revisit: make Steam version not require Steam to be running - confirmed possible

[Delicieuxz]

This was asked for previously, and the dev response was that it is not possible and that Steam mandates itself to run with its programs. This is false, and they were mistaken.

 

Skyrim originally didn't require Steam's running, but was patched to. Some older games don't require it to be running. Art Rage 4, a newly released product, doesn't require it to be running, and the developer has said that they are patching Art Rage 3 to not require Steam running to use the program.

 

 

ArtRage 4 doesn't require Steam to be running, we removed that due to requests from ArtRage 3. Basically, when you run the product the first time on any machine you're asked to enter your CD key, after which time the product launches without requiring Steam to be running. We're going to make sure this system is working properly in 4 then look at wrapping it back in to a Studio Pro update as well so that everyone can use it.

 

Since confirmation is here that Obsidian were wrong with their insistence that Steam is required with Steam programs, and since I know there were a lot of people who were outspoken against Steam-running requirements, I thought it would be worth revisiting the topic to many people.

 

 

- Notice for admin: I encountered a forum issue where leaving a break between the paragraphs resulted in the 2nd paragraph being cut from the quote and placed outside of it.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Delicieuxz

[Ieo]

So what's the problem? 

 

This is the reason why Obsidian is putting a true DRM-free version on GOG. There's no need to go to extra lengths for the Steam side of things with such an option, especially because the reason why Obsidian prefers Steam to be running is for any achievements if they design into that route. 

 

Don't want Steam running? Do the GOG version. 

[Delicieuxz]

So what's the problem? 

 

This is the reason why Obsidian is putting a true DRM-free version on GOG. There's no need to go to extra lengths for the Steam side of things with such an option, especially because the reason why Obsidian prefers Steam to be running is for any achievements if they design into that route. 

 

Don't want Steam running? Do the GOG version. 

 

What's the problem? It's possible to have the Steam version not require Steam? Might as well do it.

 

 

Btw, it would actually be reduced lengths that are gone to, as they wouldn't need to implement Steam DRM. That's a time-saver, not coster. That doesn't mean that achievements won't register, it would just then be up to the player whether they cared to receive them by having Steam running or not. More player control, more customer satisfaction and appreciation. Both parties are happier.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Delicieuxz

[Lephys]

Also... aren't certain backer tiers getting physical media? Is my disc gonna take me to GOG to download the game, or is it gonna run via Steam? (If the answer to the first question is "Yes.")

[Ieo]

Also... aren't certain backer tiers getting physical media? Is my disc gonna take me to GOG to download the game, or is it gonna run via Steam? (If the answer to the first question is "Yes.")

The physical media was confirmed to have no DRM either (I think this was back in September). 

[Lephys]

The physical media was confirmed to have no DRM either (I think this was back in September).

Ahhh. Much appreciated information. I probably even read about that, then forgot about it. 8P.

 

I don't have a very high WIS... haha.

 

Still, the viability of installing a game through Steam, then having it run without Steam is useful information as well. Even if Obsidian already has such things worked out and happens to not need it for P:E.

[Karkarov]

If you don't want any DRM just get it from GoG.  If you want achievements get it from Steam and deal with the fact that Steam achievements.... require Steam.

[Delicieuxz]

If you don't want any DRM just get it from GoG.  If you want achievements get it from Steam and deal with the fact that Steam achievements.... require Steam.

 

Or... get it on Steam, run it without Steam and not worry about achievements not tracking? I don't know what achievements even has to do with an issue of Steam not being required to play the game. If people want them they'll obviously have the choice to launch the game through the Steam app and not from the folder exe, lol. And also obviously, an all-in-one package of options would be the best and most desirable thing to have. Why would you hard-lock somebody into one permanent choice when it isn't necessary, beneficial, or easier to implement? Are you assuming that Obsidian are gluttons for the unnecessary punishment of self-and-others?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Delicieuxz

[Lephys]

If people want them they'll obviously launch it through the Steam app and not from the folder, lol. Having Steam achievements available doesn't mean that you have to make use of them.

 

You can run any Steam game, inherently, without Steam, simply by launching it from its folder instead of through Steam? I wasn't aware of this.

[Zoraptor]

You aren't aware of that because it isn't accurate- and to be fair, isn't what he said. Some games can be run without the client by double clicking the exe directly, some require it and will start the client before launching the game.

 

I'm not a fan of steam in the slightest, but if you're going to have a steam version you might as well actually use its features, and by and large that requires that the client runs as well. Doesn't matter, so long as there's a genuinely DRM free alternative available, which there will be.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Lephys]

You aren't aware of that because it isn't accurate- and to be fair, isn't what he said. Some games can be run without the client by double clicking the exe directly, some require it and will start the client before launching the game.

To be fair, I can be aware of inaccurate/untrue things. . But, I get what you're saying, and I appreciate the clarification. Really. Thanks, ^_^

 

I use Steam a bit, but I'm no Steam veteran or anything. I know I was pretty annoyed by the Fallout: New Vegas launch, but mainly because I picked up my copy at midnight (Central time), and wasn't able to install it until midnight (Pacific Time). Thanks a lot, Steam.

[Aoyagi]

Is this a troll attempt? I see no reason whatsoever why would Obsidian consider even thinking about wasting time on a feature absurd like making Steam version somewhat independent on the client. If you are afraid of, as you claim, tracking and if you don't care about achievements, why on earth would you buy Steam version instead of the GOG one? To have it visible in Steam "app"? You can boast with your copy on GOG shelf too.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Aoyagi

[Tagaziel]

I'm surprised by the hostility towards the idea of making the Steam version playable without running the content distribution platform. It's possible for several games and cuts out the middleman at times he's not needed, such as when you suffer an Internet outage or have no Internet connection available. Steam's offline mode is notoriously buggy, years after release.

 

It's not an unreasonable suggestion.

[JFSOCC]

I certainly would prefer to buy it through steam, so "does not require steam to be connected to the internet" is a huge plus for me.

great news, thanks!

[Delicieuxz]

Is this a troll attempt? I see no reason whatsoever why would Obsidian consider even thinking about wasting time on a feature absurd like making Steam version somewhat independent on the client. If you are afraid of, as you claim, tracking and if you don't care about achievements, why on earth would you buy Steam version instead of the GOG one? To have it visible in Steam "app"? You can boast with your copy on GOG shelf too.

 

It that your sorry excuse for a troll attempt? It would save time to not have to implement Steam DRM. Why do you want Obsidian to waste time to make a locked-down release? Go home.

[Aoyagi]

Well I don't know, maybe because the developers would like to have to game on Steamworks? Seriously, I have no idea what your deal is. It's been suggested before, and I guess I'll suggest it again. Get it on GOG. That's why they made that option... so "go home" yourself

[Delicieuxz]

Well I don't know, maybe because the developers would like to have to game on Steamworks? Seriously, I have no idea what your deal is. It's been suggested before, and I guess I'll suggest it again. Get it on GOG. That's why they made that option... so "go home" yourself

So you're just a knee-jerk defensist? You don't know a thing about what Obsidian wants, and how would you form a logical argument around Obsidian wanting something unnecessary and unbeneficial, not to mention added work and wasted time (which you pretended to care about), particularly when they openly show and state that they have no qualms with releasing the game DRM-free? They don't need you to come to their rescue, particularly where there is no attack, lol. Maybe you have an idea of less than you think?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Delicieuxz

[Pshaw]

As many have said I feel that with the GoG versions of the game out there then there is really no need to worry about playing a steam version without running it through steam. To do so would essentially give you the GoG version.

I also think that maybe they'd like to have their steam version linked to steam to help give them a bit more feed back about how often people are playing and for how long as well as the free advertising when your friends list sees you playing it constantly. I know when it comes to cool indie games like Bastion, FTL and Mark of the Ninja I like to play them on steam so my friends can get curious about the games and maybe pick them up themselves.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Pshaw

[Delicieuxz]

As many have said I feel that with the GoG versions of the game out there then there is really no need to worry about playing a steam version without running it through steam. To do so would essentially give you the GoG version.

 

I also think that maybe they'd like to have their steam version linked to steam to help give them a bit more feed back about how often people are playing and for how long as well as the free advertising when your friends list sees you playing it constantly. I know when it comes to cool indie games like Bastion, FTL and Mark of the Ninja I like to play them on steam so my friends can get curious about the games and maybe pick them up themselves.

 

Why would you worry about the Steam version being better at no cost to anything or anybody? That's much more futile.

 

Regarding what they'd like, I'm sure they can judge on their own regarding that matter. Speculation here is moot, and if stat feedback is missing a big chunk of the player-base then the relatively small number of people who choose to launch the Steam version outside of the Steam app will not skew things further than they already will be skewed.

 

The detractors here can logically only fall into one of two categories of sentiment:

 

1. Obsidian are great, don't show them up, leave my Obsidian alone, you hurt them with your words!

2. I hate Steam and don't want it to feature a better product because that will cause people to hate Steam a bit less and I want them to hate it more!

 

Outside of those, there is literally no existing purpose to naysay. Maybe these naysayers simply haven't realized this? Why would you call for a limited and worse product at the cost of additional production effort and time, as opposed to a better and freer product that saves dev time and cost? lol

[Ieo]

OP, you're missing a basic piece of logic, so I'll spell it out for you.

 

There will already 2/3 forms of the game without DRM.

 

People who use Steam already don't care about DRM. Because if they did care and did hate it, they would not be using Steam at all.

 

Ergo, there is no purpose to putting PE on Steam at all unless it takes advantage of meta-account features not available on the other two DRM-less forms, which Obsidian did say they wanted to do for the Steam version.

 

"Limited and worse product"? You're desperately grasping at straws here; you've given absolutely no good reason why someone who doesn't like DRM should not download the GOG version instead. 

[JFSOCC]

Not true, I use steam for it's convenience of use, and because I have many friends with whom I play who use the platform. I play quite a bit of team Fortress 2.

 

And I absolutely despise Steam's always on DRM.

[Sacred_Path]

1. Obsidian are great, don't show them up, leave my Obsidian alone, you hurt them with your words!

2. I hate Steam and don't want it to feature a better product because that will cause people to hate Steam a bit less and I want them to hate it more!

If it really comes at absolutely no cost to the devs then why not. I think people reacted negatively because advocating for the Steam version to be anything other than, well, your average Steam version when the game will be readily available in physical and digital format elsewhere makes you look a bit clumsy. Especially for a single player game with no achievements.

[Duke]

People seem to be under the false impression that this would somehow require more work to implement. It's already the case for a lot of Steam games (particularly older, pre-steam ones). Basically, you buy the game on Steam and it downloads and installs the game files. Launching the game from Steam just launches the game's exe. If you want to, you can also just run the exe from outside of Steam and the game runs just the same. It's not an extra feature, it's just the way it works unless you go to the effort of forcing the user to run with Steam. Somebody mentioned Skyrim already - on release it worked in exactly this way until they patched it to require Steam (once they realised that people were launching it without Steam).

 

There actually is no rational argument against this. If you're not going to buy the game on Steam then why do you care? If you are going to buy the game on Steam and run it through Steam then what does it matter if it also works without Steam?

 

For the record, I probably won't buy it on Steam because I prefer to support GOG when I can. What bearing does that have on this argument?

 

Oh that's right, none.

[Aoyagi]

 

Well I don't know, maybe because the developers would like to have to game on Steamworks? Seriously, I have no idea what your deal is. It's been suggested before, and I guess I'll suggest it again. Get it on GOG. That's why they made that option... so "go home" yourself

So you're just a knee-jerk defensist? You don't know a thing about what Obsidian wants, and how would you form a logical argument around Obsidian wanting something unnecessary and unbeneficial, not to mention added work and wasted time (which you pretended to care about), particularly when they openly show and state that they have no qualms with releasing the game DRM-free? They don't need you to come to their rescue, particularly where there is no attack, lol. Maybe you have an idea of less than you think?

 

First of all, I said "maybe". The fact that such course would be "unbeneficial" to you doesn't mean that it's inconvenient for everyone else. Added work is rather minor. I don't come to their rescue, I would like to rescue myself from potential buginess because of one person who just doesn't get it. So maybe you'd like to (finally) point out why won't you buy the game on GOG as many people suggested.

However, I doubt you will do that, so I suggest locking the thread as it won't lead to anything except repetition, insults, stubbornness and other things a healthy community should avoid.

 

Not true, I use steam for it's convenience of use, and because I have many friends with whom I play who use the platform. I play quite a bit of team Fortress 2.

 

And I absolutely despise Steam's always on DRM.

 

There is no such thing in the Steam client. You can log in and then disconnect without the client noticing (except the friends network).

[Lurky]

Is it possible for the Steam version to have all the features that Steamworks offers (achievements, cloud saves, auto-updates, etc) and not require the Steam client running on the background?

 

If that's the case, sure, why not. More choices, more freedom.

 

If it's not the case, if I have to choose between the game taking advantage of the Steam client features the devs could use, or not taking advantage of them to be able to play the game without the client, then no. I'd rather have the Steam version use the Steam features than to not use them.

 

If you don't want the features the Steam client offers, that's okay, the GOG version has exactly what you want. If you want them and the devs want to make use of them, the Steam version offers exactly this. But if having the game on Steam without the additional benefits it provides is the cost for having the game on Steam without requiring the client, then I don't want that cost to be paid. Especially when you already have a perfectly serviceable alternative.

 

This post was far too long-winded to say that I see no dilemma here.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Lurky