Shadowrun Returns - Lots of Information

[GhanBuriGhan]

Maybe it is impossible to please every gamer, but that doesn't excuse going back on what you initially promised. Many people, when pledging for this product, did so with the belief that this game and its future DLCs/addons would be DRM free. That this is now not true is nothing short of a betrayal of those backers by HBS. I'd revoke my pledge now if I could. As far as I'm concerned Shadowrun: Returns is a failure and I'll never back or play any game by HBS ever again. I can only hope that InXile and Obsidian don't make the same mistake and do their best to adhere to their promises. It's a shame that one bad apple like HBS has the potential to sour the entire crowd funded RPG scene.

I agree they need to clarify the situation with regards to community created scenarios, as that was indeed one of the originally promised and highllighted features - so this should be accessible to everyone, regardless of the version we pick. If the DRM free version indeed can in no way access user created content, than I'll grab my pitchfork, but they should have a chance to clarify that first.
Until then, I think that reactions like yours are just out of proportion. You were promised a DRM free version of the game - you get it. You were promised Berlin - you get it (I think giving it as free DLC to backers if fine, particularly if it helps them to release the main game sooner). We were not promised DLC at all as far as I remember, IIRC it was just something along the lines "we'll look into supporting the game with additional content after release". Now, I don't know much about this, but if creating a server structure that supports DLC is beyond their financial means, and since AFAIK, GOG currently does not support DLC, and therefore, at least initially, DLC will only be available on Steam, I think we have to accept that that is how it is.

From the videos I saw it looks like they created a great game, wonderful environments, great TB combat - and delivering a great game, THAT is, and should be, their main commitment to us. I think its completely self-destructive if people go all "bwaah, betrayal! I'll never back another Kickstarter ever again!"

That said, HBS have themselves to blame. That update was poorly worded, and anyone with a passing knowledge of the internet and the sensitivity of the anti-DRM crowd should have known that this topic requires a more careful approach.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

That this is now not true is nothing short of a betrayal of those backers by HBS. I'd revoke my pledge now if I could. As far as I'm concerned Shadowrun: Returns is a failure and I'll never back or play any game by HBS ever again. I can only hope that InXile and Obsidian don't make the same mistake and do their best to adhere to their promises. It's a shame that one bad apple like HBS has the potential to sour the entire crowd funded RPG scene.

It is not a mistake. It is a proper business calculation.

Antagonizing a precise segment of consumers works at the benefits of the supplier and the rest of customers.

If players who digged in that DRM story brought 10~20 per cent of the capital on it and protest the game by not playing it, it means more capital for the supplier with less diversity in expectations to satisfy.

The other players got an excess of funding, translating into bigger/better or whatever game suiting their tastes.

A well spred method of doing: you attract funders then reject them. It benefits both the supplier and the rest of the customers.

 

[mbpopolano24]

Yes, regardless of the issue or topic, it seems impossible to please every gamer, and the excluded minority tend to be very vocal in their objections. Game developers need to have a very thick skin to, well… stay in the game.

Just one question. How do you know how many people are displeased by this move? I mean, are we 10? 100? 1,000? How do you know? We might be the 'excluded minority' (excluded from what?), but how do you know?

Let me also ask you this: did you read what HBS wrote about the lack of a manual save system? (Just one of the many 'brilliant' decisions they gad). Did you really read it? They said it is 'difficult' to implement; they said that it is 'time consuming'; they said they 'do not have the budget' to do it. So, since you are part of the included majority, please explain to me how you can even consider buying this BS.

Instead of staying in business having a thick skin, why not staying in business being honest, upfront, making smart decisions, providing standard features, and trying to stay true to your mission?

 

[rune_74]

I'm going to install it from steam...I backed the game, and to me it's not a big deal.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I prefer save anywhere, but checkpoint saves are not a big deal for me. I have played a couple of games with that, and if the checkpoints are well placed, and if you can go back several saves at will, than it works fine.

 

[guenthar]

They could always get it on Gamersgate which doesn't require DRM and can also handle dlc.

 

[Bedwyr]

It is not a mistake. It is a proper business calculation.

Antagonizing a precise segment of consumers works at the benefits of the supplier and the rest of customers.

Lets call it a business calculation, not necessarily a "proper" one. What we don't know yet is how to do the accounting for the loss of good will that happens if they make that decision in a kickstarted scenario. Do people's sense of ownership in the project make them more, much more, or a whole lot more incensed if they donated to kickstarter vs. simply doing a garden variety pre-order? (I'm hearing Spoony's "BETRAYAL" running through my brain. )

I personally think that many accountants absolutely suck at valuing good will when trying to help managers make good decision and constantly under-value it. Yeah it's hard, but it requires more effort than I commonly see.

So I'll reiterate. I'm going to play the game on Steam. I understand their decision. But I think they're underestimating the ire of fans who want no DRM at all, ever, and hold that as essentially a political belief even when it comes to Steam.

For those types who gave money in the expectation they'd have a customizable game with no DRM, you're crossing them on their political belief, perhaps the primary motivation for giving money. To them this change would be no better than theft. And that's something to be very very careful of if you're in a kickstarted situation and it should color your decisions a lot more than I think it is for them.

Of course it could end up being a tempest in a teacup, but I'm wary, especially since they didn't consult with their supporters before making this decision.

We'll see.

 

[JDR13]

I prefer save anywhere, but checkpoint saves are not a big deal for me. I have played a couple of games with that, and if the checkpoints are well placed, and if you can go back several saves at will, than it works fine.

I have no problem with it as long as we have multiple save slots to choose from. I've been seeing too many games lately utilize a checkpoint/autosave system with a single save game that overwrites itself. For me, that would be unacceptable in a game like this.

 

[Zygo]

AFAIK, GOG currently does not support DLC

It does.

It is not a mistake. It is a proper business calculation.

Unnecessarily antagonising people is a mistake, and in circumstances where your current primary funding method relies on goodwill a monumental one. That approach also results in people actively hoping for you to fail, and doing their best to ensure that- having every thread on the subject of Shadowrun inundated by "liars and scum" accusations is not good PR even for those who don't mind steam.

They won't be able to go back to KS after this, they'd get trolled into oblivion. So all they've done is put their entire future into external hands in the hope that they'll get enough sales on their single distribution channel which has far, far bigger fish to fry than them.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

We'll see.

It is all seen. The Steam market is much larger than the market of players who demand DRM free games (by demanding I mean players who are at least considering not buying a game because it has some DRM in it, I do not even mean players who stick to their line and do not buy games because there is DRM in it)

This business strategy is overused by the industry. Tested and tried.

It happens in all forms.

For example, an indie decides to developp a space game. But the indie starts with too small means to compete with the current offer.

The indie markets his game as a space game with realistic space flight mechanics to appeal to a subset of hardcore fans. A vey niche market that is expected to respond positively to the offer.

Funds are levied. The game is released and it has realistic space flight mechanics. Now the game will go through patching.

Here comes the trick: instead of improving the realistic mechanics, the patching sequence is meant to decrease the realism in order to appeal to a much larger customer base: the one wishing for space games with unrealistic space flight mechanics.

The more the game is patched, the more the original target audience is forgotten.

That audience was used as a door entry to a bigger market.

This kind of business strategy happens all the time in the industry and under various forms.

The thing for people who think that voting with your dollars works: a dollar that is not yet in your pocket is always more appealing than a dollar that is already in your pocket.

People who adopt that strategy knows that "thanks for your dollars but now they are mine and will prefer to receive dollars that are not already mine"

They won't be able to go back to KS after this, they'd get trolled into oblivion. So all they've done is put their entire future into external hands in the hope that they'll get enough sales on their single distribution channel which has far, far bigger fish to fry than them.

Quite a claim. The strategy is not new. Claiming that they will be trolled into oblivion is like claiming that a studio will be trolled into oblivion when it starts with a well defined gameplay for a game and keeps changing it to appeal and sell to a wider audience.

This kind of business calculation is well proven in the industry. If this studio fails, they should not question the calculation but what they have done so that a well proven method does not work.

 

[jhwisner]

I think the thing people who are bothered by this should do is petition GoG to support DLC for new products they distribute. I'd even suggest, because I think many GoG fans would agree with the sentiment and statement, they stipulate only "expansion" style DLC would be supported.

I would also urge Hairbrained to perhaps better clarify that the Mod support was with regard to being able to browse databases and select/install mods within the game as a feature only really made economically feasible by steam-workshop. They should also, even if they did not originally intend this, announce that downloading and installing mods through third party databases (such as nexus) will be possible akin to the Skyrim mod model. If they want to placate those upset by this then I would also suggest something more substantive, such as offering to work with Nexus community members to facilitate Nexus Mod Manager functionality on day one.

I'd also want them to explain what if any barriers are keeping them from considering additional digital distribution methods such as Desura, Gamers' Gate, etc. I suppose the lack of DLC support might explain why no GoG, but is it maybe that the other sites offer far too low margins or something?

 

[Zygo]

Again, GOG does support dlc- see Omerta. It did cause a bit of a stir though, given the first offering was not that far removed from Horse Armour.

This kind of business calculation is well proven in the industry.

Not when your business strategy relies on goodwill, as KS does. You're describing the typical publisher/ investor situation, not one where people are effectively donating money and many will do so on principle- which is precisely why you have inXile, Larian and even to an extent Obsidian slagging off the current model (and publishers) as part of their KS pitches, to differentiate themselves from the old ways and get those 'principle' dollars. This sort of thing will ensure that a lot of those 'principle' donaters, even those that may be fine with steam, will not trust HBS in future.

So yeah, transparently using the old models and being sophist rules nazis will potentially very badly effect earnings in a system that relies on goodwill.

 

[mbpopolano24]

[...]

For those types who gave money in the expectation they'd have a customizable game with no DRM, you're crossing them on their political belief, perhaps the primary motivation for giving money. To them this change would be no better than theft. And that's something to be very very careful of if you're in a kickstarted situation and it should color your decisions a lot more than I think it is for them.

[...]

We'll see.

Very well said. I am one of those people who feels 'betrayed'. It is not about the quality of the game or the features included or excluded. And of course it is not about the money. It is about the lies, the excuses, the technicality... I used to support Kickstarter projects because I believed the mantra developers were telling us: All the problems of the game industry are due to the publisher, the big, evil publishers. The lies, the game delays, the unfinished product shipped anyway, the lack of creativity... it was all about the evil publishers.

And now, what did we get thanks to Kickstarter? Most of the same. One project (I'll avoid to make names just to avoid old polemics) was declared ready to ship just to be pull out at the very last minute thanks to an incumbent deal with a publisher; another project just got a 'name' and a website one year after it was supposed to be shipped; another one launched a multiplayer game with micro-transactions and forgot about the game was supposed to be the primary focused; HBS did what we are discussing here. I could go on and on, but the fact is that I don't wan't to be part of it anymore. I don't want to feel bad for a game, I want to enjoy it. I don't want to be insulted by other gamers who like what I dislike, and cannot accept that my ire is not against them, or against the quality of the game they like, it is against the lies, and industry that is treating as all like a bunch of fools (pay now, you might or might not get a finished product in the future). I fought this trend for years (I played games for a long time, in case you are wondering) buying products only after 1 or 2 years of their initial launch. But then Kickstarter came along and I thought this could be the solution, this could be a way to make this industry a bit more acceptable. I was wrong. This is why I am angry. I did not care about HBS, their games, or any other game in particular. I cared for a dream. I cared to hope. And HBS was just the last straw, the reason my dream was lost and Kickstarter gone.

 

[Bedwyr]

To clarify, I don't share your position but I'm certainly sympathetic and respect it. That said, you're getting really over-dramatic. KS is not gone. It still remains a risky proposition, but there will still be rewarding projects on it that you might enjoy and still stick to your anti-DRM guns.

HBS updated their page with a clarification. All game development up through Berlin will be offered directly DRM free as promised, including the ability to create personal adventures. Further commercial expansions will not be available DRM free due to their license terms from Microsoft.

(Just to be clear on what's what, Microsoft owns all electronic IP and Topps owns all paper IP from now-defunct FASA). This story is disappointing but makes a lot of sense. Microsoft has no intention of ever supporting DRM-free software. It's good that HBS got an exception due probably in no small part to the fact that Jordan founded the company that invented Shadowrun. To me it's doubly disappointing because I had hoped to see the Mechwarrior series on GoG. Inferring this as their position with regards to all DRM, I probably won't see those games any time soon. Too bad.

So you've got the initial game and 1st expansion DRM along with support and patches, but nothing after that and nothing on GoG.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

mbpopolano24, I use steam frequently and am rather pro than anti DRM, so I am among those who don't personally feel very much affected by this. But I understand where you're coming from. Still, a lot of the bigger worries that people had have been addressed with the latest update: - there will be patch support for the DRM free version, it will be possible to make and access user generated content with it.
The limitation that remains is the DLC, unfortunate mostly because it will restrict the user generated content that can be created and played with the DRM free version. However, I doubt that DLC is popular with the anti DRM people anyway?

It remains true that HBS did not communicate as open as they should have. I assume that they were not aware of the license restrictions during the kickstarter. It seems clear that at that time they planned on selling a DRM free version to everyone after release (including non-backers), but I also don't think they only learned that last week - they could and should have discussed that with the community the moment they became aware of this problem. So that is where they made a big mistake, in my opinion. I guess they were (rightly) afraid of the reaction. I am with you in dissapointment about that.

However, I think you and others should give them some credit that they seem to have tried their best to provide a DRM free version at least to their backers. It can't have been easy to get that deal with Microsoft. And unelss you believe they planned it like this from the beginning, which I think is unlikely, just consider how akward it must be for them. They have none of the benefits of a DRM free release (goodwill, for what its worth, from a part of the gaming community), and all of the disadvantages.

And I feel sad about the loss of goodwill that the game and KS have suffered due to this, and sorry for the people who won't be able to enjoy the game as it is now.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Not when your business strategy relies on goodwill, as KS does. You're describing the typical publisher/ investor situation, not one where people are effectively donating money and many will do so on principle- which is precisely why you have inXile, Larian and even to an extent Obsidian slagging off the current model (and publishers) as part of their KS pitches, to differentiate themselves from the old ways and get those 'principle' dollars. This sort of thing will ensure that a lot of those 'principle' donaters, even those that may be fine with steam, will not trust HBS in future.

So yeah, transparently using the old models and being sophist rules nazis will potentially very badly effect earnings in a system that relies on goodwill.

The industry generally relies on good will. Very few publishers/developpers force you to buy a game. They force you to buy certain schemes in a take or leave it offer. You do not want to buy a game with that extra piece of software that adds nothing to it? Dont buy it. You wont play that game but you wont have to put up with that piece of software that adds nothing to the game. That is the deal.

KS has the potential to turn into a pre ordering system. Some will say it already has.

Backers who think they can enforce a certain ethics in business by voting with their dollars, as they perpetually claim KS offers them the opportunity, are over enthuastic too early.

The number of players who care about having a DRM free version of their game is very small. They are neglected, left aside.

They are perfect to fit the part of the "useful" idiots.

The industry has no interest working for them as working for the number of players who do not care how a DRM policy is applied is much bigger and then more lucrative. Applying a DRM policy is a demand from the suppliers. It serves them first.

Now what is the situation of companies going to fish for funds on the KS?

-their offer: projects that might be commercially valid but not enough to seduce publishers that have in general on their desk projects more commercially valid. The prospect of bigger profits beats the prospect of smaller profits.

-their demand: they want funds to developp their game.

Who offers that on the market? Players who do not care for how the DRM policy is applied are already captured. So it is going to be hard to convince them to put money on the table.

Enter the "useful idiots" No companies work for them, they feel neglected and are frustrated. It often leads them to be ready to overpay for a service or something.

They are useful as they will provide the funds. They are idiots because they think the company work to meet their demand when the company only want to use them as an entry point to a bigger market.

Give KS two or three game developpment cycles (so between 3 and six years) and it is likely that KS projects will come with DRM policies exclusively from the beginning.

The next time this studio will go on KS, they might go into a PR stunt "last time, our policies to DRM were unclear. This time, we stated it from the very start: we go for DRM only"

The major issue for them will be to know if they've got sufficient momentum from their first KS to get rid of the "useful idiots", if the number of players who do not care how DRM application is enough to make without the "useful idiots"

All those businesses require a platform to launch themselves, to kickstart themselves: the "useful idiots " are here to provide.

The only companies that will be adverse to that change in policies will be all those companies whose project do not allow them to go beyond the "useful idiots" market.
All the others will consider working for the much bigger,not caring about DRM market.