Has Battlefront considered the new Steamworks system?

[Ooog]

Just out of curiosity...

Personally, I really like Steam. There is a bit of a stigma attached to it from its early days, when it was incredibly buggy, but since about 2004 or so, it has become extremely stable.

Anyway, Steamworks is basically all of Steam's features available to game developers for free, including secure betas, automatic patching, crash data, ability for users to redownload the game, time-limited demos, etc.

I know it might be a little late for games that are already released, but could it be a possibility for future games? You would be getting your game in front of more gamers than is possible with any other system, including many Red Orchestra players...

Here is Valve's overview; it took me about 3 minutes to read:

Steamworks

I know Battlefront doesn't have much in the way of resources, but this could, in the long run, reduce costs through mass beta testing and increased sales.

PS, I emailed Valve, and they confirmed that Steamworks also includes the ability to collect data on gameplay statistics from all players (this can show where gamers get stuck or give up in single player games--probably not as useful for battlefront's games), as well as full digital distribution for free.

My motive in posting this is that Steam's convenience surpasses all other digital distro services, and I want to see Battlefront raking in as much $$$ as possible, so they have more resources to spend on games .

[gibsonm]

Well it has been raised before.

As to whether they are interested or not, I can't comment on that.

Also depends on whether it would be supported in the Mac version, I guess.

[Cpl Steiner]

The built-in multiplayer matching service might be just what the community is looking for, if BFC could make the game interface with it.

[-E]

And here I thought BTS was picking up steam! Now I find out they're running out of steam so badly that players are recommending they look at a steamworks engine?!?! *ack*

[Battlefront.com]

We've thought about it, contacted them, waited ages for a response, discussed their response, did some fact checking of our own, thought about it some more and concluded it has some good features for sure, but from a business standpoint (and I'm not just talking about cost) it isn't right for us.

So the answer is yes we've thought about it, and no it's not the direction we want to go in.

Steve

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Also depends on whether it would be supported in the Mac version, I guess.

Sorry, but how would this affect anything at BFC these days?

[gibsonm]

Well I’m working if this were implemented it would happen after the Mac version came out (which has been indicated as happening).

Therefore you’d need the features like “auto updates, blah, blah,” to work in two versions of the game.

[lucero1148]

It's been a long while since I last posted but I thought a Mac version was never coming out because the Intel Macs can play CMSF via boot camp. I'd prefer a Mac OS version as bootcamp means partioning your hd just for Windows and a waste of space to play one game. It's also a bit of a hassle to have to shift from Mac Os and re-boot into Windows.

If it wasn't such a good game I wouldn't bother with Windows at all.

Patrick

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We've thought about it, contacted them, waited ages for a response, discussed their response, did some fact checking of our own, thought about it some more and concluded it has some good features for sure, but from a business standpoint (and I'm not just talking about cost) it isn't right for us.

So the answer is yes we've thought about it, and no it's not the direction we want to go in.

Steve

OK what about Stardock's Impulse then?

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by lucero1148:

It's been a long while since I last posted but I thought a Mac version was never coming out because the Intel Macs can play CMSF via boot camp. I'd prefer a Mac OS version as bootcamp means partioning your hd just for Windows and a waste of space to play one game. It's also a bit of a hassle to have to shift from Mac Os and re-boot into Windows.

If it wasn't such a good game I wouldn't bother with Windows at all.

Patrick

Patrick,

Well there definitely will be a Mac version.

As to models, it will definitely run on Intel Macs. The only remaining issue is whether it can be coded to run on G5’s too or will it be “Intel Only”.

[Moon]

Originally posted by luderbamsen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We've thought about it, contacted them, waited ages for a response, discussed their response, did some fact checking of our own, thought about it some more and concluded it has some good features for sure, but from a business standpoint (and I'm not just talking about cost) it isn't right for us.

So the answer is yes we've thought about it, and no it's not the direction we want to go in.

Steve

OK what about Stardock's Impulse then? </font>

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Moon:

We believe that there is a limit as to what Digital Rights Management is about, and some of these systems (not necessarily those two mentioned here) basically go too far. That, too, is another reason why we want to remain in control.

Martin

Could you clarify what you mean by DRM "going too far" please?

[Moon]

luderbamsen, first off to clarify - I was not specifically referring to any of the systems mentioned here. So it's just a general statement: some (many? most?) DRM systems that are out there are extremely restrictive (e.g. allowing you to run a game on one computer only) and/or intrusive (e.g. allowing the rights holder to revoke your license "from the outside") and/or plain inconvenient (e.g. requiring online connection any time you run the game). From the back end there are often severe limitations, too, e.g. regarding the cash flow, and/or they are simply too expensive, asking for a substantial % of the revenue.

This is why we are using and running our own system. We are not completely independent but eLicense gives us as much freedom as we want and need.

The only thing we're lacking currently is a good multiplayer/community integration. Incidentally, we're working on that already, and we have just launched a multiplayer game list for Theatre of War last week, which allows you to look up what games are being played online in your browser for example. Since we can't throw a few dozen people at it this takes time, but we're getting there.

Martin

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Moon:

luderbamsen, first off to clarify - I was not specifically referring to any of the systems mentioned here. So it's just a general statement: some (many? most?) DRM systems that are out there are extremely restrictive (e.g. allowing you to run a game on one computer only) and/or intrusive (e.g. allowing the rights holder to revoke your license "from the outside") and/or plain inconvenient (e.g. requiring online connection any time you run the game). From the back end there are often severe limitations, too, e.g. regarding the cash flow, and/or they are simply too expensive, asking for a substantial % of the revenue.

Martin

Ah, I see, thanks. Well, that's pretty much what I (and I presume quite a lot of gamers too) want: No stupid and inconvenient DRM and revenue into the pockets of the developers (so they can make more content and more games).

Actually, I was under the impression that Impulse would pretty much offer exactly that: No unnecessary DRM and optimum revenue for independent developers. Then again, I'm hardly an expert on such matters (you don't have to answer, just letting you know in case you haven't checked out Impulse).

[Battlefront.com]

As Martin said... there is also the business aspect. Some of these systems (and I'm speaking in generalities) want a lot more for basically less than we currently have. They promise exposure and other things to make up the difference, but nothing more reassuring than words. Some systems are capital intensive (i.e. you pay a huge amount upfront per title) or take control of our money, the latter of which is something we would never allow.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that we broke away from the traditional system of doing business because of the problems for niche guys like us. These new systems are, too often, the same old system in a new form. They want control and to retain more than their services are really worth. We've had years to build up our own infrastructure so we don't have much incentive to move away from what we have. Not saying we won't... it's just it has to be BETTER than what we have. So far we haven't seen any reason to think that there is a greener lawn on the other side of the fence!

Steve