Will you release Tyranny DRM-free?

[Ols]

I'm going to let someone else answer than one because I'm not very good with legalistic arguments.

That sounds awful purist, though. Are you opposed to a CD product key as well? My biggest issue with the anti-DRM crowd is their arguments seem too dogmatic to be realistic. Actually tapping into why there's an issue with Steam as a downloader gives us this bizarre "they can take away your game at any time" rubbish. That clause is there because they can't guarantee their servers wont break mid update and never turn on again (supposing they go bankrupt or something). To actually point to irrelevant parts of the ToCs like that seems a bit petty, especially given most ToCs contain really bizzare clauses for a company to cover their arses.

 

[darkpatriot]

Part of the misunderstanding comes from how the term DRM was used back when copy protection was the general term used for methods to control access to software. Which was what, around 10 years ago or so? When DRM was a new term it was often used to refer to the more draconian methods of copy protection that took root control of your system and ran a third party program in the background. However, DRM quickly expanded to be the general term for methods to control access to software instead of copy protection since not all methods to control access are strictly about protecting against copying and DRM was much more suited as a general use term.

That older definition is the definition that Paradox was referring to when they were claiming that their games were still DRM free despite using steam. But that was certainly more than a bit disingenuous since even by then DRM was already the accepted term for all methods used to control access to software. However, the term "DRM free" has always been referring to all methods used to control access to software. When someone says a game is DRM free they mean exactly that; A game that uses no methods to control access to the game.

To keep trying to assert another definition of DRM that has long fallen out of use is just arguing semantics.

 

[BKGaming]

Now then, anything else?

That's very outdated sales. Just look how much that number has changed with the Witcher 3. GOG is a lot more popular now then when the Witcher 2 released.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/more-people-playing-witcher-3-on-gog-than-on-steam/1100-6428013/

GOG version had more sales and players than Steam did. Granted there were a lot of circumstances surrounding that amount of sales, but people will use GOG just as much as they will Steam. It's just typically by the time games make there way to GOG most sales are already picked up on Steam. In order for competitive sales numbers, more developer need to release there games day one on GOG. No Man's Sky is going to be a game to follow, let's see how that one turns out as it is releasing day one on both platforms.

As for this notion that is to hard to support multiple platforms, I agree that may have been true in the past. GOG is making that a lot easier now though. GOG has spent the last few months working on developer tools for Galaxy, allowing devs to do such things as pushing out patches themselves like they do on Steam, etc. This will likely only get better from here. So while I agree there was a higher level of cost when it came to supporting GOG vs Steam in the past, it slowly but surely changing. It also really should not be that difficult or time consuming to switch out Steamworks for the Galaxy api. The biggest cost to supporting that would be during development, which should be much easier now with the Galaxy tools provided by GOG, post support after development is largely going to be the same. The patches for Steam and GOG are largely going to be the same.

Also the speculation is irrelavant though, only people that turly know is Obsidian and Paradox.

 

[andry18]

Again, games on steam are not DRM free. Online activation is DRM. Requiring online verification to download updates and patches is DRM. Many people here seem to have convinced themselves that only certain DRM methods are DRM. You could make an argument that steam games that don't require steam to be on every time you play just have light weight and unobtrusive DRM, but I, and many other as well, consider having to have a third party program installed fairly obtrusive and non light weight DRM.

Here is some more information on DRM if you are still unclear as what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

Again, Just because a game doesn't use one method of DRM does not make it DRM free. No game that requires steam is DRM free. This is a pretty well understood concept in the rest of the internet. For example, try arguing in kickstarter comments that a game is DRM free even if it requires steam and see what people say to that.

On these forums it has become the received wisdom that as long as a game doesn't require steam to be on all the time that it is somehow DRM free. Probably because those are the excuses Paradox made many years ago when they switched to steam despite their previous stance against DRM. But again, check up on the DRM wiki article if you are still unclear what DRM is.

You can try and make an arguments for why Paradox using steam is good (or at least isn't that bad), but to state that Paradox games that require steam are DRM free is just blatantly false. It seems some of you have been telling yourself that falsehood for so long (or else have misunderstood what is meant by the term DRM) that you think it is true.

In order for a game to be DRM free it must use no methods to control access. None at all. If it uses online activation or key activation it is not DRM free. If it requires online verification to download patches, it is not DRM free. Steam always uses online activation and online verification to receive game updates so it is NOT DRM free.

However even if you want to argue 'til you are blue in the face that only certain kinds of DRM count as DRM, you would do well to understand that when someone says, "I prefer games that are DRM free", or "I will only buy games that are DRM free" what they mean is games that use no methods to control access.

So when you try and argue with them that, "Games on steam that don't require steam to always be on are DRM free", what you are doing is arguing semantics which is just causing misunderstanding by your refusal to understand what the other person is saying. They are saying they don't want steam or anything else like it. They want to be able to download it directly from a site (or from whatever other source they received it from) and just install and play it with no other interaction with any kind of access control method required.

So in the future when you hear someone asks "Will this game be DRM free?", you would do well to understand that what they are asking is, "Will I be able to just download this game directly to install and play it without any additional access control methods being used?"

absolutely right
bravo

 

[Ols]

Also the speculation is irrelavant though, only people that turly know is Obsidian and Paradox.

I'm hoping we get an official comment soon so I can stop trying to play devil's advocate for their position.

 

[darkpatriot]

Actually tapping into why there's an issue with Steam as a downloader gives us this bizarre "they can take away your game at any time" rubbish.

Rubbish? Steam has actually done this. I don't feel like digging up examples, but steam has suspended accounts (so they can't access their games anymore) they suspect of engaging in purchasing keys to sell in other regions (aka. the infamous Russian steam key sellers). Sometimes they are mistaken in their suspicion and the person complains enough to get the suspension undone, sometimes they are mistaken in their suspicion and the person doesn't complain enough so they lose all their games (which may have cost hundreds or thousands of dollars), and sometimes the suspicion is correct and they shut down a Russian steam key trader.

Steam will suspend accounts for steam user agreement violations. Now you might think this is a good thing (Valve seems to mostly use it to go after the steam key traders to protect their money) but I think Valve being able to take thousands of dollars worth of games from someone for any reason at all is unacceptable. Even if they are breaking the steam user agreement by selling steam keys across regions or whatever else. It erodes consumer rights. This isn't just steam btw, it is the entire Games as a Service model. When games are a service instead of a product that service can and will be taken away from you in the right circumstances.

Edit: Here is steam's page where they state that they do in fact suspend accounts, and suspensions can be permanent: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5406-WFZC-5519

 

[shmerl]

I'm not sure there's a logical progression here. Most of us oppose non-Steam versions because they're a waste of Paradox's development time and less profitable for them as a company.

Which is false as other developers attest (i.e. that's it's not profitable). Which in essence means that you oppose non Steam users simply because they don't use Steam. In order to avoid using stronger words, I'd call it conceited elitism or monopolistic monoculture. When such attitude comes from those who participate in collusion deals, it's to be expected, but when it comes from fellow gamers, it's weird.

 

[shmerl]

I'm hoping we get an official comment soon so I can stop trying to play devil's advocate for their position.

Yes, please. Without official comment all statements like "surely it will be Steam only" are merely a speculation.

 

[Ols]

Which is false as other developers attest (i.e. that's it's not profitable). Which in essence means that you oppose non Steam users simply because they don't use Steam. In order to avoid using stronger words, I'd call it conceited elitism or monopolistic monoculture. When such attitude comes from those who participate in collusion deals, it's to be expected, but when it comes from fellow users, it's weird.

Not sure where you get your logic from, but that's a non-sequitir. I oppose providing a paralel non-Steam version because it would be a money sink and eat up developer time. Paradox may yet wish to experiment further, but I'm not sure the experiment is worth it for their niche playerbase. You're making very wild assumptions about what I want and who I am, when in all honesty I'm just reflecting on Paradox's past experiences in non-Steam content and giving my view that it isn't worth it.

If I believed that Steam could pick up a large enough base of customers on GOG who wouldn't have otherwise purchased it from Steam, I'll change my view. As it stands now, I don't think the change in combined sales would really be enough to warrant the new development time. Quoting comparisons from both doesn't change my impression that most GOG customers are there due to preference, not because they're boycotting Steam entirely. You can make an emotive or moral case for why providing a differentiated product is a good idea, but I'm not of the belief that a company should act outside its own profit motive unless there is a genuinely important ethical case for it. Rarely if ever is there such a case for computer games.

 

[shmerl]

You're making very wild assumptions about what I want and who I am, when in all honesty I'm just reflecting on Paradox's past experiences in non-Steam content and giving my view that it isn't worth it.

Well, for the outsider, comments here look like: "you non Steam users shouldn't ask for games from Paradox because you don't use Steam". I won't call it nice in any way. Also, since I don't agree that distributing outside of Steam is money sink and unprofitable (even smaller developers manage to do it), my only conclusion is that it either comes from poor judgement or from intention to leave part of potential users out.

 

[Ols]

Well, for the outsider, comments here look like: "you non Steam users shouldn't ask for games from Paradox because you don't use Steam". I won't call it nice in any way. Also, since I don't agree that distributing outside of Steam is money sink and unprofitable (even smaller developers manage to do it), my only conclusion is that it either comes from poor judgement or from intention to leave part of potential users out.

And again, you'd be wrong. I'm not sure what value there is to trying to argue a point by trying to tell me what you think my beliefs are. Those are not my views. Falsely claiming your opponent holds views that they do not have is called a strawman argument.

I don't think distributing out of Steam is unprofitable. I think distributing a subtly different product outside of Steam when most of the playerbase are willing to play a Steam integrated version is unprofitable. The losses incurred by not having a small number of anti-DRM purists as customers are less than the losses incurred through redirected development time and extra customer support. This is the argument Paradox has consistently put forth on the issue, and I'm not inclined to believe their customer base is any different (in fact, the number of anti-DRM arguments we've had with prospective customers has dropped dramatically despite Paradox's increasing sales).

 

[BKGaming]

Well, for the outsider, comments here look like: "you non Steam users shouldn't ask for games from Paradox because you don't use Steam". I won't call it nice in any way. Also, since I don't agree that distributing outside of Steam is money sink and unprofitable (even smaller developers manage to do it), my only conclusion is that it either comes from poor judgement or from intention to leave part of potential users out.

Shmerl does have a point, arguing that it's not worth it or is a money sink when much smaller indie developers with much less resources manage to support both Steam and GOG only makes Paradox look like they are deliberately using that as an excuse. But I don't attend to agree with this notion that Paradox doesn't have a much of a relationship with GOG, they got a lot of games there now with more releasing all the time, granted most are older though, but it's a clear sign they must be getting something worthwhile if they are taking the time to sign the contracts, distributing the games, etc.

 

[shmerl]

And again, you'd be wrong. I'm not sure what value there is to trying to argue a point by trying to tell me what you think my beliefs are. Those are not my views. Falsely claiming your opponent holds views that they do not have is called a strawman argument.

I don't think distributing out of Steam is unprofitable. I think distributing a subtly different product outside of Steam when most of the playerbase are willing to play a Steam integrated version is unprofitable. The losses incurred by not having a small number of anti-DRM purists as customers are less than the losses incurred through redirected development time and extra customer support. This is the argument Paradox has consistently put forth on the issue, and I'm not inclined to believe their customer base is any different (in fact, the number of anti-DRM arguments we've had with prospective customers has dropped dramatically despite Paradox's increasing sales).

We are going in circles, so let me summarize what I said before. Steam lock-in is a poor excuse for inability to provide non Steam versions. If you (as developer, not you in particular) respect your users sufficiently, you won't lock distribution with features which will force them to use particular distributor. Secondly, non Steam market is much bigger than you are trying to picture, and you were shown numbers. So this repeated argument from Paradox studio sounds more like a broken record from Valve which is repeated to calm down criticism of monopolistic attitude. Thirdly, we are talking about games made by Obsidian, which are focused on single player roleplaying experience. Trying to argue that Valve lock-in is so important for such games, that it's insanely hard to provide non Steam versions sounds very disingenuous. Multiple developers (of similar genre games) did that successfully and do that still. Including Obsidian themselves!

 

[Ols]

Shmerl does have a point, arguing that it's not worth it or is a money sink when much smaller indie developers with much less resources manage to support both Steam and GOG only makes Paradox look like they are deliberately using that as an excuse. But I don't attend to agree with this notion that Paradox doesn't have a much of a relationship with GOG, they got a lot of games there now with more releasing all the time, granted most are older though, but it's a clear sign they must be getting something worthwhile if they are taking the time to sign the contracts, distributing the games, etc.

The titles there are all pre-Steam integration. It abruptly cuts off after they went down that route. Selling them there is a lot easier than stripping the Steam integration off current games to sell as a differentiated product. It's a lot easier for them when they can clearly state their lack of developer support (excl. Pillars of Eternity) for the back catalogue they have there. Paradox can very quickly release older games to new publishers because its essentially not a dev job, it's marketing. Alternate builds and patching for current games in their catalogue involves a much wider team.

I said nothing about the Paradox/GOG relationship. That relationship doesn't really matter, because Paradox sells through a variety of different stores for their back catalogue. The big difference for Indie developers is that they don't have the same level of steam integration, have different patching needs, sell fewer/no DLCs, and are marketing to an audience that is more likely to impulse buy their game on GOG. I happily impulse buy Indie games on GOG, but I wouldn't for a Paradox game due to its complexity and price.

What would you believe Paradox is using profitability as an excuse for, exactly? I'm not sure why a company would come out and directly state a profit motive for an unpopular decision if they were hiding something. I think their reasoning is about as honest as it gets, and I don't think you can provide enough market research to convince them otherwise without looking at their sales in more depth. The problem will always be that GOG is a preference thing rather than an essential for most customers, so providing their grand-strategies there will never increase their consumer base by enough to warrant the effort (they sell their keys to enough online retailers that GOG wouldn't really provide much more exposure). Their strategy in regards to 'Tyranny' may be different because of its genre, though. A detailed analysis of how Pillars sold is probably the best approach. Paradox's marketing team may be inclined to take a risk and go Steam only because of their suspicion that most people who bought Pillars on GOG would still buy it on Steam if they had to.

 

[AndrewT]

This thread is just generating conflict and hostility while going nowhere, so closing it.

If/when actual facts arrive from PI, we may re-open it.