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

[Pete0714]

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.

Agree entirely. I think, unfortunately, if this trend is what it sounds like, this business attitude of ingratitude to the whole of the customer base will be forcing me out of their market. Sad. two years ago, I turned away from the Total War series because of Steam. Then I turned away from the Civilization series because of Steam. Now, I will probably have to decide not to buy future Paradox games, because of that same attitude of "you will take your medicine and like it because its good for you" that I am hearing.

i.e. from Darkrenown "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."

i.e. from Johan "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."

This is not just about Steam for me. It is about a corporate attitude of disrespect for customer interests and needs. The entire globe is under a financial crisis, because corporations, big and small, have decided to do what was best for their bottom line, rather than what was best for the customers they served. And no, I am not an "occupier," just someone who is tired of being treated like a lemming. While Paradox is not a big corporation, there is a similar attitude that I am hearing in these statements they have been making.
I hope they will think differently, as they have said there is a "likely," for the gamersgate But I do think the damage has already been done. Physical copies of games are almost gone, and now this.

 

[Cabezaestufa]

Here is my take on this (all of it baseless guess-work, of course):

Paradox expects to make quite a bit of money on their new model of micro-transactions, so they can use it to keep their games updated and to add new features for free on their patches. But there is a problem: that approach is far more complex than their old way of releasing expansions every year or so. After all, the average user might have bought 15-20 DLC for, say, CK2. Having to install each one of them independently would be a pain in the arse, even more if they have interdependences/conflicts that have to be taken into account (not to mention that you should also probably need to install different free patches, who knows in which order). To solve this problem, Paradox could have chosen to develop an in-house app to do all this work, but ¿why invent it again when it has already been done? And the ones that did it apparently happen to account for 80% of Paradox's sales, so it probably was a no-brainer to use Steam to implement the new DLC policy.

For this reason, since I'm pretty sure Steam will be mandatory to buy and use DLC from now on, Paradox wants the few of us who still don't use it to make the jump. After all, we want DLC and they want us to buy it. Unfortunately, I don't like Steam -among other things already stated by others, I don't like the fact that they can take away everything I have bought from them if they feel like it without even giving a valid reason, not to mention a refund; I feel that is a big hit to my consumer rights-, but I guess for Paradox it makes sense, even if they may lose a few grumpy old fans like me on the way.

 

[Pete0714]

Just one more note on this subject and I promise I am done with it, but just an observation to consider. I think it is ironic that this subject is on the Crusader Kings forum, because we need to ask ourself exactly what kind of economic model is being considered here. It is not seeming to be a capitalistic model, where the business's desire is to answer to the consumer demand,(the old adage "the customer is always right," even when they are wrong).
Rather it is trending more along the lines of a feudalistic model, where the business is the lord, and the customer is the serf, who works and plays on the "property" of the lord. The lord can give or take away, change the agreement whenever the lord pleases, and the serf simply must deal, die, or leave the property.
It is an economic model that was good for its time, when death and fear surrounded the masses, but is it really where we want to go today, not just in silly games (I could care less), but in the rest of our lives?
I wouldn't complain if it weren't for the fact that I see it everywhere today in society. We need to reevaluate who is really in charge of the business, whether it is in gaming, in banking, or in anything.

 

[Frezzin]

Agree entirely. I think, unfortunately, if this trend is what it sounds like, this business attitude of ingratitude to the whole of the customer base will be forcing me out of their market. Sad. two years ago, I turned away from the Total War series because of Steam. Then I turned away from the Civilization series because of Steam. Now, I will probably have to decide not to buy future Paradox games, because of that same attitude of "you will take your medicine and like it because its good for you" that I am hearing.

i.e. from Darkrenown "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."

i.e. from Johan "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."

This is not just about Steam for me. It is about a corporate attitude of disrespect for customer interests and needs. The entire globe is under a financial crisis, because corporations, big and small, have decided to do what was best for their bottom line, rather than what was best for the customers they served. And no, I am not an "occupier," just someone who is tired of being treated like a lemming. While Paradox is not a big corporation, there is a similar attitude that I am hearing in these statements they have been making.
I hope they will think differently, as they have said there is a "likely," for the gamersgate But I do think the damage has already been done. Physical copies of games are almost gone, and now this.

You're missing the point that there are costs involved. Lets say you and 10% of thier customers want a physical DVD. The question is whether it's worth it to PI to print those DVDs, get the boxes made, the manuals, the jewel cases, and get them shipped to stores on-time, etc...that's loads of costs involved in that and to cover it they would have to raise the cost of the product. So instead of 40 $/€ for the game you might pay 50 or more. Then you'll be complaining about how you have to pay more than the Steam customers. And then whatever copies aren't sold, PI would end up having to deal with. Overall it's not as financially sound when 80%+ of your market are using Steam, which saves you on all those costs, allows you to sell your games cheaper and not impact your overhead, as well as providing your customers better service in patches and availability.

I'm no Steam fan-boy. I actually don't like having it running either. In fact I have it closed unless I need it open. But I also don't judge PI on their business decisions. I make my decisions based on my personal reasons. I don't have an issue with Steam, so I'm happy to buy it from them using it. If you have a problem with Steam, for whatever reason, than don't buy the product. But think of the trees and such that you're saving by buying a digital copy as well

My problem with the non-steamers is that they tend to think they have a right to go on about business decisions made by PI and try to prove how they think it's stupid/ridiculous/etc. Most aren't even closely qualified to make the statements and even if they were, it's not going to change anything. I just find it disrespectful, fruitless, and a waste of everyone's time--including theirs.

 

[delling]

...
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.

Now you actually scared me. I have the highest regard for you and PI, but that sounded a bit like a comment from the infamous game company U.... I have faith in you not going down that road, and it's nowhere near what this tjafs (~chatter) is about, but that was what popped into my mind. U.. is the only company I boycott.

 

[Cabezaestufa]

You're missing the point that there are costs involved. Lets say you and 10% of thier customers want a physical DVD. The question is whether it's worth it to PI to print those DVDs, get the boxes made, the manuals, the jewel cases, and get them shipped to stores on-time, etc...that's loads of costs involved in that and to cover it they would have to raise the cost of the product. So instead of 40 $/€ for the game you might pay 50 or more. Then you'll be complaining about how you have to pay more than the Steam customers. And then whatever copies aren't sold, PI would end up having to deal with. Overall it's not as financially sound when 80%+ of your market are using Steam, which saves you on all those costs, allows you to sell your games cheaper and not impact your overhead, as well as providing your customers better service in patches and availability.

Sorry to nitpick, but I'd like to point out that until very recently no publisher seemed to have any problem with printing DVDs, boxes and all that, for the same price, and they seemed to be doing all right. In fact, one of the things that bug me the most about digital distribution is that even when the costs of distribution are much lower (or at least that's what it looks like), the games haven't gotten any cheaper.

 

[Panjer]

For people worried about constantly needing an internet connection:

1. Go to your steam folder
2. Go to Steamapps
3. Go to common
4. You'll find all the games you've downloaded on Steam and you'll be able to play them without needing to log on.

I've used this method to play games that gave me trouble when I tried to run them on Steam. (I believe it was Gothic and its sequel)

 

[eliphas8]

Sorry to nitpick, but I'd like to point out that until very recently no publisher seemed to have any problem with printing DVDs, boxes and all that, for the same price, and they seemed to be doing all right. In fact, one of the things that bug me the most about digital distribution is that even when the costs of distribution are much lower (or at least that's what it looks like), the games haven't gotten any cheaper.

Until recently PC game publishers had a larger market to sell to, more and more buyers have been moving to steam because of the fact that in the larger video game playing nations PC games are ghettoized with tiny space. Steam opened up a new market and helped to revitalize PC gaming, the recent shift of indie publishers using steam a lot more is because of that shift in where their consumers are. the distrubution prices havent gotten much cheaper but there is less and less money to be made in the physical market.

 

[Cabezaestufa]

Until recently PC game publishers had a larger market to sell to, more and more buyers have been moving to steam because of the fact that in the larger video game playing nations PC games are ghettoized with tiny space. Steam opened up a new market and helped to revitalize PC gaming, the recent shift of indie publishers using steam a lot more is because of that shift in where their consumers are. the distrubution prices havent gotten much cheaper but there is less and less money to be made in the physical market.

I have no problem with digital distribution per se, and I agree that physical copies are probably doomed to disappear sooner rather than later, but how is it that distribution costs aren't cheaper? You save on the whole process of burning dvds, buying cases, printing manuals, transporting boxes to retailers, cuts for the retailers, all kinds of middle-men... That's a lot of money publishers don't have to pay anymore. Either Steam is getting enormously rich by taking a big percentage of each sold copy, big enough to absorb all these savings, or there has indeed been a big reduction in distribution costs. Either way, physical distribution shouldn't justify a price increase if prices haven't been decreased for digital copies in the first place (which was my original point).

 

[Johan]

Now you actually scared me. I have the highest regard for you and PI, but that sounded a bit like a comment from the infamous game company U.... I have faith in you not going down that road, and it's nowhere near what this tjafs (~chatter) is about, but that was what popped into my mind. U.. is the only company I boycott.

No, its not something like that.. I just mentioned that a game with multiplayer, with links to wikipedia, where you have online achievements, kind of you know.. need the internet to access that stuff...

 

[yellowbiz]

For people worried about constantly needing an internet connection:

1. Go to your steam folder
2. Go to Steamapps
3. Go to common
4. You'll find all the games you've downloaded on Steam and you'll be able to play them without needing to log on.

I've used this method to play games that gave me trouble when I tried to run them on Steam. (I believe it was Gothic and its sequel)

Not every game supports bypassing Steam, Skyrim did it and they patched it up, so now you HAVE to log in to Steam to play it.
I´m not complaining, I´m always connected to the internet, and frankly, I don´t know anyone that isn´t, so it´s not something I understand.

 

[Frezzin]

Not every game supports bypassing Steam, Skyrim did it and they patched it up, so now you HAVE to log in to Steam to play it.
I´m not complaining, I´m always connected to the internet, and frankly, I don´t know anyone that isn´t, so it´s not something I understand.

That was Bethesda's decision though to protect from the crazy pirating that was going on.

 

[King]

Just one more note on this subject and I promise I am done with it, but just an observation to consider. I think it is ironic that this subject is on the Crusader Kings forum, because we need to ask ourself exactly what kind of economic model is being considered here. It is not seeming to be a capitalistic model, where the business's desire is to answer to the consumer demand,(the old adage "the customer is always right," even when they are wrong).
Rather it is trending more along the lines of a feudalistic model, where the business is the lord, and the customer is the serf, who works and plays on the "property" of the lord. The lord can give or take away, change the agreement whenever the lord pleases, and the serf simply must deal, die, or leave the property.
It is an economic model that was good for its time, when death and fear surrounded the masses, but is it really where we want to go today, not just in silly games (I could care less), but in the rest of our lives?
I wouldn't complain if it weren't for the fact that I see it everywhere today in society. We need to reevaluate who is really in charge of the business, whether it is in gaming, in banking, or in anything.

Honestly this one managed to peak my interest. What we are doing is Capitalism and let me explain why. You see we offer you a product and then it is upto you to decide wether or not you want to buy it. Customer demand will then determine if we prosper or not. Nothing has changed in that regard. You (and this is collectively) will show us if this decision is the right one based upon the money you spend (or not as the case may be).

 

[eliphas8]

I have no problem with digital distribution per se, and I agree that physical copies are probably doomed to disappear sooner rather than later, but how is it that distribution costs aren't cheaper? You save on the whole process of burning dvds, buying cases, printing manuals, transporting boxes to retailers, cuts for the retailers, all kinds of middle-men... That's a lot of money publishers don't have to pay anymore. Either Steam is getting enormously rich by taking a big percentage of each sold copy, big enough to absorb all these savings, or there has indeed been a big reduction in distribution costs. Either way, physical distribution shouldn't justify a price increase if prices haven't been decreased for digital copies in the first place (which was my original point).

The investment in comparison to the money valve got was obviously enough for them to justify going exclusively selling on steam so this was obviously an issue, my argument was more that the price was unjustifiable in a market where PC games are getting ever more unprofitable in stores.

 

[Darkrenown]

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.

Two problems here:

1)You making the faulty assumption every non-steam sale is due to all the GG/Impulse/etc customers hating Steam as much as you seem to, and that all those sales would be lost if it was Steam only. I'm sure there's a few, as we see from any thread here that mentions Steam, but I doubt it's a large number.

2)Needing Steam activation doesn't meant it'll only be sold on Steam. AFAIK it'll be sold in all the regular places and there will be a box too.

 

[Pyriel]

It's DRM free on steam, that's good enough for me at least.

 

[xGhost4000x]

I don't like Steam -among other things already stated by others, I don't like the fact that they can take away everything I have bought from them if they feel like it without even giving a valid reason, not to mention a refund; I feel that is a big hit to my consumer rights-, but I guess for Paradox it makes sense, even if they may lose a few grumpy old fans like me on the way.

One of the first pages here showed a line from the Gamersgate user agreement, Gamersgate can close your account or any feature of it (this includes your games) without reason.

How is that any different?

You trust GG but not Steam?

Anyway...this was my first and last post in this thread.

Good day to all.

 

[Darkrenown]

Just one more note on this subject and I promise I am done with it, but just an observation to consider. I think it is ironic that this subject is on the Crusader Kings forum, because we need to ask ourself exactly what kind of economic model is being considered here. It is not seeming to be a capitalistic model, where the business's desire is to answer to the consumer demand,(the old adage "the customer is always right," even when they are wrong).
Rather it is trending more along the lines of a feudalistic model, where the business is the lord, and the customer is the serf, who works and plays on the "property" of the lord. The lord can give or take away, change the agreement whenever the lord pleases, and the serf simply must deal, die, or leave the property.
It is an economic model that was good for its time, when death and fear surrounded the masses, but is it really where we want to go today, not just in silly games (I could care less), but in the rest of our lives?
I wouldn't complain if it weren't for the fact that I see it everywhere today in society. We need to reevaluate who is really in charge of the business, whether it is in gaming, in banking, or in anything.

Because the customer is not always right. That phrase was the motto of American salesmen at one point for certain businesses, people just expand it to cover business in general as if it was a fundamental law of nature to justify their entitlement issues

What about the people who can't run CK2 because the minimum specs are too high? Should we cut half the features and playable characters to let the game run on older CPUs? Should the map look like EUI's to let ancient graphics cards run it? Are their complaints less valid than your anti-steam position? In theory this should open up much larger markets for us, all those older computer that could run the game!

If you dislike Steam so much you refuse to use it, it is your choice. However, you must deal with the consequence of your choice; that you will not be able to play games that require Steam.

 

[Cabezaestufa]

One of the first pages here showed a line from the Gamersgate user agreement, Gamersgate can close your account or any feature of it (this includes your games) without reason.

How is that any different?

You trust GG but not Steam?

Anyway...this was my first and last post in this thread.

Good day to all.

I was kinda expecting this answer. There is a big and crucial difference: If Gamersgate closes my account, assuming I kept the installer (which I always do), I can still:

- Install the game.
- Patch the game.
- Install, buy and play any DLC I have.
- Play multiplayer.

This is not the case with Steam (at least the first three, not sure about the fourth). In fact, if the game uses Steamworks DRM (which CK2 won't, I know) you won't even be able to play. In contrast, the only thing a Gamersgate ban would prevent me from is downloading the installer again.

 

[eliphas8]

I was kinda expecting this answer. There is a big and crucial difference: If Gamersgate closes my account, assuming I kept the installer (which I always do), I can still:

- Install the game.
- Patch the game.
- Install, buy and play any DLC I have.
- Play multiplayer.

This is not the case with Steam (at least the first three, not sure about the fourth). In fact, if the game uses Steamworks DRM (which CK2 won't, I know) you won't even be able to play. In contrast, the only thing a Gamersgate ban would prevent me from is downloading the installer again.

Yes but the only reasons steam has ever banned someones account was because they bought their games with stolen money or used the account to commit fraud, if those are the qualifications for getting banned then this policy makes perfect sense.