Option 3 if it gets it into my greedy paws early Beta testing here we come (at your earliest convenience)!
im good for option 3 but you should do a pool thingie with 3 choices and i would vote for 3 as i see a lot of people want 3
Option 3, by all means. I know some people who don't work with steam will be disappointed initially. But we also need to consider what's best for development. For the beta, steam is a good idea until the updates are less frequent.
I'm fine with option 3, as I'm a Steam user for quite a time now, and it does help a lot when it comes to automanaging updates and cataloguing one's games list. Just wished their "achievements" system was not so pointless and inconsequential (not that much sense of progress) but hey, it's good anyways.
3 would make it easer for everyone and properly get the game out sooner anyway. But one unrelated question is will there be a way to change back the version of starbound during beta stage 1,2 or 3?
is that a fox or a Chihuahua? also: alas the hand held starbound shall forever be out of our reach. save for the in game tech called handheld gaming device.
Option 3 sounds like the way to go. As updates will be more frequent in the first stages of the beta, it'd be best to have somebody get the updates automatically over needing to check to see if the DRM free version gets updated. They'd also need to know that their characters may get wiped, of course, and that any progress is not guaranteed to be there the next time they start up the game no matter the option that is chosen. The DRM-free version should be released when the game is more stable, and updates aren't nearly as frequent.
I'd like everyone who said 3) to answer this for themselves: If you're planning on using the Steam version, what makes you think your vote should count? It's much like asking Canadians who should be the president of the USA. They might have a preference, but giving them any say in the matter is ridiculous. Having said that, 1) or 2). Of course, 1) is inconvenient, and 2) defeats the purpose of a beta test from the testing perspective. Therefore, we're going to get three, what was what we were going to get anyway. Of course, not every person who intends to play the beta also intends to actually beta test in the sense of reporting bugs. Some just want a preview of the game. I'd personally have gladly reported bugs, but I'm fine with only being allowed to play (of course, if they use an actual bugtracker, reporting bugs would still be possible, one would just search the tracker and report if no results come up). So, no, 3) is not okay. Why should I be forced to wait until the finished version is released just because I don't wish to support Valve and Steam and DRM and vendor lock-in? Did you enjoy awaiting the beta? Wasn't that pleasant an experience. Now imagine someone telling you "no beta for you, but will still give you the finished version...most likely...unless we extend "DRM-free" to include mandatory third-party software without which your purchase is 1) unavailable and/or 2) crippled in some significant way". Please note I'm not asking for anything that wasn't in the deal. Access to beta was there. Access to beta only through Steam (= beta not being DRM-free) wasn't. In any case, I'd like to see a final decision before the beta, so as to avoid any complications later on.
I don't like 2 the idea of having two separate versions of the same game just irritates me and it could split the community temporarily. I don't mind Option 1 but it could unnecessarily extend the first stage of the beta, frustrating people. I don't like limiting people to a steam key if I don't have to but from the sounds of it 3 is the best.
It's easy to look at those options and say 3 is the better choice by far. I personally want all my stuff tracked on steam from the moment I start playing. AND I don't see why game progress should be delayed/slowed by the few that would rather you guys put more time and effort in DRM-free updates.
