lol, thanks for the link, this quote is pure gold:
"I said to them 'So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for [you], using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits?' They said, 'Yes'."

I mean... seriously?
(One can either be amused or sad about this. Currently I'm amused, maybe tomorrow I'll be sad)

I imagine Obsidian will disclose how many digital copy backers take the GOG option. It should be easy to see how much the DRM-free market accounts for by totalling the pledges from those who redeem their digital copy via GOG, and I don't see why Obsidian wouldn't tell us that either.

That wouldn't tell you how many people pledged or increased their pledge because of a DRM-free option, but it would provide a tangible assessment of demand.

That really is disturbing, just how oblivious the suits are...

If the DRM free announcement had an noticeable impact, there will be a spike in pledges. The end amount is unimportant, the next two days are interesting.

Actually, that is a very interesting concept for a Kickstarter. In the end the publisher would act more as a multiplier, turn a 3 mio pledge into a 30 mio budget. And of course the profits would go mostly to the publisher, as he is in it with 27 mio. But the devs would have a bigger cut then usually and higher creative control as their vision attracted the pledgers.

But those kickstartes would have to be transparent and open to work. Also, the pledges would need to be more like "early pre-orders".

I don't think this is conceptually and "ingorant" idea. I think this could actually open up the market for "non-gaming" financiers, as they don't need to do a market evaluation or quality control. That would be what the pledgers provide. Than even a bank or some investment group could be interested into financing a game (which would mean less executive meddling, as they have no clue).

As you say that would be an indicator, but companies rarely divulge this kind of information, even if it seems harmless to people outside the industry. It is kinda frustrating.

Lol, are you serious? Is there a two day deadline for the DRM free option?
But then again nothing like an arbitrary statistics to prove your point...

I personally would stay as far away from that type of kickstarter as possible. If it were structured as you laid out, that would mean the publisher would have a 90% stake in the project, which would mean they'd want to control many or all aspects of it. And we all know how that turns out. It's the reason Obsidian is doing this kickstarter project in the first place.

I'd already pledged $20 in hopes that they would have a DRM-Free option. If they didn't and decided to stick with steam I was just going to cancel my pledge before the end date. I'll most likely up my pledge and get a boxed version. I'm supposed to get a boxed version of Wasteland 2 and I wish I had got one of the boxed versions for the Double Fine Adventure game.

I see what you're saying, but I still have grave doubts about how much clout the devs would have with only a 10% stake in the funding.

I think people would be fools if they're expecting something like that. I'm certainly not, but I do have high expectations that this particular kickstarter will be a great example of the type of game it's intended to be, as well as being of high quality. I don't expect a AAA style graphics type of game.

Nope, not for something like a FO:NV or Mass Effect style of game. But for an 'indie' style game? It's a lot.


Although I agree there may be somewhat of an increase, still you shouldn't discount that many people may already have pledged with the intent that they'd pull the funding if they didn't get the DRM-free option they wanted. They may have pledged to get in on things like the 'early bird' discount or to show that there's support and interest for this type of project.

There really isn't any kind of reliable conclusion you can draw about the pledges over the next couple of days. Just not enough data.

Don't forget Kickstarter is just a more glorified way of opening pre-alpha pre-orders for a fixed window, which is all the more remarkable considering most AAA pre-orders take place when the game's about to enter retail. Going by past comments I've seen on other sites like RPS and Indiegames, there's a sizable proportion of people who prefer to wait for the final product before the vote with their wallet.

And what will it change either way ? Will it really make your day that much better to discover that, big surprise, peoples wanting DRM-free version are a minority ? Seriously for somebody who don't care about DRM you sometime seem more obsessed about them than most of the anti-DRM zealots are, myself included.

You have your Steam version and the tiny winy anti-DRM minority has its DRM-free version; that's the important part; everybody should be happy.

If anything the only thing that it could possibly "prove" is that a loud minority can sometime "change" things while a silent majority most probably never will.

Non-Steam is great news. I just doubled my pledge. Congrats GOG.

I got a question for the GOG staff, concerning the game and kickstarter. I know that backers can choose where their copy comes from, but will GOG give the kickstarter-exclusive item to everyone who buys from GOG, or is it just for backers?

Personally, I hope that everyone gets the exclusive on GOG, because that would pertain to all games on the GOG catalog being complete.

Smart move Obsidian. I'll get a copy when it gets here.