Will I be able to play this game without a Steam account?

[Orinsul]

because the steam .exe would interface with steam, and not work without steam, if it had steamworks etc. Since it won't require steam, it will be a normal .exe.. Paradox have no control over what the other sellers will do. Impulse will put their stuff on it because its the impulse version.

I think we need to realise we can't convince you about anything, and you need to realise that a lot of people are more open minded than you.

Also, about having to use the internet to activate it:
http://www.osnews.com/story/24821/UN_Declares_Internet_Access_a_Human_Right
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048 (Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.)

The times, they are a-changing.

Ok, so why if its the same exe cant it use the same patch as not steam? I thought the reason steam needed its own patch was because it changed the exe, thats what other people have said. But if doesnt change the exe why does it need a different patch?
I really dont understand how this works. What makes the patch incompatible, the problem is paradox has to make lots of patches cos all the digital re-sellers do something to it. What?
And why cant the patch just not change that one thing and then be one patch for everyone without everyone having to use the same distributing service?

I think you need to realise that some people CANT use steam. Not are close-minded and choose not, but dont have the option or ability of using it. Im not being close-minded, im trying to find solutions to the problem, not just pretending there is no problem and insulting everyone who thinks differently.

And still, if Steam is only needed for patch delivery and does nothing during the installation and is not needed to play the game, WHY does the game need Steam to be installed? Instead of just installing then giving you the option of installing steam if you want to do any steam things, like get patches or that cloud thing.

So you could install with ease and re-install with ease and only need the inconvenience of steam when actually using its features and not at all if your ok not missing out on that, but still being able to use the game.

Not really on topic but people are talking about, but why would the pirates have a crack? If its true what people are saying that once its installed on one computer you can just copy it onto others, isnt that what they would do? rather than make a crack, i mean i dont know how cracks work but id guess they take time and effort to make. So if you can just copy it wouldnt they just do that? I mean i know pirates are criminals, but thats all the more reason to expect them to be lazy and do no work rather than hard work making something.

 

[Johan]

I think you need to realise that some people CANT use steam. Not are close-minded and choose not, but dont have the option or ability of using it.

The amount of people who can't use Steam but can use other download portals is rather slim.

Crusader Kings II is designed to be played on computers that have internet access. Thats how you get extra information on rulers, how you play multiplayer, how you score achievements, how you get patches, how you get expansions etc.

 

[Darkrenown]

How would giving the option, like all your other games, hurt anyone? If people want to get the patches through steam they can install steam, if theyre ok not getting the patches through steam then they dont have to. But can still Install the game!

If it allows itself to be copied onto computers that dont have steam or the internet, why not just allow that step to be skipped, and allow it to be INSTALLED on computers that dont have steam or the internet?

Because it changes our deadlines. If we can't count on auto-patching the version printed to the CDs must be the release version. Some features may have to be cut that would otherwise have been in etc.

I think you need to realise that some people CANT use steam. Not are close-minded and choose not, but dont have the option or ability of using it. Im not being close-minded, im trying to find solutions to the problem, not just pretending there is no problem and insulting everyone who thinks differently.

Thing is, unless we also do a non-steam version, we REQUIRE steam. Some people don't have a good enough graphics card or CPU or enough RAM, so they can't play it either. That is a shame for them, but we can't make a half-powered version for them either.

 

[Demiurge4]

Plus, Steam does allow you to play offline once you've installed the game.

 

[Wezqu]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048 (Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.)

Thats even true there recently was a news buzz about an area that didn't have it in Finland. It went so far that the goverment intervened and ordered the network distributors to build a tower to the area so those people would get wireless broadband. I'm quite proud to live in a nation that sees broadband internet connection as a citizens right.

 

[steveh11]

Cutting to the chase then,

Will I EVER be able to play this game without a Steam account?

I'm not talking about on release; I'm giving up on the idea of being one of Johan's 'early adopters'. I'm talking about "Some time in 2012". A firm commitment, one way or the other, please. I want to know.

I can then make decisions accordingly.

 

[Darkrenown]

Hasn't it already been said several times that a GG version is "fairly likely"?

 

[Frezzin]

Cutting to the chase then,

Will I EVER be able to play this game without a Steam account?

I'm not talking about on release; I'm giving up on the idea of being one of Johan's 'early adopters'. I'm talking about "Some time in 2012". A firm commitment, one way or the other, please. I want to know.

I can then make decisions accordingly.

1.) I doubt they can give you that firm commitment. Only the "very likely" as Dark said. And even so, I think that version will still need Steam for updates if memory serves from other threads...

2.) Evenso, what does it matter? If you're firmly against Steam, then you won't buy it if/until there is a release that won't require Steam and you could make the decision then.

Just comes across like you're trying to wiggle a commitment out of them when PI has been consistant in saying that Steam is what they're going with because their 80%+ of their customers are there, it's easier for them to distribute titles and patch them quickly, etc, etc.

Plus, everyone is forgetting that the reason Steam is popular is because customers get the product immediately, without having to worry about whether their local brick & mortar has a copy on hand or whether a truck was delayed, etc. I get the feeling this is less about the conspiracy theories and privacy issues with Steam and more about your personal idiosyncratic need to have control or hold a physical copy in your hand; as if that meant you owned it more than a digital copy. We live in the 21st century people, gotta get used to things going into the "cloud."

 

[Sam L]

1.) I doubt they can give you that firm commitment. Only the "very likely" as Dark said. And even so, I think that version will still need Steam for updates if memory serves from other threads...

2.) Evenso, what does it matter? If you're firmly against Steam, then you won't buy it if/until there is a release that won't require Steam and you could make the decision then.

Just comes across like you're trying to wiggle a commitment out of them when PI has been consistant in saying that Steam is what they're going with because their 80%+ of their customers are there, it's easier for them to distribute titles and patch them quickly, etc, etc.

Plus, everyone is forgetting that the reason Steam is popular is because customers get the product immediately, without having to worry about whether their local brick & mortar has a copy on hand or whether a truck was delayed, etc. I get the feeling this is less about the conspiracy theories and privacy issues with Steam and more about your personal idiosyncratic need to have control or hold a physical copy in your hand; as if that meant you owned it more than a digital copy. We live in the 21st century people, gotta get used to things going into the "cloud."

I don't like digital copies. I like boxes. I will be buying from the Paradox Web Shop.

I don't know how Steam works and don't want to know. But if I need to know someone better give me a run down step by step of what I need to do.

 

[steveh11]

Cutting to the chase then,

Will I EVER be able to play this game without a Steam account?

I'm not talking about on release; I'm giving up on the idea of being one of Johan's 'early adopters'. I'm talking about "Some time in 2012". A firm commitment, one way or the other, please. I want to know.

I can then make decisions accordingly.

Hasn't it already been said several times that a GG version is "fairly likely"?

Yes, it has. That's not a "firm commitment".

OK, enough. I'll just watch and wait.

 

[Jak9090]

im pretty sure it was said a GG version was "highly" likely, if not I will have to get a "modified" version of this game, as I do not have a steam account, nor do I want to be forced to use something I dont want, some might say that is not a good enough reason, but I bet you all avoid things you dont want to deal with or be apart of in life, so respect our decision, some of us simply dont like steam, or dont want to be forced into interacting with a third party program

 

[Darkrenown]

"They use a program I don't like, so it's ok to steal their work"?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you mean you'd buy it but play a cracked copy, but really, do not talk about pirating games on a develop's forum. Not only is it against the forum rules here, it's poor taste.

 

[Brownbeard]

Speaking of bad decisions, whose idea was it to curtail distribution to a single channel? I fail to see how Steam alone is greater than Steam, Gamersgate and Impulse combined, unless there is something more behind it.

Is it really that expensive to distribute the game via Gamersgate as well?

 

[Frezzin]

"They use a program I don't like, so it's ok to steal their work"?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you mean you'd buy it but play a cracked copy, but really, do not talk about pirating games on a develop's forum. Not only is it against the forum rules here, it's poor taste.

Wow yeah I was thinking the same thing Dark. Even if that is what he meant, it's still in extremely poor taste.

 

[Frezzin]

Speaking of bad decisions, whose idea was it to curtail distribution to a single channel? I fail to see how Steam alone is greater than Steam, Gamersgate and Impulse combined, unless there is something more behind it.

Is it really that expensive to distribute the game via Gamersgate as well?

As has been said numerous times, it makes things a heckuva lot easier on the developer. They dont' have to print DVDs, patches are automatic, distribution is made much simplier, etc, etc. From a business stand-point, it's an exceptionally sound decision when you hve 80%+ of your market using the platform.

Gamersgate version is highly likely, but there is a reason why they're choosing not to make a firm commitment. Why do people feel the need to argue and question these business decisions? If you don't like it, then you don't need to buy the product. I fail to see the impact you're going to have arguing with them about how they choose to distribute their product. It's fair enough to say, "I don't like Steam/I have issues with Steam, so if that's the only way I can get it I likely won't buy it." But arguing about it is completely ridiculous IMO.

 

[Brownbeard]

As has been said numerous times, it makes things a heckuva lot easier on the developer. They dont' have to print DVDs, patches are automatic, distribution is made much simplier, etc, etc. From a business stand-point, it's an exceptionally sound decision when you hve 80%+ of your market using the platform.

Gamersgate version is highly likely, but there is a reason why they're choosing not to make a firm commitment. Why do people feel the need to argue and question these business decisions? If you don't like it, then you don't need to buy the product. I fail to see the impact you're going to have arguing with them about how they choose to distribute their product. It's fair enough to say, "I don't like Steam/I have issues with Steam, so if that's the only way I can get it I likely won't buy it." But arguing about it is completely ridiculous IMO.

Are you a Steam employee?

From a business stand-point, it is a suicidal decision if your entire sales is based on a single purchaser, as you are forfeiting all negotiating power.

80% < 100%, 100% - 80% = 20%, ergo, you are forfeiting 20% of your sales market. And since costs are pretty much fixed with digital distribution, I see no sense in this.

As for patching, thats a pandoras box, we've had auto-patching since EU3, and sometimes it works, sometimes it does not, and beta patches are not included. What if the whole new shiny auto-patcher fails miserably due to some trivial detail?

I rate my impact at 39,99. If its sold on GG I will buy it, if its Steam exclusive, I'll take my business elsewhere. DF2012 should be out at around same time.

 

[Maleficus]

I rate my impact at 39,99. If its sold on GG I will buy it, if its Steam exclusive, I'll take my business elsewhere. DF2012 should be out at around same time.

What's DF2012? Even google doesn't seem to know...

They dont' have to print DVDs

Wait... There is gonna be a physical version though, right? I have no problem with registering via Steam, patching via Steam, etc I would just much prefer to have a disc, and to have the case on my shelf so everyone who pops round can see what awesome taste in games I have

 

[delling]

1. I have over 300 games on my Steam account, so I have lots of experience with Steam patching and in my experience you are wrong.

2. so what?

3. Network monitoring work 24/7, but outside office hours there will be less people (I work in Network Monitoring Center, so I should know ). In case of major incident other people can either use VPN to help with problem or arrive to office within hour or 2.

4. Most of this can only be answered by PI, but as far as intervention when something about patch is horribly wrong on Steam game, it can be easily fixed as can be seen on what happened to Total War: SHOGUN 2 - they released patch that made game unplayable to lots of people and Valve managed to revert that patch in 15 minutes (that included time to get approval from publisher to pull that patch) - I would say that its pretty reasonable.

5a. State Washington

5b. You might or might not be able to sue them in EU - ask lawyer

What you numbered 4 was an expansion on 1. 5 is likewise an expansion on 2.

1&4. My experience is that for every single game I have seen released *not exclusively* on Steam that I have visited the forums for there has been that exact dialog. The patches are usually not processed by Steam within a week and sometimes left behind for months with Steam and developer pointing fingers. If a game is exclusively on Steam there are no other patch release dates to compare with. Obviously experiences can differ. I just searched for "Steam patch delay"...

2&5. IANAL, but I believe I can sue Steam in my local court, and they can safely ignore it since they have no assets that can be reached from here, at least not for a small claim. Within EU and between some other countries there are treaties handling these things, but I don't believe there is such a treaty between US and a lot of countries in or out of EU.
My point being that one should be informed that one cannot have the same expectations when sending money halfway around the world. If I buy a PI game from GG I have a very high probability of being able to access the game (or get my money back) for a very long time, regardless of whether Steam is in the middle at various points of time or not. If Steam were to revoke the access I could then make my claim towards GG. (If GG go bust I take the 2h train ride to Paradox offices and camp there for a while.) If I buy the same game from Steam, and they decide they don't like something about me vs their EULA I have only the camping option.
Consumer protection varies a lot between countries, and when the solution is all cloud-based jurisdiction matters since in some places everything hidden in fine print and EULAs is actually legally relevant. (Most American-written EULAs contains clauses that are of disputable valididity in Sweden for example.)

3. If that's the case then explain this to me: In the morning, 9 GMT or so, Bought a Steamworks game through GG, got the activation code, Steam plopped up an error about server communication failure. Tried a lot of different stuff, including everything listed in the Steam KB (worked as admin for 15 years), then started to trawl Steam forums. Found a dozen or so posts about the same exact issue, including people saying they reported it. Waited a few hours and checked the forums again. More people were complaining, more claimed to have reported. One experienced user said something to tune of 'You really don't need to post about it anymore, they will probably fix it when they come into office'. The first lifesigns started appearing after the workday had started 'over there', which was after several hours. I actually now found one of the threads, there were a few swirling around at the time.
Not being able to play a single game I bought for a while isn't at all important, but to me that incident indicates something about the way the business is conducted and a disregard for the European and global market. That particular server (cluster) obviously wasn't run on a proper 24/7 basis.

I do not 'hate' Steam, I have it always running with my 45 games registered there and it has evolved into something that works. There are drawbacks to all solutions.

Steams main drawback has been making the developer jump through hoops and wait for having patches distributed, which is why competition is needed. Since Steam today has a de facto monopoly and the only way from that position is to lose market, I think Paradox would have gained from inhouse creating an as-simple-as-possible launcher/patcher interface common to all their products downloading and running a separate patch installer on demand. I also think Paradox are too small for Valve to give a rodents far side about them once they have locked in. I also think it should be in Paradox' best interest to not give any one distributor monopoly on their products.

 

[Brownbeard]

What's DF2012? Even google doesn't seem to know...

Next release of Dwarf Fortress.

 

[Frezzin]

Wait... There is gonna be a physical version though, right? I have no problem with registering via Steam, patching via Steam, etc I would just much prefer to have a disc, and to have the case on my shelf so everyone who pops round can see what awesome taste in games I have

Uh well I'm not affiliated with PI so I can't say with authority. I was only saying that it saves them from having to print DVDs.