2nd class citizen

[klgraham1013]

Didn't realize people hated Steam.  Wondering what the reasoning is behind this.

Edited April 12, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Docsprock]

I love Steam. Have a whole bunch of games there, for many years, no problems. I do NOT have KSP 1.1, because I do not wish to bug bash. Ive been involved with betas in the past, and I dont want the hassle. I paid for a working game, not paid to work on a game.

[Aetharan]

48 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Didn't realize people hated Steam.  Wondering what the reasoning is behind this.

I may well be unique in my continued irrational hatred, the reasoning behind which I'm relatively certain began as something entirely sane, but frankly, it's become such a deeply-ingrained habit at this point that asking me to set it aside would be like telling me that I am required to give up both coffee and cigarettes, cold-turkey, on the same day.  Not going to happen.

It is more fun to be coy about the reasoning, but I'll give a hint that should let you piece things together:  I used to play a heavily-modded Skyrim install on a relatively regular basis, and grognards can hold grudges for a very, very long time.

[The Great Potato]

Squad said they're not distributing the pre-release through the patcher because it's not equipped to do so. Steam has built in pre-release functionality and version control, so they went with that. Maybe the launcher is flawed, but would you have preferred Arsonide or RoverDude or somebody work on fixing that instead of one of the new features in 1.1?

There's no ill will from Squad - they would if they could but they can't so they don't.

1.1 isn't even all that different from 1.0.5. 1.1 is all about the backbone and UI, not the gameplay. If you don't use mods, 1.1 mostly gets you new wheels and a couple slightly improved visuals (and a healthy number of new bugs). If you do use mods...most of them aren't updated yet so the pre-release will mean nothing to you. I have KSP on steam and my 1.0.5 install is alive and well.

I get the initial disappointment - Squad did announce the Steam-only thing a little on the late side. The way people are still so salty about this is strange to me, though. They apologized, it's temporary, it's just the pre-release and not actually 1.1, etc etc.

 

[Temeter]

1 hour ago, Aetharan said:

I may well be unique in my continued irrational hatred, the reasoning behind which I'm relatively certain began as something entirely sane, but frankly, it's become such a deeply-ingrained habit at this point that asking me to set it aside would be like telling me that I am required to give up both coffee and cigarettes, cold-turkey, on the same day.  Not going to happen.

It is more fun to be coy about the reasoning, but I'll give a hint that should let you piece things together:  I used to play a heavily-modded Skyrim install on a relatively regular basis, and grognards can hold grudges for a very, very long time.

Usually people are liquided at steam because it made enforced DRM viable, and the countless issue and problems that arouse around that. Not that much of an issue for digital games, but it's not like you can even get AAA standalone games anymore.

[Aetharan]

Curiously, I actually approve of Steam's effect on DRM more than might be expected of somebody with a highly limited gaming budget.  It made getting Skyrim onto my laptop (which has no optical drive) reasonable, whereas even with legitimate physical copies of them, several of my other old games are simply impossible for me to play because I can't have a CD or DVD in a drive that isn't there.  DRM that isn't BS isn't a problem.  Customer service telling you "What, the product you paid for wasn't what you were promised?  Well, that's not our problem.  No refund, no store credit, enjoy your empty box!" is a problem, and all of my frustrations with the company stem from the time before they offered refunds.

[Temeter]

4 minutes ago, Aetharan said:

Curiously, I actually approve of Steam's effect on DRM more than might be expected of somebody with a highly limited gaming budget.  It made getting Skyrim onto my laptop (which has no optical drive) reasonable, whereas even with legitimate physical copies of them, several of my other old games are simply impossible for me to play because I can't have a CD or DVD in a drive that isn't there.  DRM that isn't BS isn't a problem.  Customer service telling you "What, the product you paid for wasn't what you were promised?  Well, that's not our problem.  No refund, no store credit, enjoy your empty box!" is a problem, and all of my frustrations with the company stem from the time before they offered refunds.

You're talking about digital distribution, that's something different from DRM itself (although it's usually combined, except GoG ofc).

[Superfluous J]

30 minutes ago, Temeter said:

You're talking about digital distribution, that's something different from DRM itself (although it's usually combined, except GoG ofc).

Without DRM in digital distribution, AAA titles would not be sold on the Internet. Period. So Steam making DRM palatable and transparent - but still functional - has opened the door for digital distribution in a way that would just not be possible otherwise.

I have no problem with Steam. I probably would have bought KSP on Steam if I'd bought it a year later. I was late to the Steam party and was still buying things elsewhere whenever possible when I bought KSP.

Maybe I'm less of an idealist today than I was 3 years ago, or maybe my opinions on the whole thing have changed. Who can tell?

[Temeter]

56 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Without DRM in digital distribution, AAA titles would not be sold on the Internet. Period. So Steam making DRM palatable and transparent - but still functional - has opened the door for digital distribution in a way that would just not be possible otherwise.

I have no problem with Steam. I probably would have bought KSP on Steam if I'd bought it a year later. I was late to the Steam party and was still buying things elsewhere whenever possible when I bought KSP.

Maybe I'm less of an idealist today than I was 3 years ago, or maybe my opinions on the whole thing have changed. Who can tell?

What i wrote:

Quote

Steam [...] made enforced DRM viable, and the countless issue and problems that arouse around that. Not that much of an issue for digital games, but it's not like you can even get AAA standalone games anymore.

I don't see an issue with DRM in digital distribution. It's basically even required as far as downloading games goes. Can have a bit of a discussion about the cancerlike appendages of steam that are woven into the exe (aside from exceptions like KSP), but that's still understandable as for digital games, and Steam uses very fragile copy protection, that mostly only includes some link in the executable. Not that it'd ever stop people from using black copies, but whatever.~

No, what steam did was to make it viable to enforce itself. You don't really buy games anymore in retail (as you can still mostly do with console games), you only buy codes for steam. There is now way to actually 'own' a licensed copy in any sense anymore. Everything needs a connection and rubber-stamping from valve's server before you can even start a game, which is really more like lending a game than actually buying a copy.

If you want to see how people feel about that particular issue, look no further than the XB-One and the resistance that one got for it's account program. For the digital store+drm, that's for the most part accepted. Steam gives you less value with the games you buy, but they are also getting cheaper in no time, so that balances itself out and is a net plus i'd say.

 

BTW: For anyone who now wants to put on a wannabe legal amateur show: Don't even bother.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Temeter

[Pecan]

Store-only here, I didn't like (but didn't hate) Steam at the time.  My issue with them was simply the startup time getting Steam to see I wasn't online before I could even begin to load the game itself.  Recent convert - new machine, new regime, etc.

I'd have liked 1.1 so I could have got started on manuals for the feel of the thing but I'm not sweating it on the expectation that a lot will still change (and Squad don't want anyone to write manuals so have refused permission to use screenshots which means I have to replicate them anyway).

Lots of different gripes and issues in this thread surprise me though:
Contract - my early-access purchase included the contract to provide new updates until release (which was 1.0).  I've had a couple since then and they're still giving it to me for no more charge.  Hail Squad!
Pre-release - it was made very clear in all the announcements that this wasn't the finished release so if you're starting a new save in it you've only got yourself to blame.
Pre-Steam - If you bought it before it was available on Steam you had the option to get a free Steam key.  Lucky you; with my new regime I'd like Steam to stop offering it to me and recognise I already have it! (It's in my library as 'non-Steam game' but it still suggests it).

Anyway - how do I feel?  A bit cheap, actually, since I've only ever paid $15 for this and had better value from it than anything except Second Life (which is free and I made money from).  If anything, this has nudged me towards buying it again, on Steam.

[Snikersnee]

As a steam buyer, I don't play 1.1 because all my saves are 1.05 and there is no reason to. (Other than making sure crafts still work) You have to understand that steam is easier and cheaper to update.

[Pecan]

29 minutes ago, Snikersnee said:

...You have to understand that steam is easier and cheaper to update.

Cheaper than free?!

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Temeter said:

Everything needs a connection and rubber-stamping from valve's server before you can even start a game, which is really more like lending a game than actually buying a copy.

Not true. I play Steam games offline all the time. You can even go in "offline mode" while online and it'll act as if you're ... well ... offline

I'm sure a game maker could configure their game (or ask Steam to) to not function offline, but it has never happened to me, indie and AAA games alike.

[Temeter]

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not true. I play Steam games offline all the time. You can even go in "offline mode" while online and it'll act as if you're ... well ... offline

Try to install a game in offline mode.

Also, sometimes steam just arbitrarily wants you to log in, or some games get issues with offline saves.

Quote

I'm sure a game maker could configure their game (or ask Steam to) to not function offline, but it has never happened to me, indie and AAA games alike.

Just write some abysmal external software and call it Uplay. Done. ~

Edited April 12, 2016 by Temeter

[Superfluous J]

13 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Try to install a game in offline mode.

Also, sometimes steam just arbitrarily wants you to log in, or some games get issues with offline saves.

Just write some abysmal external software and call it Uplay. Done. ~

You're seriously claiming that inability to install games off of the Internet while offline is some form of DRM? Is it also DRM that people without cars can't drive to the store?

I have never had Steam refuse to run a game in offline mode, so I can't speak on forced logins or anything like that. I use it frequently enough to be surprised that it happens. Like I said, some games may do it and maybe I just don't play those games. I stay away from multiplayer games, for example, and I could see those having some "must be online" requirement to start because they'd not have much to do if you weren't online.

And don't make me shiver by mentioning Uplay. Or Origin.

*shiver*

Edited April 12, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Slam_Jones]

Personally (Steam user of about 5-6 years) the only times Steam has stopped me from playing a game in offline mode, is when that game has been Online-Only.

Really not understanding the hate towards Steam... they let me browse, purchase, and store games indefinitely.  Plus, then I can install Steam on any machine I want and download and play the games...  Am I bothered that they take x% from each purchase?  Not in the slightest.  In my opinion, storing all my games (and save files, and (in a few select cases) mods) indefinitely more than pays for that.  If it weren't for Steam, I'd have a bunch of scratched and lost disks scattered all over the place, and I'd probably forget half the purchases I've made.  Not so with Steam, thankfully!

Edited April 12, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[Temeter]

I recently had issues with Alien Isolation, where I couldn't use my online save in offline mode. Sometimes, especially after updates, games also want me to go online first. Some bug with steam cloud also has overwritten my deus ex HR saves (around last 2 hours of the game) with 1 month old versions. Offline longin files don't get corrupted as often anymore. Software is still unwieldly and slow in a lot of regards, but it could be a nightmare to use in earlier times.

But that's not really the point.

12 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

You're seriously claiming that inability to install games off of the Internet while offline is some form of DRM? Is it also DRM that people without cars can't drive to the store?

I have never had Steam refuse to run a game in offline mode, so I can't speak on forced logins or anything like that. I use it frequently enough to be surprised that it happens. Like I said, some games may do it and maybe I just don't play those games. I stay away from multiplayer games, for example, and I could see those having some "must be online" requirement to start because they'd not have much to do if you weren't online.

And don't make me shiver by mentioning Uplay. Or Origin.

*shiver*

Man Horseman, you're misinterpreting my posts. I thought I was pretty clear when I said that digitally bought games and DRM are fine, but you can not get drm-less copies anymore, not even by retail. Offline mode can only be ever used after installing in online (and sometimes starting the game one time), by using log in informations that are saved on your computer. And games being locked to an online platform is something steam has enabled, which is sad. It's kind of a joke collectors editions are even sold considering you only ever get a steam version.

A this point, Origin works actually fine btw. It's definitly faster than steam.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Temeter

[Wjolcz]

Is transfering to Steam not an option anymore?

I bought the game from the store, way before it was available on Steam. Everyone who has ever used the KSP site to download the game knows how the things go: you try to update, but because everyone tries to do so the servers crash, the forums go down and it's like this for the next week or so.

I experienced all that and as soon as it was available on Steam it didn't take much thinking process for me to transfer the key to get a faster and more reliable download source every time a new update comes out.

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Is transfering to Steam not an option anymore?

You can only transfer to Steam if you bought it before Steam was an option (as you did). Anybody who bought from the store after KSP was available on Steam cannot transfer.

[Wjolcz]

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

You can only transfer to Steam if you bought it before Steam was an option (as you did). Anybody who bought from the store after KSP was available on Steam cannot transfer.

The heck? Why? Did SQUAD sign some sort of dark blood pact with Gaben?

[regex]

That's probably a standard deal for a pre-existing game being brought on to Steam.  Same thing with Factorio.  You have to remember that Steam is a distribution service, they make money from game sales on that platform in return for a host of other services provided to the game developer, most notably easy delivery, bandwidth, branch management, and exposure.

E: Which actually brings us to the hilarious belief that buying from the Store means you "gave more" to Squad, or that Squad "gets more" from your Store purchase.  Steam provides value to Squad in the form of those services outlined above (and maybe more?) and without Steam, Squad has to provide those services on their own.  In other words, Steam taking their cut for the services they provide is likely as expensive as Squad providing those services on their own.  If that's not the case then one wonders why Squad finds any value in having KSP on Steam to begin with...

Edited April 12, 2016 by regex

[Ziff]

21 hours ago, SpacedCowboy said:

Yeah, it kind of makes me feel like Squad is shirking their original contract.

What contract are you talking about? Squad is under no obligation to provide you with access to any updates past the Official release of 1.0. The fact that they have continued to update the game and will continue to do so is very telling of the kind of company they are. The love KSP and they know how much we love KSP and they love that we love KSP. It's a great thing. 

8 hours ago, nli2work said:

the only real mistake was calling this a "Pre-Release" instead of "Open Beta". 

KSP is no longer in Beta as the game has officially been released. This is a major update to the game due to switching over to Unity 5 and as such it requires more testing than a normal update. Calling this update a Beta release would only confuse people about the status of the game. So the most accurate description is a pre-release of the 1.1 update. 

 

[Sandworm]

48 minutes ago, Ziff said:

What contract are you talking about? Squad is under no obligation to provide you with access to any updates past the Official release of 1.0. The fact that they have continued to update the game and will continue to do so is very telling of the kind of company they are. The love KSP and they know how much we love KSP and they love that we love KSP. It's a great thing. 

KSP is no longer in Beta as the game has officially been released. This is a major update to the game due to switching over to Unity 5 and as such it requires more testing than a normal update. Calling this update a Beta release would only confuse people about the status of the game. So the most accurate description is a pre-release of the 1.1 update. 

 

The fact that they are not calling this a "release" does get them out the obligation to provide me a copy.  But that's all semantics, lawyer speak.  They want to crawl back into a perpetual-beta mode of development.  That too is fine.  Squad long ago abandoned traditional development labels.  But to cut out all of us who have been with them for years is unfair.  It isn't illegal or a violation of a contract, it;s just a horrible thing to do to customers.  You can still be a jerk without violating a contract.  Squad has made that choice.

 

And to quote the OP, we are very much second class citizens.  There are the beta testers (steam), the media team, and us few for whom steam is not an option.  We don't have the privileges of the others and so are a second, if not a third, class.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Sandworm

[SpacedCowboy]

When I bought the game in mid 2013, can't remember exactly, the Store said I would be forever have access to any further updates.

[regex]

9 minutes ago, SpacedCowboy said:

When I bought the game in mid 2013, can't remember exactly, the Store said I would be forever have access to any further updates.

They have yet to renege on that promise so I'm not sure how that's relevant.