ShinyLoot Offers DRM-Free Catalogue of Indie Games

[Cognimancer]

ShinyLoot Offers DRM-Free Catalogue of Indie Games


A new digital distributor is in town to champion indie titles.

Digital distribution is quickly replacing brick-and-mortar game stores, and the new trend has done wonders for indie developers who would never be able to afford shelf space in a physical store. Still, many indie gems have a hard time getting noticed amid the big-name releases, even when distribution isn't a problem. A new distribution site called ShinyLoot [http://www.shinyloot.com/] aims to fix this, marketing a library of lesser-known games with little to no DRM.

ShinyLoot's goal is to "even the playing field" in terms of exposure. Users can customize their interests with over 130 traits, which the site will use to help you discover games you might like. The site currently boasts a library of 325 games, 70 of which include Steam and Desura keys. All games, including the ones with keys for other services, are available as DRM-free or minimal-DRM downloads, not unlike GOG's distribution service. No client is required to buy or play your games, and all titles are available worldwide.

The minimal DRM stance is sure to earn the fledgling distributor some internet brownie points. The only form of DRM the site allows is a one-time key validation (which GOG doesn't support), as ShinyLoot sees that as acceptably unobtrusive. It also takes its goal of increasing indie visibility seriously - whereas most digital distribution vendors greet you with a slideshow of blockbuster games, ShinyLoot's homepage [http://www.shinyloot.com/] is a simple search bar that asks what you're looking for in a game. It's a novel approach, and hopefully one that will bring some much-deserved attention to indie gems.

Permalink

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Interesting. Always good to see more competition in the digital-distribution arena, and unlike other efforts I could name (coughORIGINcough), these guys seem to "get it" when it comes to customer satisfaction.

 

[Queen Bee]

Good article, thanks for sharing about this new site!

 

[viranimus]

No DRM is applaudable. That is a major reason why indie is saving the gaming industry from the cataclysms it is making for itself.

However I do honestly have to wonder thought. This isnt 2006. Indie gaming is FAR from some obscure niche. There are already ample distribution platforms going, even DRM free kinds. In fact, indie right now is practically mainstream. Between Humble Bundles, Indie Royale, Groupees, Kickstarter & crowdfunding, Indie game stand, Many MANY other direct indie outlets not to mention Steam Greenlight, GOGs dedication and reliance on Indie that honestly adding another player into such a lively mixture might actually be pushing the boundaries of over saturation.

So I again applaud the intent, and the "done right" presentation. However as with anyone in any industry trying to start up a new business, the first thing you have to do is your homework and see what type of potential competition you will be going up against. If that overwhelming competition does not deter you the second step is establishing what YOUR offering does that cannot be satisfied elsewhere by means that already existed before you started. Basically what is "YOUR" contribution?

Guess I fail to see what this specific groups offering adds to the mix or how it sets itself apart from all the other options available.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No DRM is applaudable. That is a major reason why indie is saving the gaming industry from the cataclysms it is making for itself.

It's a sign we're moving out of the Consolidation and Collapse stage and into regrowth.
*Insert Phoenix metaphor here*

And more competition on PC is a good thing; especially anything that's forward thinking in a way that doesn't involve twisting the customer's arm into compliance.

 

[viranimus]

No DRM is applaudable. That is a major reason why indie is saving the gaming industry from the cataclysms it is making for itself.

It's a sign we're moving out of the Consolidation and Collapse stage and into regrowth.
*Insert Phoenix metaphor here*

And more competition on PC is a good thing; especially anything that's forward thinking in a way that doesn't involve twisting the customer's arm into compliance.

I do get what you are saying and you are expressing a widely agreed upon idea, but honestly I think that is something we are told by those who want to continue benefiting from competition. I am getting to the point where I honestly no longer think competition is a positive for any economic model.

Take a moment and look at operating systems. When Apple started their comeback, it was the best thing to happen to Microsoft. They enjoyed greater sales even in the face of apple taking a piece of their pie. Since then Apple and MS have been duking it out. Google has even entered the fray. The operating systems get more "modern" but all that is really happening is they are becoming more complex, and NOT in an efficent way.

Many times over its competition that results in an inferior product/experience. Just look at say Linux. An OS that its foundation is free software, backboned on the concept of collaboration and shared work to create a better product and honestly the experience the user has with Linux is more often than not more efficient, more logical, more intuitive, more productive than they could have had out of paid competing software options like apple or MS.

But aside from this philosophical ideological point, even looking at real world and practical examples, too much competition is just as bad if not every bit worse than too little or no competition at all. We have seen many companies rise and fall all because they lacked anything unique that set them apart in the market. They might have offered a good service but just not in a way that it would encourage others to switch from their existing options of choice.

Do not get me wrong. I am glad to see this site, and glad organizations are finally starting to realize that even if the big industry is content to abuse its customers, customers do NOT appreciate it and will gladly support what treats the customer as they should be treated. So to see more companies standing up to try to do something about these modern practices that should have never been allowed to proliferate always makes me smile, and encourages me for the future.

But a site that really has yet to illustrate what they do that is different and ideally superior to the likes of GOG, Humble Bundle, Indie Royal, Indie GameStand, Desura, and the various different widespread and accessible means people have at their disposal to gain access to indie game content, has not shown the customer the reason why they should redirect their buisness from any and all of those platforms, onto theirs.

 

[Falterfire]

Competition at absolute worst does not affect customers of the companies being competed against. Even if you never use anything but Steam, the mere existence of other platforms forces Steam to keep improving and doing sales and the like to prevent the other companies from gaining an edge. Sure, right now none of the other companies can really compete with GOG/Desura/Steam, but monopolies are bad and even the great companies shouldn't have it too easy.

All that said: I think ShinyLoot has stumbled right out of the gate by not kicking things off with a large sale or a giveaway of some variety. If you want people to notice you, you need to do something noticeable.

 

[Colt47]

Competition at absolute worst does not affect customers of the companies being competed against. Even if you never use anything but Steam, the mere existence of other platforms forces Steam to keep improving and doing sales and the like to prevent the other companies from gaining an edge. Sure, right now none of the other companies can really compete with GOG/Desura/Steam, but monopolies are bad and even the great companies shouldn't have it too easy.

All that said: I think ShinyLoot has stumbled right out of the gate by not kicking things off with a large sale or a giveaway of some variety. If you want people to notice you, you need to do something noticeable.

On the subject of steam and origin, I still think they use way too much ram when they could just use an online account system via browser.

 

[viranimus]

Competition at absolute worst does not affect customers of the companies being competed against. Even if you never use anything but Steam, the mere existence of other platforms forces Steam to keep improving and doing sales and the like to prevent the other companies from gaining an edge. Sure, right now none of the other companies can really compete with GOG/Desura/Steam, but monopolies are bad and even the great companies shouldn't have it too easy.

All that said: I think ShinyLoot has stumbled right out of the gate by not kicking things off with a large sale or a giveaway of some variety. If you want people to notice you, you need to do something noticeable.

I grant you, you are very much correct in that on a direct and the most obvious and clearly defined levels competition does not adversely effect customers on such a level.

Spoiler: Forewarning:

Please forgive, but this will be one of my infamous borderline doctoral thesis that evaluates and critiques the situation on deep levels in intricate detail. So a LOT of text incoming. Sorry.

Spoiler: Advisement:

The examples used to illustrate these points utilize steam. This is not to vilify steam or dismiss its industry validity. It is simply used to accurately reflect the wide disparity between the largest DD platform vs what might be its stiffest competition despite the massive disparity between the two in market share, industry clout, total content, style of policy, corporate outlook and culture. While it does focus more on negative aspects of Steam, it is only because those negatives are easily identifiable compared to other platforms. All platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, none more or any less valid than the other and all equally deserving of respect to their service as well as the customers who would chose to support them. Please do not misconstrue any direct hostility and animosity directed toward steam. All negative points illustrate are so due to the nature of the policy and without respect to the client of which they originate (LOL hate having to preface things just to try to keep people from taking unintended offense at negative aspects in order to attempt to avoid inadvertently upsetting someone)

Spoiler: Depth of spectrum

However, the issue at hand has a spectrum of depth that far exceeds that. Yes on a base economic level competition generally does not hurt the customer directly, however the nature of the economic system will have far reaching economic implications that effect the industry, manufacturers, retail and customers in a variety of ways.

So at first glance it is easy to look at multiple indie DD platforms and fall back on time tested ideology that more options for customers to spend money will foster competition between platforms in order to vie for the customers money, To scrutinize the scenario on a much deeper level it becomes apparent that while initially if it does in fact play out in such a manner the customer benefits on that one facet, however when there is over saturation and too many choices invariably there will be some manner of differentiating factor that distinguishes each platform from the others. That might be total library size, choice of publishers, policy for its sale pricing or frequency of sales, the end product the customer obtains or the ways the customer would be able to utilize the content. Not to neglect the various different company policies to which the customer is expected to adhere to in the utilization of the service.

Spoiler: Side by side in comparison A:

So again while you might have two platforms and for example we will compare GOG and Steam. The competition to vie for customers can indirectly effect a customer. While steam has its massive pull on the market share for example it means that more customers utilize their platform than GOG. There are consequences to that. For example having the lions share of the DD customers also has advantages such as having an absolutely massive library that dwarfs the competition as devs want to put their product on the platform that will gain them the most exposure. So because of that competition you would see GOG & Steam vie for an upcoming games licensing agreement exclusivity. Steam has greater power and industry influence so they have the greater probability to win an outright licensing bid. When the dust finally settles it might seem like the effect to the customer was never brought into question based on those circumstances but again upon deeper inspection and looking at the wide array of factors there has in fact been a huge impact to the customer.

Spoiler: Dictated and controlled by its environment

Given that we assume Steam won the rights, that means if it is a game a player is determined to play that means they have to go to steam to do so. That also means accepting with it Steams benefits along with their disadvantages, such as voluntarily discarding ones legal rights, Having the money they part with for the purchase be expressed with a product that invariably has extensively less value to the customer. It means accepting steams policies which view the purchase of content not as the sale of a product as GOG would see it, but as the issuing of a non refundable subscription license that can hypothetically be revoked at the discretion of Steam with or without the customers consent and regardless of what purchases the customer has made with steam should such actions be taken the severance will occur with absolutely no consideration to the customer for the value of the purchases made, no recompense for the purchases that steam is taking away from them.

Spoiler: Voluntary compliance to the rules of the environment

With steam also means accepting the way they will control the content as well as its pricing. Cant (without some finagling) run steam from multiple PCs at the same time. You "typically" can only run the game by first running steams Client and thus wasting usable system resources. Financially Steam used to use its industry clout to power generate customer effection with their seasonal and frequent sales that at one time represented incredible savings. However as Steam has picked up increasingly more competition from other DD clients we have in fact seen the opposite behavior from Steam with their prices being slower to decrease for market value. Steam is also notorious for over listing product MSRP in order to be able to say at sale time things like 65-85% off. However alternatively other platforms would have the same product similar sale, less percentage off but represent a more accurate up to date MSRP that results in the customer paying a few cents less after the dust settles. And over the course of the last year and a half Steams sale prices have increasingly become noticeably less impressive as well as even more defiant to accurately reflect MSRP. For example Summer sale 2012 listed Fable 3 total pack that included all DLC, Plus Fable TLC for 17.99 The winter sale that same year saw Fable 3 sold during the holiday sale for 17.99. Same cost to the customer, however dramatically less value not having the DLC content OR TLC, yet remaining the same price and in defiance to the downward spiral of MSRP and chosing to not reflect the depreciation of value that would occur in the 6 months between sales.

Spoiler: Side by Side comparison B: Differences in customer value

Getting back to the comparison, while we have established that Steam offers less overall value to the customer by selling a far more restrictive and far less guaranteed purchase through unreasonable terms and conditions, had GOG in fact won the bid the value would be even greater to the customer. By default any software that is completely DRM free is invariably more valuable to the customer than anything that is construed as a non transferable software license. It is more resilliant, easier to use not having to hit various client checkpoints, Less Orwellian by its mandate of client whereas with GOG offerings you can freely burn your purchased products to a disc and for all intents and purposes that disc will operate much like an old school physical disc media. No need to be connected to the internet. No "update this first before you can play" patching hoops. Just a simple installation that will be identical and exactly as effective in installing a century from now as it was the day it was burnt to disc. Such freedom even allows one to let friends "borrow" and even (psuedo) trade content. On top of all that, GOG historically has provided those who purchase their products similar effects to how physical distribution used to be. Products include things such as manuals and maps, plus other advantages unique to DD such as Soundtrack downloads, HQ avatar images, Supporting documentation, Developer provided extra content and all other imaginable bonuses that are like a cornucopia compared to what a customer would receive in exchange for purchase of the same product.

Spoiler: Comparing platform variance and implications

Also platform dictates policy. So things like day to day pricing structures, MSRP amount, Sale price, probability and frequency of sale opportunities will also differ greatly between platforms. As mentioned before while when items go on sale on Steam, the sale prices are normally deep cuts that almost seem too good to be true. In some of those cases however the steam sale price ends up higher by virtue of retaining a higher MSRP. Day to day regular purchase price also remains higher for a longer period on steam. Also there is consideration of equivalent exchange. For example multi platform games that have console releases. While MSRP for ANY computer software has traditionally (based on USD values) remained 10$ less expensive than their console counterparts for new vs new sales, the console versions retain again greater customer value by virtue of the assurance of the inherent value the capacity to sell the game at the owners discretion whereas that is not possible via steam. Also comparing those multiplatform titles you see that Steams prices barely remain competitive with other outlets sale prices when comparing steams version vs a console version and in fact rarely come close to the market value of the console versions when compared to the technically identical used console version pricing vs even steams sale prices.

Spoiler: Dominance and the power of control

Now as I have illustrated just some of the comparative variances that will effect and alter the customers value as well as in some cases direct pricing, one must also look at the effects of the action. For example as we hypothesized steam won bidding rights. That IP then became subject to the way Steam conducts business that while favorable to customers in certain respects it is less desirable in others. Now given Steams dominance on the market that invariably becomes a relevant factor as well. While steam displays its dominance, in some cases directly head to head price competing with other platforms the impact of that content being with steam comes in to play. When steam retains such market share, it gives them the capacity to leverage that dominance into expanding their advantages. That means that by virtue of being subject to steams policies, competitors will have to compete with steam often at disadvantage. Steam will utilize such advantages for example one platform might be able to sell Bethesda game X, whereas Steam will have the ability to sell the game PLUS its DLC content, of which steam is one of the few DD providers that will in fact put DLC prices on sale. Then there is the effects of dominance. Back in 2011, Sony was the first to broach the criminal(even if not legally it is in every possible sense) clause of requiring customers to forfeit their legal rights and customer protections. Failure to submit in voluntary compliance to Sonys unreasonable expectation would result in immediate restriction to accessibility of a fundamental console selling feature in all network connectivity as access to PSN would require the forfeiture compliance first. This also has deeper impacts. Essentially by requiring forfeiture via voluntary compliance Sony then essentially held customers legally purchased content hostage. Denying accessibility to content purchased while not under amended terms and conditions until the customer finally agrees to forfeit legal rights. Customers who refuse would not be granted any measure of recompense for the financial loss from this act of extortion. The content is not viewed as a product that was sold as it would be protected by traditional consumer protections such as first sale doctrine. The content is rather construed as a license subscription and is done so in order to bypass legal rights and customer protections to attain a financial transaction that forever remains clearly in favor of the company specifically at the expense of the customer.

Spoiler: Manifestation and consequences of power

All that elaborate explanation leads to this point. Having power allows one to exhibit that power. For example in the case of Sony and their "abandon your rights" proviso that amendment to their terms of service was quickly adopted by other content providers. First by Origin just days later, and later by the likes of Microsoft and Steam. Essentially an organization with control and power will be able to attempt to expand their control and power. They will gain advantage, almost always directly at the expense of the customer. Such practice is a slow but deliberate progressive action that continually in small increments will move the bar in their favor and as each plateau of claims on consumers is attained and willingly tolerated by customers, it will again ripple outward to other content providers. The more that adopt similar claims on customer protections and rights, over time will move what was once a bold test to take something a provider had no claim to and gradually so as it is seemingly less noticeable and painful to the customer transform that once bold step into industry standard operating procedure. Then by each inch gained in this process of attrition with time and consumer acceptance it opens the door for further gains to be taken from the customer. As such gains are tolerated by customers of one platform when such claims are attempted on other platforms it provides such attempts as more valid through the aforementioned attrition of standard operating procedure. So if we take this understanding and again apply it to the hypothesized indie bidding war example against GOG it presents yet another disparity that the competition between platforms creates to customers by the nature of the environment for which the content is distributed. So if Steam won this bidding, it means the content is subject to their policies. Given steam progressively adopts consumer hostile policies and hold exclusivity over said property it means that the customer is hurt by the direct competition of platforms because one platform won out on a piece of content and as a result the customer is subjected to paying similar, or in some cases higher prices in order to transact for a vastly inferior transaction that greatly favors only the DD platform. The content has inherently less value due to the policies governing it and restrictions on how the content can be accessed and what legal recourses protect the customer. Having power allows a content provider to more readily gain exclusivity to content that will force consumers to submit to unfavorable terms. It also allows the platform to control pricing in respect to market value.

Spoiler: Evaluation of the nature of competition and what effects customers will endure as a result

By every single relevant measure of what would be construed as beneficial to the customer we see that competition can and often does adversely effect the consumer with how digital distribution currently exists. Many times customers are forced to chose not to play what they wish or submit to unreasonable monitoring and control over the content, consumer hostile policies that often give the platform advantage that negates their need to "be competitive" to remain relevant. Granting control to the platform on ranging levels and the ease and ability to hold content hostage with nothing to adversely effect the platform to act as deterring consequence protecting customers giving them all the freedom to take away content at will with or without justification at the platforms whims. Having such power and control over the content then allows the platform to become greater than the content itself by giving it through its clout more power to reach for more and more to take away from customers and leave them with less in return. Through those methodical tests they can over patient and consistent detrimental forward momentum create an environment that the content is subjected to that becomes incredibly consumer hostile and as such power grabs are done with tolerance and negligible resistance the platforms forcible seizure controlling the content becomes so commonplace it becomes industry standard that virtually anywhere you attempt to obtain the content from is also subjected to the same or similar conditions adversely effecting the customer leaving them at a disadvantage with no recourse of better alternative.

Spoiler: Closer inspection required to observe scope and all impacts

So without question, Platform dictates the environment for content. Competition and a dominant market share force like steam have adversely effected customers resulting in customers being forced to tolerate vastly inferior returns for monetary transactions whilst tolerating decreasing and proactively reducing value for the money that IS exchanged. So what might seem like a question that can be perfectly addressed with tried and true principles, once you see that every and all situations are far deeper and more complex in the scope of what are the actual effects both long term and short term to not only the customer but the content, the platform and even the industry itself. It is all deeply and fundamentally interconnected so a philosophy that fails to consider such depth and inter connectivity cannot be fully and properly applicable to the situation and fails to accurately address the issue.

 

[ChrisatShinyLoot]

Hello, I'm Chris Palmarozzi, co-founder of ShinyLoot. There are some good points about analyzing the market, finding our place, and offering a worthwhile alternative to competitors. I'll try to address as much as I can.

The idea behind ShinyLoot (a minimal-DRM store to focus on indie games with 'traits') started in early 2011. However, work didn't begin until early 2012. Still, at that point GOG wasn't selling indie games, Amazon wasn't very relevant, and Greenlight didn't exist. Desura and IndieCity existed when development started but more serious indie game support by GOG/Steam was a much bigger deal. While those developments were probably good for consumers, it was obviously bad for us. It was unclear how everything would unfold so we finished development and launched our "open beta" in early March 2013.

ShinyLoot has always intended to be about finding indie games, which is why we have a system to search for games by individual traits. Our filters are much better at narrowing down game selection than competitors, but we have to continue growing our library for that to be relevant. I don't think we expect people to shop at ShinyLoot purely because of filters or our DRM stance or any other single reason.

The bundle sites are indirect competition. They affect us in that when a game is owned, it's not going to be purchased on our site. However, we're focused on providing on demand results with our search/filters. The ability to purchase individual bundles lasts a short time then goes away. Our games are always available. So if you want whatever games are offered in the current bundle(s) then that's great. If you want a particular game you haven't experienced, we hope ShinyLoot can help you find it.

GOG is clearly our closest competitor in terms of feature sets. We sell games with one time key validation which allows us to sell some really quality games (like Creeper World series) that GOG won't sell. We also support Linux for all of our games. I think if you compare how we sort our games, our system allows for a more tailored experience. Finally, we offer free Desura/Steam keys (where applicable) in addition to Minimal/No-DRM downloads. GOG is an awesome service, but I think those factors make for strong differentiation.

I think our strongest asset is perhaps our flexibility. Our clientless website is designed to make fast, frequent changes, and that is exactly what we've done the past 3 months. I'm now active on reddit, CAG, neoGAF, and any community people want to talk to me. I don't know that many distributors will offer that kind of communication. Heck you can email support to talk about your favorite game, and either me or our other co-founder would still reply. Gaming is about fun and we try to showcase from most people's first experience on ShinyLoot when they receive one of four welcome emails with a (hopefully) humorous and lighthearted touch.

As to the sale coming out of the gate, in May we did run a 2 week, 60+ indie game sale on most of our games offering Steam/Desura keys. It had some coverage (mainly on deal sites) but not as much as I think was warranted. I was very happy to see Brett post this article because it gives me the opportunity to talk to people about who we are and what we need to do to be relevant.

I could probably expand more, but this is already pretty long so feel free to ask any follow ups.

 

[lacktheknack]

The story, discussion and guest appearance has now completely blown my mind.

And hey, an indie-based gog.com with a unique game search engine is always fun to have around.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I do get what you are saying and you are expressing a widely agreed upon idea, but honestly I think that is something we are told by those who want to continue benefiting from competition. I am getting to the point where I honestly no longer think competition is a positive for any economic model.

Well, I've seen what happens when the market fails to compete and its largest firms aren't feeling so benevolent (like Steam; they could leverage some truly heinous shit onto their users right now if they wanted to).

Home ISPs in the United States are locked in a Duopoly Cartel, resulting in the US being ~7 years behind the rest of the developed world in bandwidth while charging an arm and a leg. Three firms own over 85% of the market share, and have, over the past decade, divvied up the regions in such a way as to minimize competitive overlap.

Until 2009, I was still on dial-up because cable rates were insane.
From the period of 1998 to 2009, in my region, dial-up cost 5-25 dollars a month, and cable cost 40-130 USD.

Cable is currently 80/month on account of Verizon offering FIOS and DSL in the region.
Prior to that (2008) it went as high as 130/month; the Comcast Complete Package. At the time, Comcast was only offering that one package in my neighborhood because they knew they had the market by the balls.
(their advertisements touted 70/month, but turns out, those were only introductory prices)

As soon as Verizon entered the area and started competing, the prices slowly dropped and their services suddenly had more options.

As for competition in gaming: This is tricky because digital goods fall under the Natural Monopoly type.
And that fact makes all sorts of unpleasant things possible, and complicated.