[DaveyDoomsday]

Lunick, on 17 March 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

So the Multiplayer has a login system? Does that involve a key for multiplayer or what because that would defeat the purpose of a DRM Free GoG version.

If you want cross server online play with the rest of the world and people on Steam, etc - I believe some sort of code will probably be necessary and GOG will handle how they're distributed when you purchase the game. The single player can of course be played offline. But if you log in you get worldwide leaderboards and stat tracking etc. You can always LAN offline as well. Because all the cool kids LAN it up. We'll have it on LAN at PAX and we'll be back at Quake Con too. By then the game will be out however so hopefully people will have it in the LAN themselves!

[Kathy]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 March 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

I want my 106+ achievements.

Disgusting!

[Player Lin]

Is GoG's price is the same as Steam version?

[LkMax]

Pointless achievements vs DRM free GoG version.
Easy choice for me.

PS: I miss the old days of DRM free achievements with unlockable content, like in Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks, Red Faction 2, Duke Nukem Manhattan Project (unlocks black shirt, powerfull kick and X-3000 gun after beating the game), Perfect Dark, etc.

[Kathy]

I remember I acquired every brick in Lego Star Wars (the very first one) and opened a secret Episode 4 level...

[Player Lin]

Personally, I don't care DRM free or not, and I like Steam, so I feel ask that question is stupid...


Unlockable contents are good but not must needed, when we still have Free DLCs...

[ReaperMan]

Player Lin, on 18 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Personally, I don't care DRM free or not

I care.

[Spirrwell]

I don't see why achievements couldn't be in-game as well. But if what's done is done, then I don't really care. Either way it's still technically DRM free. I could get the achievements and then just use single player offline... Right?

[Kathy]

DRM-free is not having any online activation or some other validation bullshit.

[Spirrwell]

Cathy, on 18 March 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

DRM-free is not having any online activation or some other validation bullshit.

I still fail to see the point in which online validation is really bad thing. I don't know much about DRM, but the way I see it, if I buy it from the store and I can use it any way I please that doesn't involve said store, then I'm fine with it. Just my opinion.

[Kathy]

Spirrwell, on 18 March 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

I still fail to see the point in which online validation is really bad thing.

Yeah, it's not like people were having problems with it. And it's not like you rely on activation servers availability.

Quote

I don't know much about DRM, but the way I see it, if I buy it from the store and I can use it any way I please that doesn't involve said store, then I'm fine with it.

You usually can't use games bought in Steam without Steam.

[thatguy]

Spirrwell, on 18 March 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

I still fail to see the point in which online validation is really bad thing. I don't know much about DRM, but the way I see it, if I buy it from the store and I can use it any way I please that doesn't involve said store, then I'm fine with it. Just my opinion.

You should probably read up on the Simcity Fiasco.

Anyways, aside from the achievements joke, I seriously prefer Steam. Its like preferring PS3 or Xbox. Steam is my preferred PC platform of choice for everything I want/need for gaming, in addition to some awesome community features. People scoff at that, but guess what? Community/Social features matters just as much as you guys being on this forum.

[Kathy]

s.b.Newsom, on 18 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

You should probably read up on the Simcity Fiasco.

Recent SimCity belongs to another DRM dread of always-online. Spore is probably a better example in terms of activation DRMs.

[Steveeeie]

Sim City has been a nightmare,

Me and my dad started a region last week, and when we logged in yesterday it told us our region had been deleted

[Radar]

Spirrwell, on 18 March 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

I still fail to see the point in which online validation is really bad thing.

I hear it's only a problem if you actually buy your games.

[Steveeeie]

Radar, on 18 March 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

I hear it's only a problem if you actually buy your games.

If its not worth paying for its not worth playing :/

[DaveyDoomsday]

Steveeeie, on 18 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

If its not worth paying for its not worth playing :/

I agree with Steveeeie here. A good game should be worth your money.

To answer the price question: Yes, the price will be the same on Steam and GOG. However GOG will offer some different goodies like wallpapers, songs and other nonsense and Steam may have TF2 promo items. HAAAAATTTTSSSSSS! Excalibat for Scout?! WOAH! (I don't play TF2 but people apparently love this stuff)

As for DRM, yeah it's not the way we want to be. Not now, not ever. I'm not going to bring up SimCity... but yeah. Bad move, especially for a small developer and publisher. Just look at what happened to those guys who made Miner Wars 2081. They made a Descent-like game that a lot of people were looking forward to, then locked it down with horrendous DRM and there was a huge backlash. They might never recover from that.

People say it prevents piracy but we all know that's bullshit these days. If people want to pirate or crack your game, they will find a way to do it.

You can either be good guy CDProjekt or evil EA. We're going the CDProjekt Route. We're trying to make a great game, put it out for a great price, offer free DLC and get it out there on every platform people want it on.

Also, from a marketing side, GOG is really fun to work with. They do their own promotion, work independently with our assets, and are setting up MP matches, google hangouts and generally go above and beyond to come up with marketing and promotion ideas, unlike some other online retailers. If you're not already a fan of GOG as a PC gamer, you should be.

Also, we haven't even formally announced we'll be releasing on GOG yet. I can't believe you guys get me to tell you all this stuff

[Fox]

DaveyDoomsday, on 18 March 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

People say it prevents piracy but we all know that's bullshit these days. If people want to pirate or crack your game, they will find a way to do it.

Ironically SimCity pirated version is a much better game, without the pseudo-multiplayer crap and more space to built the city. If anything, that's encouraging piracy. And speaking only of the gameplay.

[thatguy]

Has the pirated version been made completely offline? I've never played an online simcity before and I have no reason to start...unless they make it work properly.

[DaveyDoomsday]

s.b.Newsom, on 18 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Has the pirated version been made completely offline? I've never played an online simcity before and I have no reason to start...unless they make it work properly.

You can play offline but your cities wont connect within the region without being online to sync and the game won't work as intended. There are issues with the game that go way beyond the DRM and all that BS. Core gameplay systems simply don't work as they should. I played the game for damn near 40 hours before I realized it wasn't me that was the problem, it's that the game was inherently broken.

Go play Tropico 4 or Cities XL or Sim City 4 instead

[Fox]

s.b.Newsom, on 18 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Has the pirated version been made completely offline? I've never played an online simcity before and I have no reason to start...unless they make it work properly.

There really isn't any advantage in playing SimCity online. Basically they have transformed the game in a social network style game, which requires the help of other players. And the reason you need other players is because the building area is too small and you can't place everything that is needed for your city to work.

[LkMax]

Cathy, on 18 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

I remember I acquired every brick in Lego Star Wars (the very first one) and opened a secret Episode 4 level...

Wow, I like unlockable content but an entire episode is too much. =P
edit: nevermind, it's just a level, I see.

Spirrwell, on 18 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

I don't see why achievements couldn't be in-game as well. But if what's done is done, then I don't really care. (...)

Me neither. I never developed a game for steam but I can only guess they have some easy tools to make achievements... or whatever?

Spirrwell, on 18 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

(...) Either way it's still technically DRM free. I could get the achievements and then just use single player offline... Right?

Uh... no, you actually have to log on to play offline games on Steam.

I have quite a collection of games on Steam, I don't hate Valve or anything but: First, I don't like the feeling that I don't own my copy of a game, or better, that I won't be able to play it if anything happens with Steam servers or (less likely) even Valve itself. Second, I read somewere that at any moment, if they feel like doing it they can ban me from steam and I'll lose around 200 games and they don't even need to justify why. I don't know if it's true but I heard something like that happened. Also, if they change the ToS (Terms of service) to something absurd and I disagree, I won't be able to play the games I bought with the old ToS. It may sound like nitpicking but I don't really like that pratice.

I keep using Steam just because of their huge sales and because retail where I live is ridiculously, unrealistic expensive, but when there's a game with versions on both Steam and GoG I always go for GoG.

[Fox]

LkMax, on 18 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Second, I read somewere that at any moment, if they feel like doing it they can ban me from steam and I'll lose around 200 games and they don't even need to justify why.

Technically they could, but it also depends of the consumer laws from where you live.

Spoiler

[DaveyDoomsday]

Fox, on 18 March 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Technically they could, but it also depends of the consumer laws from where you live.

Spoiler

Steam has pretty awesome customer support and they'd usually never ban you unless you deserved it. However, yes, technically you don't actually own anything you own on Steam. If Steam goes away so do all your games. But they have said in several interviews that even in the unlikely event that Steam shuts down they will find a way to offload all customer licenses to them so they can keep games.

It's similar to how you don't actually own anything you've earned in an MMO. All that loot and gear you got for your World of Warcraft character over six years? Yeah, you don't own any of that. You just play Blizzard monthly to hold onto it for you.

[Spirrwell]

Woah, woah, woah! I was referring to ROTT 2013, not ALL Steam games, I'm not that big of an idiot.

[thatguy]

The idea of ownership always was funny. Technically you don't ever own a game. You own a piece of the game's release content. People justify physical releases to make them sleep better at night...but in the end, you still don't own the game.

[Frederik Schreiber]

It all depends on the laws of the country.
In Denmark we do actually own most of the games we buy (As in Fox' example).
If DRM prevents us to resell our games, we can pull the same trick as Fox did in his example.

The laws of the country overrides the laws of the product.
The company can then decide to ban certain countries in they wish to.

[LkMax]

s.b.Newsom, on 18 March 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

The idea of ownership always was funny. Technically you don't ever own a game. You own a piece of the game's release content. People justify physical releases to make them sleep better at night...but in the end, you still don't own the game.

I see my video-games the same way I see my old board-games. I'm not renting, I'm buying it and I'll keep it with me as long as I want. I simply don't care to what bullcrap people say on that matter. (You are buying a license and blah blah blah...)

I may sound rude, but I just can't see it this way.
If someone from hollywood went to your house and picked a DVD from you and told you something like "You bought the license to see that movie, but you don't own it, so you have no rights to that copy" wouldn't you tell that person to screw himself?

[Hank]

LkMax, on 18 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I may sound rude, but I just can't see it this way.
If someone from hollywood went to your house and picked a DVD from you and told you something like "You bought the license to see that movie, but you don't own it, so you have no rights to that copy" wouldn't you tell that person to screw himself?

You own a copy of the game, but have no rights of the game itself. Meaning, you are not permitted to distribute the game, you are not permitted to use the its art work and so on.
I should add that this applies to Canada. The ESAC lost lost grounds arguing for stricter protection. The video game industry doubled here in the last six years, with very loose protection measures.
As a side note, one main concern of the industries leaders are the lack of talent and not if you can resell your game.

Hope this helps.

[thatguy]

LkMax, on 18 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I see my video-games the same way I see my old board-games. I'm not renting, I'm buying it and I'll keep it with me as long as I want. I simply don't care to what bullcrap people say on that matter. (You are buying a license and blah blah blah...)

I may sound rude, but I just can't see it this way.
If someone from hollywood went to your house and picked a DVD from you and told you something like "You bought the license to see that movie, but you don't own it, so you have no rights to that copy" wouldn't you tell that person to screw himself?

I'd gladly save money on a digital game that I will probably only play once. I don't get the bullcrap that physical copies are better. Guess what? 85-90% of the games released are only played once. So, why should I get a physical copy for a game that really doesn't matter outside of the first play through Why should I pay $60 for something when the high cost pretty much forces me to feel like I have to paly the game multiple times.

Like I said, it goes beyond its worth when you offer ore than just the product. When you offer support, a strong healthy community and a grand cataloger of games, including classics that aren't even available on GOG.

Its like the difference between owning a company and investing in stock of the company. Stock has the benefit of making you millions without the worry about the issues of running a company nor the threat that comes with it. Whereas owning a company gives you full reign but the cons is spending all your money on running the company itself.

Owning a company == owning a game (spent more and tell yourself it matters). Invest in stock == license a product (save money and get what matters when you need it).

Its a completely different aspect people don't want to admit. I prefer game fly over buying games for the console. Why? The price of games. I get to enjoy every single game that comes out that interests me and most of them I only feel like playing once. I understand buying epics that have a high replay value, but not every game is like that.

There are more pros toward Digital Games and Steam versions than physical and non-steam versions.

In the end, we all have different reasons why we play games. Ownership isn't one of them. Steam is great for its sales. GOG is great for its classics.