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

[Lurky]

Why isn't anyone answering my question?

 

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 (be it online or not)?

 

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.

 

So, is it possible or not? Is the "requires the Steam client running to launch" code an inseparable part of the pack of the Steamworks features, or can it come separately?

Edited February 17, 2013 by Lurky

[Dream]

Why isn't anyone answering my question?

Probably because we're not game developers? Just a thought.

 

Or did you want one of us to search through google to find the answer for you because, you know, you can do that too.

[Lurky]

Probably because we're not game developers? Just a thought.

 

Or did you want one of us to search through google to find the answer for you because, you know, you can do that too.

 

Or maybe I was hoping that someone had direct experience about this topic, if they played a game where what I asked was proven or disproven. It would certainly be more conclusive than a bunch of confusing posts on random forums on the Internet, which is what a preliminary Google search gave me before posting. Just a thought.

[Dream]

 

 

Probably because we're not game developers? Just a thought.

 

Or did you want one of us to search through google to find the answer for you because, you know, you can do that too.

 

Or maybe I was hoping that someone had direct experience about this topic, if they played a game where what I asked was proven or disproven. It would certainly be more conclusive than a bunch of confusing posts on random forums on the Internet, which is what a preliminary Google search gave me before posting. Just a thought.

 

 

Maybe the fact that no one has should tell you something.

[JFSOCC]

Yeah, sorry, we don't know.

[Duke]

 

Probably because we're not game developers? Just a thought.

 

Or did you want one of us to search through google to find the answer for you because, you know, you can do that too.

 

Or maybe I was hoping that someone had direct experience about this topic, if they played a game where what I asked was proven or disproven. It would certainly be more conclusive than a bunch of confusing posts on random forums on the Internet, which is what a preliminary Google search gave me before posting. Just a thought.

 

All I can say from my own experience was that Skyrim, on release,  was a Steamworks game with all the features that have been mentioned whilst also being able to run without Steam.

[Elerond]

Why isn't anyone answering my question?

 

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 (be it online or not)?

 

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.

 

So, is it possible or not? Is the "requires the Steam client running to launch" code an inseparable part of the pack of the Steamworks features, or can it come separately?

 

Steamworks needs steam client running to work, as it is part of it. Game developer can make it's game work so that in offline mode it puts achievements and cloud saves in queue list which works so that next time you launch your game from that computer with steam client on, it tries to update all information to your steam account, but this don't always work, which causes you miss achievements and cloud server to missing some of your saves (if not all) . Auto-updates via steamworks will always need steam client to run in online mode. Of course game developer can make it's own auto-updater, but that will need additional development time from developer and their own patch servers.

[Haerski]

 

I do?

Well, in my opinion, it is you who sound "incredibly stupid".

 

I am well aware that Steam and Origin do not technically fall under the category "spyware". But before you start spewing insults, then perhaps you should ask yourself a question or two. Steam is not needed for Fallout: New Vegas or Skyrim to function. Yet it is demanded that it is activated for you to play those games. Origin is not needed for Mass Effect 3 to function. Yet it ~has~ to run for you to play.

 

So what does it do? It monitors how you play the game, how many games you play and what type of games you play. Even when you play offline, you still have to go online to receive updates, and while you download, the information is uploaded.

If you're using those programs then you have at some point agreed their End-User License Agreements and thus given them permission to monitor your behavior, which hardly qualifies as "spying." Didn't read it? Well, it's not their fault you willingly installed the program and blindly agreed to their terms. If you are not using the programs then good for you: You don't have to worry about Valve or EA coming after your precious personal super-secret gaming habits information. I personally couldn't care less. They are used for creating statistics which I very much enjoy reading and maybe make future games better for me. I highly doubt they ever end up in newspaper showing whole world how huge nerd I am, even though that would be pretty nice from them.  DRM is a thing we currently just have to live with or quit gaming and I much rather have Steam running with all it's great features (more on those later) than any other third party programs. (SecuROM/GFWL/Solidshield/ etc.)

 

Also information uploading after offline-mode is actually feature publishers can choose to have in their games and many go for it. It would after all be quite frustrating to lose all your achievements or progress towards one just because you were not connected to Steam servers at the time.

 

Quote

Furthermore, it adds nothing to the game, whatsoever. It just insists that it ~has~ to sit there. It is making it a hassle to actually play legal games, and thereby encouraging piracy.

 

In short: It spies on you! So learn how to read between the lines. But if it'll make you happy, you can also call programs like that bloatware!

Adds nothing to the game? Really? Both give you option to download and play your owned games anywhere, anytime, on any computer and in some cases even on any OS without having to carry your whole disc collection with you everywhere and mess around with complicated CD-key based DRM-systems and limited online activations. I don't use Origin so I don't know about it, but at least Steam also features Steam Cloud, which transfers your saved games to any computer you might be using. Very handy for me as I often play same games on many different computers. Lastly there are achievements, communities, friends, chat, Steam overlay which features in-game internet browser, crazy sales, great multiplayer platform, Steam Workshop, mod distribution, etc... Yeah, such an useless program just sitting there doing nothing...

Edited February 19, 2013 by Haerski

[ddillon]

 

 

Furthermore, it adds nothing to the game, whatsoever. It just insists that it ~has~ to sit there. It is making it a hassle to actually play legal games, and thereby encouraging piracy.

 

In short: It spies on you! So learn how to read between the lines. But if it'll make you happy, you can also call programs like that bloatware!

Adds nothing to the game? Really? Both give you option to download and play your owned games anywhere, anytime, on any computer and in some cases even on any OS without having to carry your whole disc collection with you everywhere and mess around with complicated CD-key based DRM-systems and limited online activations. I don't use Origin so I don't know about it, but at least Steam also features Steam Cloud, which transfers your saved games to any computer you might be using. Very handy for me as I often play same games on many different computers. Lastly there are achievements, communities, friends, chat, Steam overlay which features in-game internet browser, crazy sales, great multiplayer platform, Steam Workshop, mod distribution, etc... Yeah, such an useless program just sitting there doing nothing...

 

 

More-or-less worthless for a single-player rpg played on one computer. So, yep: Bloatware.

 

Now, *you* might like those "features", but why should *we* be forced to run Steam because of *your* preferences? That's the point of this thread: making the Steam client optional so that *we* don't have to run it outside of downloading, installing, patching, etc.

 

And: Requiring Steam is more-or-less a license to pirate to some communities. Not that it makes it "right", but it's understandable imo.

 

---

 

Also: I support the idea expressed by the OP, but I'll be getting mine from GOG. Steam can suck it.

Edited February 22, 2013 by ddillon

[Delicieuxz]

And yet you managed to cower from my actual point and didn't even attempt to address it. Good job.

 

Here's another point you won't be able to address since you haven't been around since the beginning nor paid attention:

 

It was a big deal when Obsidian ended up in union with GOG because many users on this forum and on KS begged Obsidian to do so. Originally they were only going to do Steam (and the backer discs). GOG carries only DRM-free games. I'll put the two logic points together for you so you'll understand: People specifically asked for a GOG version equating that with DRM-free.

 

When Obsidian and GOG finally made the announcement, it was all over Twitter and mentioned in a number of articles. It wouldn't make sense to offer two types on Steam and another on GOG when DRM is part of the reputed business model for both; actually adding a DRM-free version or whatever on Steam would potentially dilute business from GOG and that would be bad for their agreement with Obsidian, and frankly insulting to the entire effort to get the DRM-free GOG version in the first place. 

 

So again, why shouldn't someone against DRM NOT get the GOG version? 

 

Your use of the word "logic" doesn't fit its definition, astonishingly. So... you think Obsidian must have DRM on Steam because it would otherwise deflate the purpose of their being a GoG DRM-free version? Your "point" is that one must shoot oneself unnecessarily in the foot for the pure sake of idiocy. And I've been around since "the beginning," lol.

 

The relevant questions are:

1. Why should someone who has the Steam version HAVE to have meaningless DRM, and actually oppose it?

2. Why would you bother caring that someone else have the option to play DRM though their retailer of choice, and actually have a fit over it?

3. Are you about done being a child?

 

You must really hate Steam to meaninglessly fight to see it get implemented with DRM, despite it being unnecessary and an unwanted as a mandate by Steam purchasers. Since you obviously won't use it, why don't you keep silent on the issue and let those to whom it actually relates speak for their own preference? Lol, it would be like Steam people arguing that the GoG version be given DRM just to be annoying. It's an ill-thought-out stance to say the absolute least about it.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Delicieuxz

[Dream]

 

 

And yet you managed to cower from my actual point and didn't even attempt to address it. Good job.

 

Here's another point you won't be able to address since you haven't been around since the beginning nor paid attention:

 

It was a big deal when Obsidian ended up in union with GOG because many users on this forum and on KS begged Obsidian to do so. Originally they were only going to do Steam (and the backer discs). GOG carries only DRM-free games. I'll put the two logic points together for you so you'll understand: People specifically asked for a GOG version equating that with DRM-free.

 

When Obsidian and GOG finally made the announcement, it was all over Twitter and mentioned in a number of articles. It wouldn't make sense to offer two types on Steam and another on GOG when DRM is part of the reputed business model for both; actually adding a DRM-free version or whatever on Steam would potentially dilute business from GOG and that would be bad for their agreement with Obsidian, and frankly insulting to the entire effort to get the DRM-free GOG version in the first place. 

 

So again, why shouldn't someone against DRM NOT get the GOG version?

 

Your use of the word "logic" doesn't fit its definition. So... you think Obsidian must have DRM on Steam because it would otherwise deflate the purpose of their being a GoG DRM-free version? Your "point" is that one must shoot oneself unnecessarily in the foot for the pure sake of idiocy. And I've been around since the beginning. The relevant questions are:

1. Why should someone who has the Steam version HAVE to have meaningless DRM?

2. Why would you bother caring that someone else have the option to play DRM though their retailer of choice?

3. Are you about done being a child?

 

 

What exactly is so bad about Steam's DRM? Is this just irrational hate on your part or do you honestly think Valve is spying on you? Edited February 22, 2013 by Dream

[Aoyagi]

Now, *you* might like those "features", but why should *we* be forced to run Steam because of *your* preferences? That's the point of this thread: making the Steam client optional so that *we* don't have to run it outside of downloading, installing, patching, etc.

 

Nobody is forcing you. You don't have to run Steam (therefore the thread has no point). Steam is optional. As you yourself mentioned, you can (and will) buy it on GOG.

 

I regret any dev that had to read this pathetic discussion. They provide you an option to go without DRM, without any clients or anything like that and you still manage to brag about the other option.

 

If I was a dev, I would track your names and addresses and have the game include the original Starforce which would activate when you run it.

[ddillon]

@Aoyagi: Lol. Steam is optional in *this* case because the game will also be released on GOG.

 

GOG is great, and I have a LOT of games there.

 

But not every game is released on GOG. Remember Fallout: New Vegas and Skyrim. No legal options to play those games on PC without Steam. So for the sake of future titles that might not see an immediate release on GOG, I support efforts like this thread to make a positive change in the industry by ensuring that developers are aware of the ability to release a game on Steam without forcing use of its client-based access control and aware that at least some gamers have a real problem with that form of DRM. If I only had to run the Steam client when downloading and installing from the Internet or wanting to use its social features, etc, then perhaps I might not mind Steam (as much). And if it wasn't forced on those who buy physical, of course. So... for the future!

Edited February 22, 2013 by ddillon

[Delicieuxz]

 

 

And yet you managed to cower from my actual point and didn't even attempt to address it. Good job.

 

Here's another point you won't be able to address since you haven't been around since the beginning nor paid attention:

 

It was a big deal when Obsidian ended up in union with GOG because many users on this forum and on KS begged Obsidian to do so. Originally they were only going to do Steam (and the backer discs). GOG carries only DRM-free games. I'll put the two logic points together for you so you'll understand: People specifically asked for a GOG version equating that with DRM-free.

 

When Obsidian and GOG finally made the announcement, it was all over Twitter and mentioned in a number of articles. It wouldn't make sense to offer two types on Steam and another on GOG when DRM is part of the reputed business model for both; actually adding a DRM-free version or whatever on Steam would potentially dilute business from GOG and that would be bad for their agreement with Obsidian, and frankly insulting to the entire effort to get the DRM-free GOG version in the first place. 

 

So again, why shouldn't someone against DRM NOT get the GOG version?

 

Your use of the word "logic" doesn't fit its definition. So... you think Obsidian must have DRM on Steam because it would otherwise deflate the purpose of their being a GoG DRM-free version? Your "point" is that one must shoot oneself unnecessarily in the foot for the pure sake of idiocy. And I've been around since the beginning. The relevant questions are:

1. Why should someone who has the Steam version HAVE to have meaningless DRM?

2. Why would you bother caring that someone else have the option to play DRM though their retailer of choice?

3. Are you about done being a child?

 

What exactly is so bad about Steam's DRM? Is this just irrational hate on your part or do you honestly think Valve is spying on you?

 

Who said I hated Steam DRM? Why would you unnecessarily want something that's unnecessary, and which limits your options? Why would somebody want to be locked into playing either with or without an app running/with or without the benefits of the app? I have nearly 400 games on Steam (over 400, counting collections) and probably more than 50 on GoG. There is a brazen irrationality here where people think DRM is needed for the sake of having a copy with DRM to contrast against the copy without it. I can only guess that these sentiments are coming from very young minds which don't yet grasp what logic is and what it is not. Omitting forced app running if its possible and efficient is logical. Arguing to have DRM in a version of the game where it serves no purpose is not.

 

People who plan to get it on GoG have no motive to insist there be DRM in a Steam copy, except for naive hatred towards Steam and a desire to see it not receive parallel treatment. It's extremely immature and laughably feebly-thought-out.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Delicieuxz

[Sacred_Path]

and aware that at least some gamers have a real problem with that form of DRM.

The line of thinking "I use Steam but I hate it!" is comedy gold.

People who plan to get it on GoG have no motive to insist there be DRM in a Steam copy, except for naive hatred towards Steam

it's hardly naive if you wish for Steam to fail/ be boycotted before its model (which usually includes DRM) becomes dominant in this industry. Edited February 22, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[ddillon]

 

 

and aware that at least some gamers have a real problem with that form of DRM.

The line of thinking "I use Steam but I hate it!" is comedy gold.

 

 

Nope, you've misunderstood: I *don't* use Steam. What I said is that I might consider using the service when there's no GOG (or otherwise DRM-free) release of certain titles *if* developers do precisely what the OP suggests in this thread.

 

Steam doesn't get a penny from me as-is.

[Delicieuxz]

 

and aware that at least some gamers have a real problem with that form of DRM.

The line of thinking "I use Steam but I hate it!" is comedy gold.

>People who plan to get it on GoG have no motive to insist there be DRM in a Steam copy, except for naive hatred towards Steam

it's hardly naive if you wish for Steam to fail/ be boycotted before its model (which usually includes DRM) becomes dominant in this industry.

 

Not that it wasn't already apparent, but the fight for Steam to have DRM is precisely only so that it looks worse. Hey, let's start demanding that GoG copies lack part of the game, just to f with those customers' ****, too! That's really jerkish. And, yes, it's naive. Because Steam not having DRM in titles would make its model no longer what you're oppressing, and would lead to more titles sold through the medium adopting the example. It's shooting yourself in the foot, and just getting on other people's nerves due to the meaninglessness of it.

[Elerond]

If you take your digital copy in steam you will have DRM in your license as you can't install at first place your game without log-in steam and you can't move it to another computer without steam. So you can't have steam version of game without DRM as running steam version of the game without steam client running don't make game DRM free, it only means that game don't use any of steam's services. 

Edited February 22, 2013 by Elerond

[Sacred_Path]

nd, yes, it's naive. Because Steam not having DRM in titles would make its model no longer what you're oppressing, and would lead to more titles sold through the medium adopting the example.

In that case (Steam becoming completely DRM free) I would be fine with it, it's not like I have anything against digital distribution. I only use GOG rather than Steam because of its policies.

[Haerski]

More-or-less worthless for a single-player rpg played on one computer. So, yep: Bloatware.

 

Now, *you* might like those "features", but why should *we* be forced to run Steam because of *your* preferences? That's the point of this thread: making the Steam client optional so that *we* don't have to run it outside of downloading, installing, patching, etc.

 

And: Requiring Steam is more-or-less a license to pirate to some communities. Not that it makes it "right", but it's understandable imo.

 

---

 

Also: I support the idea expressed by the OP, but I'll be getting mine from GOG. Steam can suck it.

 

I never said I was against DRM-free PE on Steam, but if it happens in cost of any planned Steamworks features or complicates things in negotiations with Valve, then I see no sensible reason to fight against Steam's usual business model. They offer certain service which me and millions of others like and everybody here knows what they get by choosing Steam version. Others can get it from elsewhere.

 

As a funny notice: Why are you using word 'we' even though in last sentence you say you are never going to get your copy from Steam? Shouldn't it be 'they' as reference to those mysterious people who absolutely want to get this on Steam, but absolutely don't want to use Steam? In fact, is there any such person here or have we just wasted 4 pages of discussion just for sake of demanding things nobody really cares about?

 

EDIT: In short: Is anyone who has constant problems with Steam or has other reasons for not wanting to use it really going to choose Steam version over DRM- and hasslefree GOG-copy or are you all here just for sake of argument?

 

P.S. Pirating games as protest for Steam is honestly dumbest thing I have heard in a while and is only gonna make matters worse. Just sorry excuse for stealing as they could buy the game on steam and then crack it to work without, which is no more legal, but at least somewhat understandable if they have problems with the program.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Haerski

[Lurky]

[Dream]

Who said I hated Steam DRM? Why would you unnecessarily want something that's unnecessary, and which limits your options? Why would somebody want to be locked into playing either with or without an app running/with or without the benefits of the app? I have nearly 400 games on Steam (over 400, counting collections) and probably more than 50 on GoG. There is a brazen irrationality here where people think DRM is needed for the sake of having a copy with DRM to contrast against the copy without it. I can only guess that these sentiments are coming from very young minds which don't yet grasp what logic is and what it is not. Omitting forced app running if its possible and efficient is logical. Arguing to have DRM in a version of the game where it serves no purpose is not.

 

People who plan to get it on GoG have no motive to insist there be DRM in a Steam copy, except for naive hatred towards Steam and a desire to see it not receive parallel treatment. It's extremely immature and laughably feebly-thought-out.

There must be a dozen plus programs that are constantly running in the background of your computer, and Steam isn't exactly resource intensive. So, I ask again, what exactly is the negative; what is so bad about Steam? How does it limit your options?

[AGX-17]

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't see why you wouldn't just go for a GoG version, then. Most Steam users have Steam running all the time, anyway. There's not really an issue there. The vast majority of Steam releases include the Steam API specifically for the Steam API, and like you said, they don't have to use it, but they choose to. Edited February 22, 2013 by AGX-17

[ddillon]

 

snip

...snip...Why are you using word 'we' even though in last sentence you say you are never going to get your copy from Steam? Shouldn't it be 'they' as reference to those mysterious people who absolutely want to get this on Steam, but absolutely don't want to use Steam? In fact, is there any such person here or have we just wasted 4 pages of discussion just for sake of demanding things nobody really cares about?

 

EDIT: In short: Is anyone who has constant problems with Steam or has other reasons for not wanting to use it really going to choose Steam version over DRM- and hasslefree GOG-copy or are you all here just for sake of argument?

See my reply to Aoyagi. I argue here to support positive change in the industry in regards to Steam for the sake of future games that might not get a GOG release. For example, From Software won't be getting my money if Dark Souls 2 requires Steam client access control. (I *really* hope that they stick with GFWL... unlike Steam, that client is optional, only needed for accessing online features.)

 

I used the words "we" and "your" to place emphasis on the effect your position has on other gamers such as the OP and those who accept Steam because only because they have no other legal option to play.

 

P.S. Pirating games as protest for Steam is honestly dumbest thing I have heard in a while and is only gonna make matters worse. Just sorry excuse for stealing as they could buy the game on steam and then crack it to work without, which is no more legal, but at least somewhat understandable if they have problems with the program.

 

That is one of the dumbest things that I have heard recently.

 

Buying the game on Steam or buying a physical copy that requires Steam but cracking it to play without Steam still supports Steam and its continued dominance of the gaming market. Voting in favor of Steam with your dollar, etc. If a developer or publisher chooses to force Steam, tough luck for them: They should expect some losses for that **** move imo.

Edited February 23, 2013 by ddillon

[Karkarov]

Why is this thread still going?  The benefit of the Steam version is Steams various features.  There is no reason to create a Steam version that doesn't use Steam as we already have two versions of the game that are DRM free and don't use Steam.  As in Physical Discs which will be DRM free (other than needing the disc) and the GoG version.

 

So it is really really mind numbingly simple... If you don't want to run Steam when playing Project Eternity... wait for it... get a version that doesn't use Steam.

 

Asking the devs to make a Steam version that is Steam free is not only illogical, but it is also a total waste of the devs time.  I can't even begin to count how many better things they have to be doing than making a Steam free Steam version.