I buy games because I support the developers. I've spent full price money online on games that could've been bought for cheaper in physical form (amazon.fr is almost always cheaper than steam prices actually unless Steam is going through a sale. Regular prices on steam are always more expensive than getting the box delivered at your door). So, no. I wouldn't trade my privacy for cheaper prices, since the one reason that makes me "honest" and buy games in the first place is spending my money on things I like. I bought all the classic RPG I liked, and already owned in physical forms, on gog.com, just to show an interest in what I saw as a dying genre. Plus the fact that they are the only gaming platform that is DRM-free. Then I supported the kickstarter renaissance (Wasteland, Torment etc).
I've put my steam profile on private, but if you could see it, you would see almost no game past 1hour of play because I never play games from steam. I only buy them on steam, then I download a copy that will not violate my privacy. Because for as long as I breath I will not let anyone intrude on my privacy. Also, when given the choice between steam and gog, I obviously chose gog.com.
It doesn't make sense. On one hand you're against violating your privacy. But on the other hand you are still supporting financially the very same developers who are OK with such violations when they offer their games through Steam. You're still increasing their Steam sales numbers, so obviously they will continue to publish their future content on this platform.
> I only buy them on steam, then I download a copy that will not violate my privacy.
There's a third choice - don't buy the games that violate your privacy and don't play them. You've pointed out great ways to support developers that don't violate privacy (GOG.com, Kickstarter) - why not stick only to these? Unless, your urge to play a video game is bigger than your integrity.
> There's a third choice - don't buy the games that violate your privacy and don't play them. You've pointed out great ways to support developers that don't violate privacy (GOG.com, Kickstarter) - why not stick only to these? Unless, your urge to play a video game is bigger than your integrity.
I support these options when they are available. But when you have a certain taste for specific niche of games, sometimes there is no alternative. Kickstarter has managed to bring back the classic top down, turn based party RPGs, which is fantastic, but I haven't seen any developer try to bring genres like RPG sandbox (ala Skyrim) or grid based, turn based dungeon crawlers (MMXL, which has one of the most annoying DRM, is the first game to be released in the genre in decades) to Kickstarter yet.
Sure, I'm making a dent on my integrity by buying these games but I don't see it as a great evil as long as we're still able to fight against privacy-invading schemes. If that option was no longer there, I would stop playing these games. I also feel that the developers deserve the support, they aren't responsible for the publishers requirements. I don't wish for them to go out of business, I'm optimistic that the growing success of Kickstarter and gog as a platform might change their mind in the long term, I don't think it's all black & white where we either support kickstarter or support DRM published games.
I'll remind you that many of the current great kickstarter developers come from a classic DRM supporting background. Obsidian, for example. Their last RPG, Fallout New Vegas, depended on Steam as their DRM. They saw the success of kickstarter, started their own project on it (Pillars of Eternity), succeeded in crowdfunding it and might end up relying more often on crowdfunding their games in the future. Pillars of Eternity will be DRM-free.
Now the question is, do you think it would've been better if no one had bought their games before? You think it would have been better if they had gone out of business? I do not believe so. PoE exists today because Obsidian could afford to build itself as a studio and recruit some of the best developers of the genre.
Showing support for crowdfunding, buying games on gog.com will help these developers free themselves from the shackles of the bad publishers. Boycotting developers that are still kept in shackles will not do anything but destroy their livelihood. Particularly as publishers are very likely to blame piracy when the games don't sell well.
The fact that a lot of pre-established developers are turning to crowdfunding bodes well for the future in my mind.
> But when you have a certain taste for specific niche of games, sometimes there is no alternative.
There absolutely is. You can just not play. Video games aren't an essential commodity; they are a luxury.
Just because I need to edit a photo using a Spot Healing Brush and I don't like cloud-based subscription doesn't mean I get to pirate Photoshop.
> I also feel that the developers deserve the support, they aren't responsible for the publishers requirements. [...] Now the question is, do you think it would've been better if no one had bought their games before? You think it would have been better if they had gone out of business? I do not believe so. PoE exists today because Obsidian could afford to build itself as a studio and recruit some of the best developers of the genre.
Except there are independent developers who succeeded without the need of going through classic big-house publishers: Mojang (before their acquisition by Microsoft) and Grinding Gear Games are two popular examples. Both of them did so with their first games. They built their reputation from scratch - nobody bought their games "before" because there were no such games.
And yes, there's nothing wrong with going out of business if you're doing a bad job and somebody else can do it better.
> Boycotting developers that are still kept in shackles will not do anything but destroy their livelihood.
On the other hand, it will promote the livelihood of those developers who took risk and published their games independently. It also isn't black and white where we either support old studios or they go bust and there are no more new games whatsoever.
One more thing. It might be a long shot, but if you're interested in grid- and turn-based RPGs, maybe give Dofus or Wakfu a shot. I'm saying it's a long shot because a) they are MMORPGs; b) they are subscription-based; c) they look cartoonish, almost anime-like. But they can get surprisingly complex and fascinating plus they are refreshing takes on seemingly played-out fantasy role-playing genre. They weren't on Kickstarter because they were developed by an indie French company for 10 years.
> Just because I need to edit a photo using a Spot Healing Brush and I don't like cloud-based subscription doesn't mean I get to pirate Photoshop.
The comparison is disingenuous, I buy all the games I play at their full price, some games I've even bought twice (all the classics available on gog with the DRM removed).
> Except there are independent developers who succeeded without the need of going through classic big-house publishers: Mojang (before their acquisition by Microsoft) and Grinding Gear Games are two popular examples. Both of them did so with their first games. They built their reputation from scratch - nobody bought their games "before" because there were no such games.
Sure, but not all types of games can be made with a small and inexperienced team. Something like Minecraft, which is mostly procedural content, or a diablo like cannot be compared to a lengthy RPG.
> And yes, there's nothing wrong with going out of business if you're doing a bad job and somebody else can do it better.
If they made a good game, and all that's bad about it is the drm scheme, is that really a "bad job"?
> One more thing. It might be a long shot, but if you're interested in grid- and turn-based RPGs, maybe give Dofus or Wakfu a shot. I'm saying it's a long shot because a) they are MMORPGs; b) they are subscription-based; c) they look cartoonish, almost anime-like. But they can get surprisingly complex and fascinating plus they are refreshing takes on seemingly played-out fantasy role-playing genre. They weren't on Kickstarter because they were developed by an indie French company for 10 years.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty averse toward MMOs in general, I don't like games over which I have no control, that could be shutdown at any moment, or change in a way I might not like in a patch (as MMO have a high tendency to constantly go through rebalance, skill changes etc). I don't mind the anime-like stuff when the gameplay is good though, although I'll always feel games would be better without it. I don't mind buying and playing games on console platforms like the 3DS when I know that at some point in the future they will be emulated and thus ensure the long term archiving and playability of the games, so I've had experience with games like Etrian Odyssey IV, which have bad (in my opinion) graphic style, but classic gameplay that has been long forgotten on the PC. I like big dungeon mazes and having to draw my own maps, it's a nice throwback to the era of games like Wizardry and older Might&Magic. The closest to that in the world of indies on PC is Grimrock, but the combat is real time and pretty badly done, consisting of a mumbo jumbo dance where you step back and forth in a hit and run fashion.
Overall, I'm willing to compromise with DRM, as long as there's a way, be it in the present (like with most PC games) or in the future (like 3DS games) to eliminate it. This is also why I didn't buy into the newer generations of consoles, with Moore's law more or less coming at an end, I don't think we'll ever be able to emulate Playstation 3 games, for example, at a decent speed. Current handhelds, while not being emulated yet, are still within the realm of possibility. For home consoles, CPU just aren't progressing fast enough, single core performance seems like it'll reach a standstill soon and it already takes a high end CPU to fully emulate something like the PS2, nevermind thinking about something like the Cell.
I don't play a lot of games, but those I do play and enjoy tend to be games I enjoy revisiting decades later. For that matter, I'm currently replaying Wizardry 6 as I'm in a heavy dungeon crawling mood. This is also partly why, to me, it is important for the possibility of getting rid of DRMs to exist.
Other than not liking MMOs, I do have a varied taste in RPGs. I can go from games like Wizardry, to gridbased/tactical RPGs like Jagged Alliance 2 and Fire Emblem, to sandboxes like Skyrim. RPGs are pretty much the only genre of games I play.
I disagree. I can always pay the monthly subscription equivalent of the old standalone license and then just torrent the DRM- and cloud-free version of Photoshop. The developer still technically gets paid, but I'm under no illusion that my actions are in any way justified.
> a diablo like cannot be compared to a lengthy RPG.
I tried to look up how "lengthy" this game exactly is going to be and I'm not content with my results. "Our goal is to make it as long as possible with the funding that we get from Kickstarter" is as bland response as it can get. And from the look of it Pillars won't have a decent voice acting. Path of Exile does, not only main characters taunts, but also NPC dialogs and environmental lore (journals, statues, inscriptions, etc.). Recently, they released an expansion pack which added more story and fully voiced NPCs. In my book this "Diablo-like" can hold candle to a "lengthy RPG" just fine.
I really hope Pillars succeeds, but I'm going to hold my judgement until it's fully released.
> If they made a good game, and all that's bad about it is the drm scheme, is that really a "bad job"?
Apparently it is, since it's such a deal-breaker for you and you actively seek DRM-free games. And it's ok, because user experience is extremely important. Even if the gameplay is good, technical obstacles which won't let players enjoy the game will absolutely ruin its opinion. It was especially evident with always-online games that had problems during the launch (Diablo III, SimCity).
> Unfortunately, I'm pretty averse toward MMOs in general (...)
Ah, well. They're not for everyone. I'm not a big fan of them myself; I prefer to go at my own pace and often end up playing them like in a single-player mode.
Interesting point with emulation; I haven't considered that.
> Other than not liking MMOs, I do have a varied taste in RPGs.
What about roguelikes? Again, they might not be for everyone, but I had tons of fun with classics like Nethack and ADOM.
> I disagree. I can always pay the monthly subscription equivalent of the old standalone license and then just torrent the DRM- and cloud-free version of Photoshop. The developer still technically gets paid, but I'm under no illusion that my actions are in any way justified.
I am not looking for justifications. I am passionate about what I like, and what is essentially cultural content, rather than a tool. I don't see games the way I look at software, I see no need to "preserve" software. I do see a need for open formats, supporting interoperable standards etc though. But I really don't care if an old version of photoshop, or whatever, stopped working in a few decades. I'll still want to be able to run my favorite classics. I don't want a world where the things I bought and greatly enjoyed might stop working at some point. I am not looking for a moral justification or law or whatever. I don't care. It is just something I am passionate about. I buy the games not because the law requires me to do so, I buy them because I love them, because I want to support the developers, even if I don't like the DRM.
> I tried to look up how "lengthy" this game exactly is going to be and I'm not content with my results. "Our goal is to make it as long as possible with the funding that we get from Kickstarter" is as bland response as it can get. And from the look of it Pillars won't have a decent voice acting. Path of Exile does, not only main characters taunts, but also NPC dialogs and environmental lore (journals, statues, inscriptions, etc.). Recently, they released an expansion pack which added more story and fully voiced NPCs. In my book this "Diablo-like" can hold candle to a "lengthy RPG" just fine.
Do you have any experience with branching storyline content ? RPGs like PoE are extremely difficult to do well because we're talking about a particular flavour of RPG, that of "Choice&Consequence", where you can have an impact on the storyline, the way you handle quests, the way the world react to your actions etc. PoE comes from the Fallout/Arcanum/Mask of the Betrayer lineage of RPG when it comes to that kind of content. All these games tend to have as a side effect a certain amount of bugs despite all the testing and Q/A that goes through, it's inherent to the genre and both Fallout and Arcanum are still getting new fan patches to this day, which is a testament to the complexity involved. I have never seen a game with a certain amount of branching that wasn't overly complex to handle. What games like Fallout/New Vegas/Arcanum did with branching simply does not compare to what happens in games like modern Bioware stuff, or Bethesda. The epilogue details all the actions, and the consequences they brought, to all the places you visited, the characters you interacted with etc. The games have a lot of reactivity. The number of variables to keep a track of is overwhelming. This isn't like games where the gameplay doesn't go beyond monster bashing.
Things like voice acting are honestly not in my list of priority in a game, any game. Voice acting doesn't add complexity in development either, it requires more funds to be spent on actors, funds I'd prefer to see being spent on more quests, more branching complexity, more testing and polishing.
> What about roguelikes? Again, they might not be for everyone, but I had tons of fun with classics like Nethack and ADOM.
Nethack is a favorite of mine but I don't have any experience with ADOM.
A lot of great RPGs subgenres to go through and too little time.
I've put my steam profile on private, but if you could see it, you would see almost no game past 1hour of play because I never play games from steam. I only buy them on steam, then I download a copy that will not violate my privacy. Because for as long as I breath I will not let anyone intrude on my privacy. Also, when given the choice between steam and gog, I obviously chose gog.com.