, but it is still somewhat spoilerific. This actually highlights one of the downsides for having to wait for the DRM release -- it will become nearly impossible to avoid spoilers about the game.

If you want to risk it, the question is from 42:20 -- 43:10.

Here's one link that jumps to the question (open in new tab):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been an advocate of the notion that nothing Tim or DF has said during the initial Kickstarter are able to explain this new unpredictable and unforseen scenario of splitting the game into two halves. Repeating past promises doesn't work here and they can't inherently be a source of argument for either side. They need to make a new statement, which they've said they would. We must simply wait. There's nothing to argue about as the previous statements are incompatible with the new decisions that were made.

But no, I do not agree that an early release of Act I is "extra". Tim has said that it's a finished and polished product and plans were changed. Not as a bonus for backers, as a way to get everyone to play what they're proud of. And to make money to fund the next Act. There was no mention of it being "extra" or "bonus", that's reaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's one link that jumps to the question (open in new tab): s

Much obliged.

I do think that yet another three to four months of added waiting strongly point towards the necessity of a swift Act I DRM free release for backers. The same should apply to DRM free customers, but I believe that has become all too obvious to Double Fine in the meantime. Humble and gog.com will probably get that episode in a matter of weeks. It can't just stay a Steam exclusive for seven+ months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they somehow expect DRM-free release based on initial Kickstarter promises, so it is only fair to base argument off of that. Act 1 in of itself was just as "extra" as an DRM-free release of unfinished game, based on those promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have said yourself that releasing Act 1 to the public after the beta is closed would "directly violating what they promised". But everything they said that isn't the Backer-exclusive Beta was said for both Steam and DRM-free. So if you could be complaining about the missing Backer-Steam-version in that case, I certainly can complain about the missing DRM-free-version now.

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.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We were promised beta. You cannot have a "release" status of a piece of code without "beta" testing being before it. If they would release anything without backer beta - that means that beta was closed, that means that backers didn't have access to it at all, that means the promise of backer access to beta is definitely and clearly broken.

Act 1 release is not finished game release, which will be DRM-free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I said that those early promises are not grounds for arguing either case because on Tuesday Act I will be neither a beta nor a final release. New statements need to be made. There's nothing to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree. Statements and clarification is what we need. What we have now is a complete mess.

Again - for whatever reasons they provided something extra before full release.
The Kickstarter was for both a downloadable point-and-click graphic adventure game as well as an extensive documentary depicting the creation of that game. Both of these things have clearly been created and delivered, with more content coming in both cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are still in beta period, which was always stated to be on Steam. We will be announcing further points in the release plan in the near future, so please keep an eye out for that.

There are a lot of reasons we used Steam for the Act 1 release, including the fact that it allows us to release "DLC" content (ie, Act 2) in a way that is reliable for both us and for players.

All that said, I can't read every post in this thread and all the other places this issue is being discussed, but suffice to say, we are aware of the various opinions on this matter and will definitely be taking them into account as we finalize the rest of the release plan. The more release methods we use for the game (which already includes three different OS platforms) while also planning for consistent save formats and the later Act 2 release, the most complex our development and release pipeline becomes, so we need to make sure we consider this stuff carefully, and we're doing so. But obviously we have already announced that the full game will be available DRM-free and there's no question about that. We just need to figure out how we can best bridge the gap between what our release team can handle and what backers want.

So yeah stay tuned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot:

2a) Take computer home

3a) Buggy offline mode craps out after a few weeks tops. Can't play game again.

3b) Drive 25 mins to take computer back into place with reliable internet connection.

3c) Log back in to Steam just so I can play my games again.

3d) Repeat Step 2a.

I'm done with this. Hopefully you folks do the right thing. I'm just glad I happened to be keeping my computer at a friends place when this came out so I could play it.

I really wish companies wouldn't lock their single player games down to the only DRM client with a buggy offline mode. Have 'em on there by all means. Beta test them there too. But don't lock 'em down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a solution to all of your problems.

Come now, how is that helping anything?

But obviously we have already announced that the full game will be available DRM-free and there's no question about that. We just need to figure out how we can best bridge the gap between what our release team can handle and what backers want.

In other contexts, Act 1 has been pitched as being able to stand on its own and ready for public consumption though. It feels awkward to position it that way when assuring people that it's OK to play now and that it doesn't feel unfinished, and then pull out the "full game" card when it comes to DRM releases.

I found it defensible when Steam Early Access was the plan and Act 1 wouldn't be available on its own as anything but a pre-release thing, but now that that's changed and Act 1 is considered release-ready, I find the DRM free delay to be unsettling - not from a "YOU PROMISED US STUFF!" perspective[1], but from the perspective of being aware of the ways in which people holding out for the DRM free version will be excluded from the community - a situation that I'm intimately familiar with as a Linux user ^_^

Honestly, if it becomes difficult, throwing up an Act 1 build that never gets updates, and then an Act 1 + Act 2 build later is better than nothing in the meantime (I definitely hope that some nice balance where timely updates can be found though, of course). I can't imagine that approach creating a significant extra workload for the release team.

Thanks for touching base again, Chris. I'm certain everybody appreciates that you guys are trying to think this through to get the best outcome :)

[1] The DRM free version was definitely a key point of attraction for many people packing the campaign, but the wording of the first video update

that DRM free versions will happen *after* the game is "done and released and out in the wild."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a solution to all of your problems.

Come now, how is that helping anything?

He's not here to help. He's here to derail the discussion into poop flinging, which in turn makes all participants look like idiots, in the strange hope that people would leave the thread only with an impression about Steam opposers, yet not about the fans of the service.

I mean, seriously, what's keeping me from assuming Shodan to be the 'model' Steam user?

So yeah stay tuned!

Certainly. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's not here to help. He's here to derail the discussion into poop flinging, which in turn makes all participants look like idiots, in the strange hope that people would leave the thread only with an impression about Steam opposers, yet not about the fans of the service.

I find the best way to deal with that is to ask for rational engagement and sidestep the poo flinging. Worst case is that that gets ignored. Best case is that some meaningful discussion ensues. It feels like there are more chances for positive outcomes that way than from just ignoring them.

I mean, seriously, what's keeping me from assuming Shodan to be the 'model' Steam user?

As a hypothetical random forum-goer here, or as someone who's previously crossed paths with them on the Telltale Forums? :D

That attitude has been pretty common in other threads. It's troubling that many who embrace platforms like Steam feel the need to belittle and demean those who don't :(

I can't speak for anywhere else, but the Steam communities that I'm involved with/coordinate aren't rife with those sorts of attitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's sidestep the poop flinging and look for the kernel of truth within his statement.

NOTE: As I've always maintained, it's someone's personal decision what services they are willing or unwilling to use, and I don't think anyone should be forced into using something they just don't want to. Bear this in mind when you read the below, which is more just a rumination on a few things.

What is true, at least, is that most (all?) of the people for whom this is an issue are not using steam not because they can't, but because they choose not to. (Again, I'm not judging that, just saying it as a statement of fact)

What's not entirely clear is how the promise of a DRM free version relates to that. I don't think it's obvious that all or even most people who prefer DRM free refuse to use Steam outright. And there is nothing about the Steam version of Broken Age that would prevent someone from playing that, and then downloading their DRM free version when that becomes available.

I would suggest that the reason that DRM free is important in the grand scheme of things is not because of the principle of the thing, but actually for the more important reason of future-proofing of games. At least I think that's why it's important. Certainly Steam is one of the better services (buggy offline mode notwithstanding - and I know that's important for some) in terms of just giving you hassle-free access to games, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who has experienced no problems with Steam to use it for convenience. And I don't think it's unreasonable for someone like me who likes DRM free content to use Steam when it's convenient, but also do things use services that offer both, like Humble does.

My point in all this being that I think there was a time where DRM was actively making things rubbish for the user, but most people legitimately don't experience that through Steam, and the majority of DRM has been calibrated to the point of not doing things to actively piss people off. Not all of it by a long shot, but I think we're now at the point where it's not crazy to use a DRM version of most games where it's convenient.

Which means for me the most important reason for DRM free now is just to future proof games that I to stay part of my collection in the long term. Steam won't disappear tomorrow. In 5 years, very unlikely but who knows? In 20 years, no idea (but then I can probably count the number of games I still have from 20 years ago on one hand). So it seems to me that I can accept having a version of the game that needs a particular piece of software installed for 6 months, particularly when I know the standalone version is coming.

So I guess I understand the view of someone who is much more anti-DRM than me not wanting to download Steam at all (most Steam games use the DRM, I think). But even in those cases I guess I don't see the harm in having an account, in order to play the Steam version of a game that you already know you're getting a DRM free version of further down the line. I understand, as I said at the top, that it's a personal choice and that's cool, but I guess what I'd like to see from the discussion some more words on why it's so bad to have a Steam account at all that you're not willing to temporarily use one for games that will, ultimately, be DRM free. To me, it's the principle that such versions will be made available that really matters.

I'm sure you have the answer, this is asked out of genuine curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, it's the principle that such versions will be made available that really matters.

I'm sure you have the question, this is asked out of genuine curiosity.

We've touched upon the subject before, and it's not necessarily the DRM that is an issue here for everyone.

The problem is to force players into dependency from a monopolous third party hosting services provider/ games publisher.

The problem is that this monopoly is actually strengthened by the "freedom from publishers" Kickstarter game.

The problem is that especially the present problem of exclusivity is a win-win-win situation for said publisher that should never have come to pass.

Neither the backers who expected "indie" to mean independence for them as well as Double Fine nor Double Fine themselves want Broken Age to be a Steam exclusive for SEVEN MONTHS until the arrival of the "DLC".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question, I'll go to this image I posted in the Leaked Beta thread

4_currencies_oatmeal.gif

To me, the P$ Pain in the butt dollars for Steam is through the roof. It also usually ends up infringing on my T$ Time dollars because of when it happens. This isn't just the annoyance of having to bring my computer into town (including monitor, keyboard, mouse & maybe speakers) so I can hook it up to the internet there so my computer can log on to the client's server to download the game. I wouldn't mind doing it every once in a while to put new games on my computer that require DRM. I could do it at my own leisure. I have no real objections to Origin & Uplay for this reason. It's a bit more annoying than DRM-free, but once it's on there, I'm free to play it whenever I want. Offline mode works perfectly for those two. I can keep my computer at home for months on end, and it doesn't effect my games on those clients.

Steam on the other hand is different. I was only getting 2 weeks at a time before it lost my info, and I couldn't play my games that contained CEG, which is most of them. Until recently, I used to work 12 hour shifts. I never really played games on the days I worked, because I was too tired with my other duties. That is 7 of the 14 days gone right there that Steam let me play my games. I usually also had my kids for 4 or 5 of those remaining days. I would only get to play games after they went to bed. That left 2 or 3 days all to myself. That is the same amount of time I left before Steam would lose my info and not let me play my games. Chances are, I'm not getting a good sized game done in that time. I was finished with them last spring because of this. Before keeping it at my friends, I brought it in last for Shadowrun, and didn't get a chance to really get into it.

99% of my objections to Steam will go away once they fix their offline mode and stop being a pain in the butt to me.

EDIT: It will never beat the convenience of just putting it on a flash drive, and taking it home to install it like DRM-free, but at least it could be done at my leisure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To answer your question, I'll go to this image I posted in the Leaked Beta thread

4_currencies_oatmeal.gif

To me, the P$ Pain in the butt dollars for Steam is through the roof. This isn't just the annoyance of having to bring my computer into town (including monitor, keyboard, mouse & maybe speakers) so I can hook it up to the internet there so my computer can log on to the client's server to download the game. I wouldn't mind doing it every once in a while to put new games on my computer that require DRM. I could do it at my own leisure. I have no real objections to Origin & Uplay for this reason. It's a bit more annoying than DRM-free, but once it's on there, I'm free to play it whenever I want. Offline mode works perfectly for those two. I can keep my computer at home for months on end, and it doesn't effect my games on those clients.

Steam on the other hand is different. I was only getting 2 weeks at a time before it lost my info, and I couldn't play my games that contained CEG, which is most of them. Until recently, I used to work 12 hour shifts. I never really played games on the days I worked, because I was too tired with my other duties. That is 7 of the 14 days gone right there that Steam let me play my games. I usually also had my kids for 4 or 5 of those remaining days. I would only get to play games after they went to bed. That left 2 or 3 days all to myself. That is the same amount of time I left before Steam would lose my info and not let me play my games. Chances are, I'm not getting a good sized game done in that time. I was finished with them last spring because of this. Before keeping it at my friends, I brought it in last for Shadowrun, and didn't get a chance to finish it.

99% of my objections to Steam will go away once they fix their offline mode and stop being a pain in the butt to me.

1) I totally agree with that comic and this sort of thing is a major frustration to me - I also talk about some of those frustrations in the Piracy thread.

2) I do think this situation is a little different because we're only talking about access, because the thing is already paid for. So it's not like anyone's asking anyone to spend more money in order to play the game.

3) Genuinely, I do feel bad you've had such problems with Steam and it's bugs, and don't have ready access to the internet to be able to play. I don't mean this in a flippant way, but many people view Steam as a very convenient way to manage their PC game collection, and it works seamlessly for them, so it's indeed frustrating you have the opposite experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Well, let's sidestep the poop flinging and look for the kernel of truth within his statement.

So I guess I undertstand the view of someone who is much more anti-DRM than me not wanting to download Steam at all (most Steam games use the DRM, I think). But even in those cases I guess I don't see the harm in having an account, in order to play the Steam version of a game that you already know you're getting a DRM free version of further down the line. I understand, as I said at the top, that it's a personal choice and that's cool, but I guess what I'd like to see from the discussion some more words on why it's so bad to have a Steam account at all that you're not willing to temporarily use one for games that will, ultimately, be DRM free. To me, it's the principle that such versions will be made available that really matters.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is to force players into dependency from a monopolous third party hosting services provider/ games publisher.

So basically you're saying that the only option Double Fine had was to distribute the game themselves, using their own hosting services. The impression I'm getting is that you depict things very black and white: Steam is the devil and all digital game stores using "DRM free"in their marketing are saints. In my book they are all commercial companies seeking to make a profit, with GOG being one of the first in seeing DRM free software as a viable marketing strategy.

Personally I believe in choice. I do use Steam, because of their community features and ease of use. Other times I buy from Humble, Green Man Gaming, Feral Interactive for some Mac-ports and GOG primarily for their (good) old games.

Steam doesn't have a monopoly on PC gaming (not like Apple has on iOS-devices for instance) and I think their strategy in rolling out Steam boxes shows they don't have that intention either.

I do understand that some people would want a DRM-free version of Broken Age Act 1, though. But only because of the buggy Offline Mode as Babaganoosh13 summarised on the previous page.

You forgot:

2a) Take computer home

3a) Buggy offline mode craps out after a few weeks tops. Can't play game again.

3b) Drive 25 mins to take computer back into place with reliable internet connection.

3c) Log back in to Steam just so I can play my games again.

3d) Repeat Step 2a.

Technically Double Fine could just deactivate SteamPlay after the beta to make it DRM-free or they could upload an installer to Humble, the problem with the latter being that they would need to figure out a way to make the save system work for act 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess I undertstand the view of someone who is much more anti-DRM than me not wanting to download Steam at all (most Steam games use the DRM, I think). But even in those cases I guess I don't see the harm in having an account, in order to play the Steam version of a game that you already know you're getting a DRM free version of further down the line. I understand, as I said at the top, that it's a personal choice and that's cool, but I guess what I'd like to see from the discussion some more words on why it's so bad to have a Steam account at all that you're not willing to temporarily use one for games that will, ultimately, be DRM free. To me, it's the principle that such versions will be made available that really matters.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary convenience, deserve neither liberty nor convenience.

Ok, that was awfully pompous, but what I mean is that DRM free is in fact a principle for many people here, including me – and as such it's an absolute. Sure you can argue: "You only have to make a steam account and download the game once, then you have it on your hard drive and can play it DRM free. What's all the fuss about?"

But for people with principles it's all or nothing, that's how it works – there isn't such an option as to say "a little bit DRM is ok, when I can't help it but else I always go the DRM free road". It would be the same thing as a vegetarian who says: "I'm a vegetarian by principle, I only eat meat on saturday."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess I undertstand the view of someone who is much more anti-DRM than me not wanting to download Steam at all (most Steam games use the DRM, I think). But even in those cases I guess I don't see the harm in having an account, in order to play the Steam version of a game that you already know you're getting a DRM free version of further down the line. I understand, as I said at the top, that it's a personal choice and that's cool, but I guess what I'd like to see from the discussion some more words on why it's so bad to have a Steam account at all that you're not willing to temporarily use one for games that will, ultimately, be DRM free. To me, it's the principle that such versions will be made available that really matters.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary convenience, deserve neither liberty nor convenience.

Ok, that was awfully pompous, but what I mean is that DRM free is in fact a principle for many people here, including me – and as such it's an absolute. Sure you can argue: "You only have to make a steam account and download the game once, then you have it on your hard drive and can play it DRM free. What's all the fuss about?"

But for people with principles it's all or nothing, that's how it works – there isn't such an option as to say "a little bit DRM is ok, when I can't help it but else I always go the DRM free road". It would be the same thing as a vegetarian who says: "I'm a vegetarian by principle, I only eat meat on saturday."

Well, it is awfully pompous, yes. And it makes an assumption about why someone would be in favour of DRM free that I don't think is fair. You're basically arguing, with your vegetarian analogy, that I'm not REALLY pro-DRM free, because I use some DRM.

As usual, life can be a little more nuanced than that. I think it's important to keep DRM free on the table as an option, for reasons that are mainly to do with future proofing, ensuring that our ability to preserve games in the future isn't contingent on hacking our way round archaic 'protections'. I think we've also moved past a time where DRM was actively inconvenient to most. As someone pointed out, some Steam games work without steam installed and others don't. I have absolutely no idea which is which, and the reason for that is that it never comes up as an issue.

I'm not saying all problems of DRM are in the past, or that there's nothing wrong with DRM in principle, I'm just saying that I think the moral imperative companies have is to let me play the games I have, and Steam delivers on that. I've never had it not deliver on that.

I like having access to a DRM free version of the game for a variety of reasons: 1) I know it's a version I can play when the sky falls and Steam vanishes. 2) Sometimes I want to download and play my game on some other computer I own which doesn't have steam on it, or on a computer I'm borrowing that I don't want to set up my account on, so I think it's important to still have that sort of flexibility.

Probably more reasons too, but those are the main ones. I think those are legit reasons. This isn't being a vegetarian except on Saturdays, this is being pro-DRM free for different reasons to you, or at least for reasons that have a different priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a slight aside, there's also plenty of stuff in the Steam Subscriber Agreement which people could have legitimate problems with, making creating an account an impassable hurdle even before DRM itself comes into the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is awfully pompous, yes. And it makes an assumption about why someone would be in favour of DRM free that I don't think is fair. You're basically arguing, with your vegetarian analogy, that I'm not REALLY pro-DRM free, because I use some DRM.

No, I'm not arguing against you or against anybody. I just wanted to answer your question why some people just can't make an account for one time and download the game. The statement was just to show in what way people with that principle perceive it. It's subjective, and thereby there isn't any right or wrong, so I'm really not against you or your position in any form, sorry if I haven't made that clear in the first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...