I read a news announcement about a new freeware program that does some cool stuff. I check it out and it is vastly superior to an existing freeware program. Yet when I read the comments, the new, superior freeware program is being flamed. Why? Because the guy making it also offers a for-pay version that has more features.
I check out the forums of a game I enjoy playing. Normally people are singing the praises of this game. Now, the forum is full of flaming and angst. Why? Because the developer started offering optional premium content for players if they want.
Let me tell those complainers a truth about life: Money is exchanged for goods and services.
Before the current generation of l33t-speaking complainers became the norm on the net, we had a concept called shareware. Someone would make something cool and offer a version of it to try. This version might time out or it might have fewer features or it might just work on the honor system. If users liked it, they bought it. End of story.
Nowadays, we have it better. People make free stuff and release it. No nags. No missing features when compared to other "free" competitors. No time outs. But the developers will also release an even better version. And the complainers get vocal.
What annoys me is that the whiners are attempting to bully people from making stuff that many people like me want. I don't live with my mom in her basement. I don't begrudge paying a few dollars to someone who made something I want. I recognize that I already pay $80 a month for my cell phone and $60 a month for cable so bitching about paying $9 to $20 for something I want is pretty ridiculous.
And I certainly recognize that the mere existence of premium stuff doesn't hurt me. If I want it, I'll pay for it. If I don't, I won't.
Let me give you two examples:
The program ObjectDock is the best dock out there. We make it so I'm biased but it has far more features than any dock out there. It's also free. You want a cool dock on Windows, this is what you get. But there is also ObjectDock Plus. It's $20 but adds a ton of features like tabbed docks. And so what do people say? They'll say that ObjectDock is "payware" or "crippleware". Why? Because a non-free improved version exists.
Similarly, I love Team Fortress 2. It is a great game. And you know what? If Valve created a new character I could play as for say $10 I'd buy it in an instant. I want more characters in TF2 to play as. But you know the reaction they'd get. They'd probably get flamed because the parasite-class would argue that they should get that for free because buying something once to them means that the developers are perpetual slaves to them after.
I understand that we all want to keep from getting nickled and dimed but one assumes that we can make our own judgments as to whether something is worth it or not and allow others to make the same judgment.
Alfonse,
Your statement that users are forced to buy optional content packs seems to be entirely based on the assumption that those content packs hold fixes to bugs, or somehow complete an otherwise incomplete product. That the existence of a content pack implies that part of the original game was somehow intentionally limited so we could sell the extra $10 download.
You also talk about how it's obvious we make more off of expansions than we do off of the main game.
You're making a ton of huge assumptions in your argument. You're saying that users are FORCED to buy that extra content on the ASSUMPTION that we have or would intentionally cripple the core game to sell the packs later on.
By that argument, you could say that people are FORCED to buy expansion packs, or that we have intentionally crippled the original game so we could make expansions later on to sell.
*IF* a game is released where core features have been intentionally removed so they could be sold as optional content packs, then you have something of a case stating that a user must purchase them to complete the game (though even in this case they're not forced to. There's no gun to their head). But the existence of content packs does not mean that the core game is somehow incomplete as a result. One does not necessarily imply the other.
Saying that the existence of optional content means the main game is incomplete is like saying the ground it wet, therefore it must have rained. Someone could have poured a bucket of water on the ground, or a pipe nearby might have burst, or someone might have spilled a drink.
But at no point are you FORCED to purchase anything.
Not angry. Just busy so fewer fluff words between statements.
I'm not saying that such extra-content couldn't be abused. You shouldn't be giving other players an advantage.
But let's say it's an RPG. I don't think adding, say a "Barbarian" class to an existing RPG that didn't have that class would debalance the game.
I can be talked into agreeing that adding new characters to TF2 would be a bad idea, but I don't think it's universally a bad idea.
The game example I gave earlier was adding specific features to Galactic Civilizations II such as an expanded United Planets feature.
That's the key part: Stardock not only isn't a publicly traded company but I'm the primary shareholder and I don't need more money. I'm fine.
That said, I WANT to be able to keep working on games I like working on without losing money on it.
Past poor behaviour is the telling point. Past GOOD behaviour is, likewise.
In any commercial endeavour the number one priority is 'good reputation'. Past behaviour establishes that.
If people want to go through life worrying about what 'might' happen 'if' ...then they'd be wise not to pop off down the street to even purchase a game....that rampaging herd of pink elephants may scuff their sneakers....
WHEN the sky is falling.....is the perfect time to yell "the sky is falling"....
Oh, so you mean people should run around screaming "the sky might fall.....or maybe not".
That'll work well...and shows the real value of all of this, doesn't it?
There IS only one time to state "the sky IS falling"...and that is when it actualy IS doing so. All else is conjecture guesswork and [as used in other similar threads] FUD.
Nostrodamus gets it wrong with monotonous regularity too...premonitions are nothing more than spin-doctored coincidences laced with embellishment and interpretation.
Past performance [good conduct/reputation] is how to prejudge, if you MUST prejudge. Assuming people will be evil because the option exists for them to be evil is more than cynicism, it's condemnation.
There exists the potential for ALL sorts of crap to happen in ALL walks of life. If you must pre-empt it all simply because the potential exists then you're in for a pretty neurotic life. Maybe that's what happened to the dinosaurs....it wasn't a meteor at all....they just woke up one day and thought "shit...there might be a meteor....we're all going to die" ...so they did...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account