Shadowrun Returns

[alanschu]

@ShadySands

 

Would you have still made the contribution you made, if there was never to be any sort of DLC?

[AwesomeOcelot]

It does not explicitly say when they asked, and "This didn’t come up earlier" strongly implies that they didn't know till after the conclusion of the kickstarter. It would be quite a stretch to read it as saying they asked for the exemption before the Kickstarter; apart from anything else, why would MS grant such an exemption in advance?

No, they're talking about not going into future possible DLC. It doesn't matter when they asked for an exemption, from memory I think it was during the KickStarter, it only matters they they did ask, and that implies they knew the requirement at least at the same time as they announced there would be a DRM-free option.

[ShadySands]

Yeah, I would have still backed it at the same level ($125) if it was just a one and done.

 

I know it would have been the exact same thing I'm getting now for which I've said that I would have paid less ($15 to be exact) if I knew about the DRM requirement (Steam exclusive specifically) in advance. I'm just trying to vote with my wallet for what direction I would like to see gaming go in and I wouldn't fund a Steam exclusive for the same amount as a DRM free game even if I get access to it without the DRM. 

 

It's late and I've been drinking so I hope that makes some kind of sense

[alanschu]

Fair enough.  I was just curious, and it's interesting that Steam exclusive is enough of a negative that you consider it negative value for what you otherwise are willing to pay.

[duskwind]

It doesn't matter when they asked for an exemption, from memory I think it was during the KickStarter

From memory of what? As far as I'm aware there's been no mention anywhere of asking for exemptions before the latest update, and that says nothing about during the Kickstarter.

[ShadySands]

I would prefer DRM free when and if possible and I'll support games that are with my wallet as I believe it is an added value

 

I'm not a fan of most DRM and especially not mandatory third party software. I spoke about it on the Steam thread a little bit but I don't hate Steam or anything but I don't own any Valve games nor do any interest me and I don't care for any of the features it offers and I've had a few minor issues with it so for me it's just an unnecessary requirement when games are Steam exclusive. Steam optional is totally fine, Origin is fine for EA games, UPlay is fine for Ubisoft games and so on. It would be nice, pie in the sky kind of nice, if those services would be optional for their games as well but at least they stick to being mandatory for their own games and my main gripe with Steam is that it has so many exclusives that are in no way related to games Valve makes or publishes... but I'm sure the blame for that falls with the devs and publishers as well.

 

Sorry for going off topic a bit

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

It doesn't matter when they asked for an exemption, from memory I think it was during the KickStarter

From memory of what? As far as I'm aware there's been no mention anywhere of asking for exemptions before the latest update, and that says nothing about during the Kickstarter.

 

 

They had to have asked for the exemption before offering the DRM-free version, which was during the KickStarter.

[alanschu]

From memory of what? As far as I'm aware there's been no mention anywhere of asking for exemptions before the latest update, and that says nothing about during the Kickstarter.

 

No, but they certainly were able to promise DRM free versions of the game during the Kickstarter, which gives an indication that they had probably discussed doing so sometime before the end of the Kickstarter.

 

If they *didn't* ask for DRM free permission during the kickstarter, then promising it was a huge potential gaffe and when it later came to pass then Microsoft would have ended up doing HBS a favour!  I like to think HBS wasn't this irresponsible.

Edited April 13, 2013 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

I don't think it actually matters much whether they asked permission beforehand to not (I read strong implication that they wrote DRM free and then had to go to MS, but it ain't conclusive either way and they managed to imply that the drm free version would not get patches previously, so it's 100% hmm), in either case MS is not the villain as they agreed to varying the contract when they didn't have to- it only determines what level of blame HBS bears. Even leaving that question aside completely they still had terrible communication, and their "woohoo, you're all going to benefit from STEEEEEEEAM!!!" approach was spectacularly ill advised in the circumstances and betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of something like KS where funding is determined to a large extent by perceived honesty, and goodwill, rather than being a standard format publisher style preorder.

 

And I still wonder what on earth they would have done had they not got onto steam via the magical/ arbitrary Greenlight detour system. Go to MS for another variance? Use SecuROM/ Live/ "Originworks"?

[duskwind]

They had to have asked for the exemption before offering the DRM-free version, which was during the KickStarter.

 

No, they didn't. They either assumed there was no reason not to offer DRM-free (an entirely reasonable assumption on the face of it), negotiated it before or during the Kickstarter (in which case MS's position makes no sense whatsoever), or said DRM-free in the full knowledge that it was in violation of their license (which would be insane). The first option is the only one that makes any kind of sense (which doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth, but it is by far the most reasonable assumption).

 

If they *didn't* ask for DRM free permission during the kickstarter, then promising it was a huge potential gaffe and when it later came to pass then Microsoft would have ended up doing HBS a favour!

 

Why would they think they'd need to ask permission? They're the ones developing the game, they own the game; they simply paid MS for the rights to use some IP. It defies belief that they signed any contract explicitly mentioning a DRM requirement and failed to notice; it seems far more plausible that MS's ability to require DRM is legally complex and indirect. And Microsoft is under no obligation to force them to use DRM, whatever the contract says; they're choosing to do so. MS are not the good guys here!

 

Even leaving that question aside completely they still had terrible communication, and their "woohoo, you're all going to benefit from STEEEEEEEAM!!!" approach was spectacularly ill advised in the circumstances

 

That's certainly true.

 

And I still wonder what on earth they would have done had they not got onto steam

 

There are plenty of DRM options other than Steam.

[Majek]

Aside, this bit was weird: "These updates will require Backers to re-download the game from the Harebrained Account Website, since it will not include auto-patching functionality." I hope that means directly downloading a patch file and not the entire package....

Then you'll just have to hope they don't have to patch much.

[AwesomeOcelot]

No, they didn't. They either assumed there was no reason not to offer DRM-free (an entirely reasonable assumption on the face of it), negotiated it before or during the Kickstarter (in which case MS's position makes no sense whatsoever), or said DRM-free in the full knowledge that it was in violation of their license (which would be insane). The first option is the only one that makes any kind of sense (which doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth, but it is by far the most reasonable assumption).

Why would they assume that when they're under a licence that stipulates that Shadowrun Returns must be distributed under DRM? Microsoft Studios position on DRM doesn't make sense, of course negotiated suggests that HBS could have offered them something in return, and they could be looking for DLC to be the bigger revenue stream.

[alanschu]

Why would they think they'd need to ask permission? They're the ones developing the game, they own the game; they simply paid MS for the rights to use some IP. It defies belief that they signed any contract explicitly mentioning a DRM requirement and failed to notice; it seems far more plausible that MS's ability to require DRM is legally complex and indirect. And Microsoft is under no obligation to force them to use DRM, whatever the contract says; they're choosing to do so. MS are not the good guys here!

 

Because you're licensing an IP and you better darn well let the license holder know what your plans are to do with it!  Especially your plans to make money with the license.  It defies belief that they would assume that they'd have free reign to do whatever they wanted to do with the IP.  Unless they were planning on giving away the DLC, no license holder is going to agree to let you use a license without knowing the various ways you plan on leveraging said license to make money for yourself.

 

It's just as likely that they started talking DLC and MS said "Uh, you didn't mention anything about DLC in our initial talks" if we're just going to play the hypothetical game here.  HBS plans on leveraging the license further in order to make more money.  I cannot believe the supposition you make the HBS is so stupid to not even clue in that Microsoft might be interested in knowing stuff like this.  Especially when the Shadowrun staff includes staff that once worked for Microsoft in senior roles!

 

Microsoft has free reign to do whatever the hell they want with their IP and license it under any restrictions they may want.  If Microsoft ended up letting HBS do the DRM free model AFTER the fact, they most certainly are the good guys here, because it's Microsoft making an allowance because HBS epically ****ed up and HBS would also be royally ****ed if Microsoft had stated that the DRM free version is not allowed after the Kickstarter was impacted.  So under the context of me playing up MS as "the good guy," if that is the situation HBS better be eternally thankful to MS for making the concession.

Edited April 13, 2013 by alanschu

[Purkake]

In case you guys missed all the fun, here's the skinny:

 

Q: Are you planning on making corpses lootable?
A: Corpse looting involves a loot system and associated systems that interact with it. As much as we wanted one and designed one, we don't have the funding to implement it in this version of the game. If we'd done like the SNES and Sega games and gave you one PC/character class and no race choices to play, we might have had time for it. We invested in giving you ownership of your character, knowing that we could add things like that down the road if the game were successful.

 

Q: What will the save system be like?
A: We're planning a checkpoint system. No one on the team likes checkpoints better than save any time you want. But we're a small team with a LOT to do and save games are complicated. Thanks for understanding.

[alanschu]

Neither are particularly big issues for myself (since I did end up preordering this myself).

 

Where is that listed, btw?

[Elerond]

http://www.shadowrun.com/forums/discussion/25197/shadowrun-returns-faq-unofficial/p1

[Purkake]

Right, forgot the source, thanks Elrond.

[alanschu]

A note to the lootable characters:

 

 

[Not posted, but according to the Gamespot interview the Editor allows you to drop items on death of an NPC. In the Campaign this will be mainly used for key items such as passkeys, but in player-made missions this can include other items and money.]

 

So it sounds like those types of things (at least for now) are scripted.

[Elerond]

A note to the lootable characters:

 

 

[Not posted, but according to the Gamespot interview the Editor allows you to drop items on death of an NPC. In the Campaign this will be mainly used for key items such as passkeys, but in player-made missions this can include other items and money.]

 

So it sounds like those types of things (at least for now) are scripted.

They said this also their gameplay demo video.

[Tigranes]

Interesting that save functionality is much harder than checkpoints. I don't mind the two things or the DRM issue hugely in and of themselves, they all have a decent reason, but combined it still made me consider whether it's worth a pre-order cancellation. Game looked good enough in the video, though, so I'll probably stay at $15.

 

Doubt I'll pay for the Steam DLCs in the future.

[Hurlshort]

I'm bummed about the checkpoint system.

 

The loot system doesn't bother me all that much.

[melkathi]

The checkpoint system kinda gives me the "bad console port" feel without it being a port

 

I'm not happy though that they has such a stupidly successful kickstarter campaign and then say that they did not have the money to implement a proper savegame function.

[duskwind]

It's just as likely that they started talking DLC and MS said "Uh, you didn't mention anything about DLC in our initial talks" if we're just going to play the hypothetical game here.

 

No, it's not. "we were able to successfully negotiate an exception with Microsoft for us to provide our Backers with a DRM-free version of the Kickstarter rewards" - DLC is irrelevant, MS wanted DRM on everything.

[Jigawatts]

I didn't hear about this game until after it's Kickstarter was over, there's a good chance I would have backed if I had. With everything that has come out lately I can honestly say I am relieved that I didn't hear about it. Now I can wait until after it is released and have a chance to read the reviews.

[Zoraptor]

They should have dressed up the checkpoint system as being a defence against save scumming, really.