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

Steam's DRM is optional and no, installing a downloader is not DRM by any reasonable definition

Rights verification programs and drivers installed on your PC are in fact the entirety of the DRM technology, congratulations.

With your kind of stance, you wouldn't even have identified StarForce or Tages as DRM. I find that idea alarming.

Not even a little bit. Having DRM drivers on your PC isn't the same as them being used. Games that use those forms of DRM are of course... using DRM, that kind of goes without saying. But it's not DRM to install something on your PC that may or may not be used. DRM is Digital Rights Management. The (ostensible) purpose it to enforce restrictions on access to content installed/downloaded to a device.

For example, if you have something in your game that enforces an internet connection to play it, or requires the disc in the drive, or is encoded in such a way that it will only work on certain devices or in certain countries and so on, that's DRM.

Simply having something on your computer which installed games may or may not use is not in itself DRM. Simply requiring a particular installer during the installation process that doesn't need to remain installed to play the game is not DRM, any more than requiring a GOG account is DRM for GOG games.

One can, of course, legitimately question whether they want DRM drivers installed on their computer (just as they can legitimately question if they want a GOG account). However, saying that the fact they are installed alone is IN ITSELF a form of DRM is quite ludicrous. I think there is a pretty clear and obvious distinction.

And let me say as I've said several times elsewhere - it's totally up to the individual what services they're willing or not willing to use. I don't mind if someone doesn't want to use Steam or GOG or anything else for any reason. Good reason, bad reason, my opinion doesn't matter, I will and have argued with anyone using 'if you don't use Steam it's your own fault' type arguments. I do however think that there are some common misconceptions that can do with having attention drawn to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steam's DRM is optional and no, installing a downloader is not DRM by any reasonable definition

Rights verification programs and drivers installed on your PC are in fact the entirety of the DRM technology, congratulations.

With your kind of stance, you wouldn't even have identified StarForce or Tages as DRM. I find that idea alarming.

Not even a little bit. Having DRM drivers on your PC isn't the same as them being used. Games that use those forms of DRM are of course... using DRM, that kind of goes without saying. But it's not DRM to install something on your PC that may or may not be used. DRM is Digital Rights Management. The (ostensible) purpose it to enforce restrictions on access to content installed/downloaded to a device.

For example, if you have something in your game that enforces an internet connection to play it, or requires the disc in the drive, or is encoded in such a way that it will only work on certain devices or in certain countries and so on, that's DRM.

Simply having something on your computer which installed games may or may not use is not in itself DRM. Simply requiring a particular installer during the installation process that doesn't need to remain installed to play the game is not DRM, any more than requiring a GOG account is DRM for GOG games.

One can, of course, legitimately question whether they want DRM drivers installed on their computer (just as they can legitimately question if they want a GOG account). However, saying that the fact they are installed alone is IN ITSELF a form of DRM is quite ludicrous. I think there is a pretty clear and obvious distinction.

And let me say as I've said several times elsewhere - it's totally up to the individual what services they're willing or not willing to use. I don't mind if someone doesn't want to use Steam or GOG or anything else for any reason. Good reason, bad reason, my opinion doesn't matter, I will and have argued with anyone using 'if you don't use Steam it's your own fault' type arguments. I do however think that there are some common misconceptions that can do with having attention drawn to them.

Then read this thread before posting in it: Several people have already said that for example the Mac version will only play with steam open or that they can't use the offline mode because it is not working for them.

For some versions it seams that you in fact don't need Steam (so you can it install on a machine and move it to another), but that works only in some circumstances, and requires that both platforms have the same OS. Alone the installation process in itself requires Steam.

Also for the last time the topic is is not whether or not Steam is DRM.

The topic is why we don't get a DRM-free version of Act 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DRM is Digital Rights Management. The (ostensible) purpose [of] it [is] to enforce restrictions on access to content installed/downloaded to a device.

In my opinion, a correct sentence which makes it clear how the entity that puts restrictions on access (i.e. the DRM mechanics) doesn't come with the content but must naturally be there beforehand.

I seriously hate debating semantics here, but as people still are in that "but by the letter of the tier" kind of mindset, there isn't much of a choice. I can be quite cool about the matter here of course, but if a developer on Kickstarter ever promised DRM free but then proceeded to distribute through Steam exclusively ("DRM free", ha ha), THAT's the precedent that would get me mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to go play some more Banner Saga.

Have fun. Say, wasn't that a Kickstarter that explicitly promised DRM free? Huh, I wonder why they break THEIR promises.

Mh, I just investigated a bit - and as it seems as of right now there is seems no DRM-free version, but it will be available soonish. Just to say it: Hearing that I'm kinda glad I backed out before the end of the KS. I don't need yet another game where I need to ask why the version I payed for doesn't happen or is delayed.

But seeing all this "DRM-free" advocated projects have problems delivering on it makes it kinda unlike that I'm going to back another video game Kickstarter in the near future. And if I do I think I would need to ask some serious question how they plan to treat the DRM-free version/backers.

But right know I have the feeling that many developers on KS* just say "Mh, everything promises DRM-free, so we do it to! And then we forget about it later... Oh some backers have problems about not getting DRM-free games?... Mh, we try to make it happen some day - but for now have other people have their fun with the game." And I have the feeling that this doesn't help anybody in the long run. Promising stuff and not doing it (or delay it without reasons) is a good way to make people stop caring about what you promise them.

* I have no clue if that is a fair conclusion, but from the Games that are more or less finished from KS that I have heard about it I haven't seen one that stayed truly faithful to their DRM-free promise (Shadowrun Returns [though they at least managed to sort that out mostly], Broken Age and The Banner Saga - so that sample size is kinda small.)

As a backer of "The Banner Saga", i have no issue with their DRM-free version arriving a few weeks late, because on their release day they actually told us "Steam version is up, we're working with GOG to deliver the DRM-free version as soon as possible".

For me, that's the difference, they told us they're working on it and it will be available as soon as they polished it, they didn't act like DF did "Well, the DRM-free version... I forgot, sorry, but not now, we have better things to do, see you in six months"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then read this thread before posting in it: Several people have already said that for example the Mac version will only play with steam open or that they can't use the offline mode because it is not working for them.

For some versions it seams that you in fact don't need Steam (so you can it install on a machine and move it to another), but that works only in some circumstances, and requires that both platforms have the same OS. Alone the installation process in itself requires Steam.

Also for the last time the topic is is not whether or not Steam is DRM.

The topic is why we don't get a DRM-free version of Act 1.

I did read this thread and if you read that post and my others you'll notice that I don't mention the above points in relation to Broken Age. As you know (because you replied to it too) the point Vainamoinen was responding to was part of something I put (in brackets!) at the end of my longer post about Broken Age, as a sort of side-point. He quoted that, and I replied, expanding on that point. It's a side issue, nothing to do with Broken Age (and again, just so I'm absolutely clear I have always maintained people can choose to use or not use a service for any reason they like, or for no reason).

As for Broken Age, it remains to be seen whether the final version will require Steam to play or not. Previous self-published Double Fine titles have not required it. A company that goes out of its way to update Psychonauts in such a way so that it'll integrate with Steam while at the same time not requiring it seems to me like the sort of company who thinks about this stuff. But we'll see. I'm happy to play Broken Age in its current state because Steam has never used DRM in a way that I find troubling or limiting to how I'd like to use my games - I know some people feel differently and that's fine, but I also think that there are legitimate reasons why they might not be ready with their DRM free versions on Day 1 of Act 1 launch.

That's the entirety of my opinion, I've never stated otherwise so I'll thank you to not accuse me of not reading the thread. Also, I know what the topic is about and I understand (and have experienced) the frustration of side discussions springing up and respect you want to get it back on topic, but also you have to accept that in a forum side discussions just will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DRM is Digital Rights Management. The (ostensible) purpose [of] it [is] to enforce restrictions on access to content installed/downloaded to a device.

In my opinion, a correct sentence which makes it clear how the entity that puts restrictions on access (i.e. the DRM mechanics) doesn't come with the content but must naturally be there beforehand.

Yes, but it's like if Steam installed a driver on my computer that would blow up the world. I'm not actually blowing up the world until some game has 'use blow up world drivers' on it. You're saying I'm blowing up the world just by having it on my computer in the first place. No, you might well object to having world-blow-up drivers on your PC, but it's not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but it's like if Steam installed a driver on my computer that would blow up the world. I'm not actually blowing up the world until some game has 'use blow up world drivers' on it. You're saying I'm blowing up the world just by having it on my computer in the first place. No, you might well object to having world-blow-up drivers on your PC, but it's not the same thing.

It's a massively exaggerated comparison, which I'll accept for now because it doesn't work in favor of your argument. ;)

I mean, we all agree that the proverbial president's red button is not the problem. It's the nuclear missiles built and brought into position.

Don't want these in MY garden. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a backer of "The Banner Saga", i have no issue with their DRM-free version arriving a few weeks late, because on their release day they actually told us "Steam version is up, we're working with GOG to deliver the DRM-free version as soon as possible".

For me, that's the difference, they told us they're working on it and it will be available as soon as they polished it, they didn't act like DF did "Well, the DRM-free version... I forgot, sorry, but not now, we have better things to do, see you in six months"

Sorry, maybe I was kind of harsh on Stoic - as I said I have backed out of The Banner Saga, so I have only second hand information. They way you present that makes it much more understandable. (I took < 5 minutes to look for information and don't have access to backer only information)

@KestrelPi: I don't see how my addition to your post isn't relevant for Broken Age. For example someone reported in this thread that the Broken Age Mac version requires Steam. And if you think that it is irrelevant for this discussion, why do you even post it?

Also I said it probably quite some times in this thread: only because you don't have troubles with any kind of DRM, doesn't mean that other peoples don't have trouble with it or that it is even DRM-free. And it is also nice that you *think* there are reasons for not releasing DRM-free Act 1 on Launch (which even implies that there will be even a DRM-free Act 1, something that DF hasn't confirmed. In fact they said in Update 31 that is something that is not going to happen.). But you thinking there legitimate reasons != there are legitimate reasons (even DF didn't say anything about any reason behind this).

PS: I'm truly sorry for accusing you to not read the thread. But I have the feeling that more enough people don't bother to do so (which I got from your posts - since I just have the feeling I need to repeat arguments I posted already three times), so sorry if I picked the wrong guy to accusing to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but it's like if Steam installed a driver on my computer that would blow up the world. I'm not actually blowing up the world until some game has 'use blow up world drivers' on it. You're saying I'm blowing up the world just by having it on my computer in the first place. No, you might well object to having world-blow-up drivers on your PC, but it's not the same thing.

It's a massively exaggerated comparison, which I'll accept for now because it doesn't work in favor of your argument. ;)

I mean, we all agree that the proverbial president's red button is not the problem. It's the nuclear missiles built and brought into position.

Don't want these in MY garden. ;)

It's an exaggerated comparison in purpose, and it works perfectly in favour of my argument. The thing you said about 'don't want these in my garden' is EXACTLY the thing I've said several times (bolded above, for example). I will argue that the difference between actually blowing up the world and installing a button that can blow up the world is... well, not trivial. I will also argue that installing software that enforces DRM for all games and installing software that may or may not be used to enforce DRM is also a non-trivial difference.

As for what crosses the line and what doesn't, I say (and always have said) that that's up to the individual. Don't care why someone doesn't want Steam, if they don't want it, that's good enough for me. But I don't think the distinction between a service which installs DRM drivers which are always enforced a service which installs DRM drivers which are optionally enforces is a trivial one. I really don't. Even if you think they are both as bad as each other, it seems clear to me there's a distinction.

But, since this is a side discussion to the current topic which is, as we know: when the Non-Steam DRM free version will be available, it may be best to leave it there (or take this elsewhere)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KestrelPi: I don't see how my addition to your post isn't relevant for Brokan Age. For example someone reported in this thread that the Broken Age Mac version requires Steam. And if you think that it is irrelevant for this discussion, why do you even post it?

Also I said it probably quite some times in this thread: only because you don't have troubles with any kind of DRM, doesn't mean that other peoples don't have trouble with it or that it is even DRM-free. And it is also nice that you *think* there are reasons that there are reasons for not releasing DRM-free Act 1 on Launch (which even implies that there will be even a DRM-free Act 1, something that DF hasn't confirmed. In fact they said in Update 31 that is something that is not going to happen.). But you thinking there legitimate reasons != there are legitimate reasons (even DF didn't say anything about any reason behind this).

PS: I'm truly sorry for accusing you to not read the thread. But I have the feeling that more enough people don't bother to do so (which I got from your posts - since I just have the feeling I need to repeat arguments I posted already three times), so sorry if I picked the wrong guy to accusing to do so.

No worries, apology cheerfully accepted. Allow me to explain why I brought it up - Double Fine have past form in avoiding Steam's DRM restrictions, e.g. in Psychonauts, so I think it's a legit open question whether the final version of Broken Age on Steam will still require Steam to play. And I do think the question of whether Steam itself constitutes DRM is relevant to that open question. We just don't know yet in the case of Broken Age. All we know is what they're doing with the beta. I originally brought it up in brackets, because I knew it was a side-point, not directly to do with the matter at hand. When Vainamoinen questioned it I responded in more detail. I hope that explains it.

Also, the reason I think there are legit reasons is really quite simple - if there weren't, why aren't they doing it? They already announced a DRM free version. If they could just flick a switch and do it, why aren't they doing it? It's absurd to suppose that the only reason they aren't releasing a planned release right away is because they just.. don't feel like it. I think it's a very safe assumption that there are -reasons-. No, we don't know what they are for sure, but I've speculated about what some of them might be. And yes, it would be nice if they'd go into detail about them, but they haven't (yet! Bear in mind this is also an extremely busy time for them. They're juggling compatibility/localisation bugs, publicity for the actual release and probably more besides - if you look at Greg Rice's forum updates this is one of the few posts he's replied to at ALL).

I would be all for a detailed reply on what is holding up a DRM free release. Even though it's not affecting me I'd be generally interested to know. I have my suspicions, but it's based on incomplete knowledge. But whatever it is, I'm pretty sure the reason is better than 'eehhhh.' Because if that's all I had as an excuse, by now I'd be flicking the DRM free switch just to save the hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't want any crap installed on my PC, harmful or not. Even beneficial.

I buy the game, I want the game and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No worries, apology cheerfully accepted. Allow me to explain why I brought it up - Double Fine have past form in avoiding Steam's DRM restrictions, e.g. in Psychonauts, so I think it's a legit open question whether the final version of Broken Age on Steam will still require Steam to play. We just don't know yet. All we know is what they're doing with the beta. I originally brought it up in brackets, because I knew it was a side-point, not directly to do with the matter at hand. When Vainamoinen questioned it I responded in more detail. I hope that explains it.

Also, the reason I think there are legit reasons is really quite simple - if there weren't, why aren't they doing it? They already announced a DRM free version. If they could just flick a switch and do it, why aren't they doing it? It's absurd to suppose that the only reason they aren't releasing a planned release right away is because they just.. don't feel like it. I think it's a very safe assumption that there are -reasons-. No, we don't know what they are for sure, but I've speculated about what some of them might be. And yes, it would be nice if they'd go into detail about them, but they haven't (yet! Bear in mind this is also an extremely busy time for them. They're juggling compatibility/localisation bugs, publicity for the actual release and probably more besides - if you look at Greg Rice's forum updates this is one of the few posts he's replied to at ALL).

I would be all for a detailed reply on what is holding up a DRM free release. Even though it's not affecting me I'd be generally interested to know. I have my suspicions, but it's based on incomplete knowledge. But whatever it is, I'm pretty sure the reason is better than 'eehhhh.' Because if that's all I had as an excuse, by now I'd be flicking the DRM free switch just to save the hassle.

So allow me to explain why I think there is in fact a problem (and your "summation" on it isn't backed up with facts, but relies on wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong: it is nice to be able to trust DF enough to find a solution that contradicts their announcement):

When Act 2 is released, there will be a DRM-free version of the full game available on Humble, but Act 1 requires Steam to download.
(emphasis mine)

If I implied that DF does this to spite us, then that wasn't what I wanted to say. But from all the information I have, it points to the fact that DF doesn't care that much about the DRM-free version compared to other versions. Even that you say they have "more important" stuff to seems to imply that you yourself think that the DRM-free version is more of a "bonus" that comes along with the "normal" version and nothing anyone should put any work into it. [i'm not saying the things you posted aren't important - but the DRM-free version is important, too. Or at least they should have told during the KS that they think it isn't that important and is handled more on a "if we have the time to deal with it kinda thing"].

The only other official information (that I'm aware of) on this we have at all is Greg's post in this thread:

Hey all, thanks for the feedback here. As people have stated before me, we were clear from the start that we would need to leverage Steam during the beta to help push frequent patches. However, we are not taking lightly your requests for a DRM free version. There are a lot of moving parts surrounding this conversation, but we're doing our best to figure out a solution that will please everyone. We'll get you more info when we can!

Which seems to me like it is dodging the problem a bit or misunderstanding it a bit or not using the right words for describing the situation. And I don't even say that we need detailed information about it (though it would be nice), but we haven't received any information besides "no" and "we're looking into it". And sorry, but that isn't really satisfying for me. I can wait - I wouldn't say I'm impatient. But the public release date is coming nearer and nearer and we haven't gotten any information thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No worries, apology cheerfully accepted. Allow me to explain why I brought it up - Double Fine have past form in avoiding Steam's DRM restrictions, e.g. in Psychonauts, so I think it's a legit open question whether the final version of Broken Age on Steam will still require Steam to play. We just don't know yet. All we know is what they're doing with the beta. I originally brought it up in brackets, because I knew it was a side-point, not directly to do with the matter at hand. When Vainamoinen questioned it I responded in more detail. I hope that explains it.

Also, the reason I think there are legit reasons is really quite simple - if there weren't, why aren't they doing it? They already announced a DRM free version. If they could just flick a switch and do it, why aren't they doing it? It's absurd to suppose that the only reason they aren't releasing a planned release right away is because they just.. don't feel like it. I think it's a very safe assumption that there are -reasons-. No, we don't know what they are for sure, but I've speculated about what some of them might be. And yes, it would be nice if they'd go into detail about them, but they haven't (yet! Bear in mind this is also an extremely busy time for them. They're juggling compatibility/localisation bugs, publicity for the actual release and probably more besides - if you look at Greg Rice's forum updates this is one of the few posts he's replied to at ALL).

I would be all for a detailed reply on what is holding up a DRM free release. Even though it's not affecting me I'd be generally interested to know. I have my suspicions, but it's based on incomplete knowledge. But whatever it is, I'm pretty sure the reason is better than 'eehhhh.' Because if that's all I had as an excuse, by now I'd be flicking the DRM free switch just to save the hassle.

So allow me to explain why I think there is in fact a problem (and your "summation" on it isn't backed up with facts, but relies on wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong: it is nice to be able to trust DF enough to find a solution that contradicts their announcement):

When Act 2 is released, there will be a DRM-free version of the full game available on Humble, but Act 1 requires Steam to download.
(emphasis mine)

If I implied that DF does this to spite us, then that wasn't what I wanted to say. But from all the information I have, it points to the fact that DF doesn't care that much about the DRM-free version compared to other versions. Even that you say they have "more important" stuff to seems to imply that you yourself think that the DRM-free version is more of a "bonus" that comes along with the "normal" version and nothing anyone should put any work into it. [i'm not saying the things you posted aren't important - but the DRM-free version is important, too. Or at least they should have told during the KS that they think it isn't that important and is handled more on a "if we have the time to deal with it kinda thing"].

The only other official information (that I'm aware of) on this we have at all is Greg's post in this thread:

Hey all, thanks for the feedback here. As people have stated before me, we were clear from the start that we would need to leverage Steam during the beta to help push frequent patches. However, we are not taking lightly your requests for a DRM free version. There are a lot of moving parts surrounding this conversation, but we're doing our best to figure out a solution that will please everyone. We'll get you more info when we can!

Which seems to me like it is dodging the problem a bit or misunderstanding it a bit or not using the right words for describing the situation. And I don't even say that we need detailed information about it (though it would be nice), but we haven't received any information besides "no" and "we're looking into it". And sorry, but that isn't really satisfying for me. I can wait - I wouldn't say I'm impatient. But the public release date is coming nearer and nearer and we haven't gotten any information thus far.

Briefly as I can -

1) I suspect that they didn't realise there was any confusion over the release date of the DRM free version until someone brought it up. I know it's important to you and some people, but from their perspective it probably just made perfect sense to release the DRM free version when it was all done - it's logistically easier for them to do it that way and it still delivers their kickstarter promise. And I know that there are plenty of people who prefer to buy things DRM free but are happy to temporarily put up with DRM versions as long as such versions don't impose heavy restrictions. I think they underestimated the number of people who just wouldn't go near steam under any circumstances.

2) And to be clear, we don't know what that number is. I haven't seen a high number of backers flat out refusing to use steam at all, and the fact is that the number of people that delaying the DRM free release actually affects may be pretty low. Again, I know this doesn't help you, but it might explain why they thought this would be a satisfactory compromise. With 90k backers, it's not only hard to make decisions that keep everyone happy, it's practically impossible.

3) But, people have now highlighted that this is an issue, and in Greg's reply earlier he said nothing about waiting until act 2 is out. I think he would have done, if the Act 2 thing was still the case. That suggests to me they're going to look into ways to release it DRM free earlier. I might be wrong; I suspect I'm not. Maybe you classify that as wishful thinking, but ... well, I do have a half decent track record for paying attention to what's going on with DF and making educated guesses.

4) Yes, given the situation we are currently in, the DRM free version is, right now, a lower priority than getting the game bug free for the release date which has been announced. I think that's just true. If they'd realised earlier this would be a huge issue for some, I think they would have acted on it earlier. I base that not on wishful thinking but on repeatedly seeing in the 2 years I've been following the project how far they are willing to go to not piss people off.

I know those aren't really satisfying answers to someone like you who is affected by this, but I do think what they did was within the bounds of reasonable, and I think on that basis some patience is warranted. My honest advice would be to wait until release day passes and after that see if you can have a better discussion with some DF folks about this, when they'll be able to give it some attention. I'd love to see DRM-free part 1 come sooner too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a backer of "The Banner Saga", i have no issue with their DRM-free version arriving a few weeks late, because on their release day they actually told us "Steam version is up, we're working with GOG to deliver the DRM-free version as soon as possible".

For me, that's the difference, they told us they're working on it and it will be available as soon as they polished it, they didn't act like DF did "Well, the DRM-free version... I forgot, sorry, but not now, we have better things to do, see you in six months"

http://www.gog.com/game/the_banner_saga

There's the page, saying 'coming soon.' Hopefully it's up soon, and has nothing to do with those a-holes from King.com.

I really hate king.com for what they're doing to them. I didn't mind all of the notifications for their copycat Bejeweled/Shariki clones I've blocked. Now that they've almost gotten away with trademarking "Candy" and I guess that makes them think they "own" "Saga" as well... GRRRRRRR.

Back to DRM-free:

Pledge $15 or more

47946 backers

The finished game in all of its awesome glory DRM free on PC, Mac, and Linux, or via Steam for PC and Mac, exclusive access to the Beta on Steam,

Technically speaking, only the beta, and the finished project were promised on Steam; so by that logic: On the Act 1 release date of January 28th: All copies for backers should be pulled off Steam because it is not the finished game.

(EDIT: That is to show the ridiculousness of saying why the DRM-free version should have to wait until the entire game is done, because that is what we were promised. Less someone misinterpret my sarcasm and think I'm serious about pulling the copies off Steam.)

Or Steam will do that automatically because of a bug and replace it with Portal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, only the beta, and the finished project were promised on Steam; so by that logic: On the Act 1 release date of January 28th: All copies for backers should be pulled off Steam because it is not the finished game.

(EDIT: That is to show the ridiculousness of saying why the DRM-free version should have to wait until the entire game is done, because that is what we were promised. Less someone misinterpret my sarcasm and think I'm serious about pulling the copies off Steam.)

Technically speaking they never promised unfinished DRM-free version, as well as they never promised free spaceship to every backer. So by that logic, if they offer DRM-free version of Act 1 - I demand they provide me with my spaceship as well.

And yes, I really am looking forward to it. Already have big plans, and will fell cheated and betrayed if I won't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, only the beta, and the finished project were promised on Steam; so by that logic: On the Act 1 release date of January 28th: All copies for backers should be pulled off Steam because it is not the finished game.

(EDIT: That is to show the ridiculousness of saying why the DRM-free version should have to wait until the entire game is done, because that is what we were promised. Less someone misinterpret my sarcasm and think I'm serious about pulling the copies off Steam.)

Technically speaking they never promised unfinished DRM-free version, as well as they never promised free spaceship to every backer. So by that logic, if they offer DRM-free version of Act 1 - I demand they provide me with my spaceship as well.

And yes, I really am looking forward to it. Already have big plans, and will fell cheated and betrayed if I won't get it.

Technically speaking, they never promised to divide the game in two acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, only the beta, and the finished project were promised on Steam; so by that logic: On the Act 1 release date of January 28th: All copies for backers should be pulled off Steam because it is not the finished game.

(EDIT: That is to show the ridiculousness of saying why the DRM-free version should have to wait until the entire game is done, because that is what we were promised. Less someone misinterpret my sarcasm and think I'm serious about pulling the copies off Steam.)

Technically speaking they never promised unfinished DRM-free version, as well as they never promised free spaceship to every backer. So by that logic, if they offer DRM-free version of Act 1 - I demand they provide me with my spaceship as well.

And yes, I really am looking forward to it. Already have big plans, and will fell cheated and betrayed if I won't get it.

Technically speaking, they never promised to divide the game in two acts.

Great, that means that I definitely should get a spaceship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically speaking they never promised unfinished DRM-free version, as well as they never promised free spaceship to every backer. So by that logic, if they offer DRM-free version of Act 1 - I demand they provide me with my spaceship as well.

That argument is more or less settled as positions are fossilized already. Bullet points to sum up.

- "Technically speaking", they've originally promised the game to release in October 2012. Not a promise you'd like to see backers insist on? Me neither, but then you'll have to see how expectations change as promises can not be upheld.

- "Technically speaking", the Kickstarter never ever promised you the Steam version of the finished Act One, only the full game. You already got your spaceship there, didn't you?

- As the Kickstarter never suggested the Double Fine Adventure to be an episodic release, the letter of the tiers is necessarily compromised by this change of plan.

- Double Fine has failed to provide understandable reasons both for releasing the game in episodic form and for the resulting temporary Steam exclusivity.

- The idea voiced in July that Early Access funds are needed to finish the game has subsequently been revoked in steps, with the first step expressed by Greg as early as August. For bridging just four or less months, DF would not need the Early Access/Steam funds, and they have expressed that already.

- The beta phase for the first part ends in five days, the game will not be on Early Access for regular customers, as DF is certain that they will release something that stands on its own.

- The full "finished and polished" first Act releases on Steam, it's ridiculous that backers who supported the game exclusively for the DRM free version will have to wait longer than regular customers.

- The idea that for some reason the Steam release would be the "normal" release and the DRM free/Humble/gog releases the "special backer" releases is also ridiculous.

- Ridiculous as well is the idea that releasing a DRM free version of Act I at the end of the beta phase would somehow be uber costly or even extend development time significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to chip in... (i resisted until now ;) )

i don't want to install steam on my workstation, so i had to watch a youtube playthrough (or stop visiting this forum, because i'd get spoiled anyway).

so no matter what DF said or planned, and no matter what all fanboys believe whats ok or not....

...the end of the line is: i couldn't play a game i (slacker)backed two times (45$).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- "Technically speaking", they've originally promised the game to release in October 2012. Not a promise you'd like to see backers insist on? Me neither, but then you'll have to see how expectations change as promises can not be upheld.

Backers simply can't insist on it, and not only because most of them aren't dicks.

See Kickstarter Terms under which you backed the project : "The Estimated Delivery Date listed on each reward is not a promise to fulfill by that date, but is merely an estimate of when the Project Creator hopes to fulfill by."

- "Technically speaking", the Kickstarter never ever promised you the Steam version of the finished Act One, only the full game. You already got your spaceship there, didn't you?

Yup, that was an extra bonus, doesn't mean you should also get any other bonuses you feel entitled to.

- As the Kickstarter never suggested the Double Fine Adventure to be an episodic release, the letter of the tiers is necessarily compromised by this change of plan.

No it's not. The release will be in April/May.

Again delivering something extra does not entitle anything else you would also want to get.

- Double Fine has failed to provide understandable reasons both for releasing the game in episodic form and for the resulting temporary Steam exclusivity.

- The idea voiced in July that Early Access funds are needed to finish the game have subsequently been revoked, with the first instance as early as August. For bridging just four or less months, DF would not need the Early Access/Steam funds, and they have expressed that already.

- The idea that releasing a DRM free version of Act I at the end of the beta phase would somehow be uber costly or even extend development time significantly is ridiculous.

Again - for whatever reasons they provided something extra before full release. If it's not something you personally find useful - doesn't mean that no one should get it. No one forces you to use it, and no one discriminates against you - you get the same stuff and opportunities as every other backer here. They released it for all PC platforms, no one expects you to buy anything - you can play it and listen to soundtrack if you want.

- The beta phase for the first part ends in five days, the game will not be on Early Access for regular customers, as DF is certain that they will release something that stands on its own.

- The full "finished and polished" first Act releases on Steam, it's ridiculous that backers who supported the game exclusively for the DRM free version will have to wait longer than regular customers.

Still not the thing you backed, which you will get in spring with everyone else.

You might feel being objectively right with all these statements you make, but these are just your own feelings and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
an extra bonus ... something extra... something extra...

The idea that the Steam version of Act 1 is "something extra" for backers, which most of your argumentation hinges on, is not supported by anything, especially not official statements. The communication expressly is that they are releasing something finished with Act I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
an extra bonus ... something extra... something extra...

The idea that the Steam version of Act 1 is "something extra" for backers, which most of your argumentation hinges on, is not supported by anything, especially not official statements. The communication expressly is that they are releasing something finished with Act I.

Were you promised in Kickstarter pitch early access to release-quality first part for free? No? Then that's the definition of the word "extra".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't I just answer all of your "bullet points summing up" arguments above?

If you don't want to talk about it anymore just say so (or don't say anything), no need to give bogus replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
an extra bonus ... something extra... something extra...

The idea that the Steam version of Act 1 is "something extra" for backers, which most of your argumentation hinges on, is not supported by anything, especially not official statements. The communication expressly is that they are releasing something finished with Act I.

Were you promised in Kickstarter pitch early access to release-quality first part for free? No? Then that's the definition of the word "extra".

So by that argument you would be totally fine if they revoked backer access for Act 1 on public launch and only people buying the new "Act 1" have access to it?

By your logic that would be perfectly acceptably: since Backers are only eligible to the Backer exclusive Steam Beta (which is now and ends with public release) and to the final game (Act 2, released somewhere down the road), but not to any "complete peaces that have public release before the game is completed" (which is what happens January 28th).

But I think we both agree that if DF would propose that, (nearly) everyone would protest about it (and rightfully!).

But because only some 2nd-class backers* who care about DRM-free are affected by it, suddenly it is ok?

* I'm not saying that you (or any other user) said that, but that is how I feel treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't I just answer all of your "bullet points summing up" arguments above?

Ah, no, absolutely not, I'm sad to say.

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.

I then concisely detailed how

(a) the requests are in no view of the situation exaggerated;

(b) the literal promises of the Kickstarter tiers were changed by DF already and therewith do not fully come into play;

© how DF absolutely stands by the Steam delivery of Act I to backers as part of their plan and extended promise in light of the changed situation.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not. The release will be in April/May.

Actually, Tim said it would be late summer in a recent interview. Hopefully has to do with making the puzzles more difficult.

I think everyone here can agree that DF releasing a DRM free version reasonably soon after the launch would be a decent thing to do, even if, arguing the letter of the law, they aren't obligated to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Tim said it would be late summer in a recent interview.

Heeeeeere we go. It's starting now. ;)

Could you provide a link to the interview?

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.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...