The existence of for-pay stuff doesn't hurt you

Published on April 22, 2008 By Draginol In Personal Computing

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.

Comments (Page 10)

136

Alfonse

on May 05, 2008

Actually Shareware, before the term was utterly bastardised, was software that was free to copy for other friends. Usually the program was feature complete, but the programmer asked for donations, but wanted it copied and spread. Hence the name "SHAREware". The term began being butchered in the mid 90's and lost all meaning. What is known as shareware these days is more accurately nagware or crippleware. I get tired of the misrepresentation of the term shareware, since when it first started being used it meant NOTHING like what it has become.

Tough. Language changes. Words change meaning. The definition of a word is what people decide what it is. And terms like "nagware" or "crippleware" are a priori insulting to the software itself. I mean, would you develop a program that you intended to use as what is commonly referred to as "shareware" and advertise it as "crippleware"? Of course not; the world insults the product.

So, what do you call "shareware" that is neither crippled (ie: is quite useful. EditPadLite, for example) nor nags (EditPadLite, once again), yet has a for-pay version that offers more features?

Besides, according to Wikipedia, the term "freeware" was born before "shareware". So it makes perfect sense to change the latter one to something different, as the former more effectively describes what it is.

It's a double standard, and your attitude is extremely whiny and unprofessional. You've invoked every cliche (living in their moms basement), every insult (calling them parasites). It's pathetic really. I expected better from you.

I understand where the rant is coming from, and I understand why the tone is there. I can't say that I expected better from him, but I also can't understand why he felt the need to post it. This is usually the sort of thing you say/write when you're honked off at something and need to vent.

The main problem with the piece is that it disrespects the other side. It isn't necessarily factually erroneous, but it does needlessly disrespect people who might be arguing a point for a different reason than the one he presented. Like the various fears of developers gaming such a system to cause an invisible price-hike for similar levels of content.

137

Fuzzy Logic

on May 05, 2008

Gump got it wrong. Life ISN'T a 'box of chocolates'....it's more a box of chocolates from which several are missing....and as luck/life has it, the ones you'd REALLY prefer just aren't there.

You learn to 'take it on the chin', and deal with it....

That's why you should be content with, and enjoy, the ones you have. It is almost certain someone else will have either less or more than you

138

Jafo

on May 05, 2008

I'm a writer. I get paid to write. I can't charge the people I write for extra if I add a few paragraphs after they've paid for the initial article.

You can't?

You have an issue with your business-model then.

I've been a professional for 34 years....and if a client wants an extra drawing/detail he pays for it....irrespective of whether he paid for the 'initial' bit or not....

139

Old_Crab

on May 05, 2008

Hmmmmmm.....don't make Frogboy angry.....he could if he wanted......take his bat and ball and go home....then just where might we all be?......

140

Bodyless

on May 05, 2008

I'm a writer. I get paid to write. I can't charge the people I write for extra if I add a few paragraphs after they've paid for the initial article.

You can't?
You have an issue with your business-model then.
I've been a professional for 34 years....and if a client wants an extra drawing/detail he pays for it....irrespective of whether he paid for the 'initial' bit or not....

There is a difference between writing on demand and writing and then forcing the demand (and payment) from the customer.

The first is good, but he described the latter.

141

Frogboy

on May 05, 2008

There is a difference between writing on demand and writing and then forcing the demand (and payment) from the customer.The first is good, but he described the latter.

So people are forced to buy optional content?

142

SanChonino

on May 05, 2008

So people are forced to buy optional content?

Well, duh, Brad. You totally FORCED me to buy a WinCustomize subscription. I didn't have any choice in the matter. Same with Twilight.

Don't you remember the part where you held the gun to my head and made me input my Paypal information? Or did that slip your mind?

143

Frogboy

on May 05, 2008

I'd be pissed off if Valve chucked out another character for $10. A full expansion, fair enough. But $10 for ONE CHARACTER... That's taking the piss.

I take it you don't eat out much then. One Long Island Ice Tea can cost $7 and it lasts (for me anyway) about 20 minutes and it's gone.

But you'd be "pissed" if someone made a character that you might spend weeks, months or years enjoying because they charged a whopping $10 for?

Video games aren't food, clothing, or shelter. You don't have to purchase them. The mere existence of stuff you aren't willing to pay for doesn't hurt you in the slightest.

144

Frogboy

on May 05, 2008

Well, duh, Brad. You totally FORCED me to buy a WinCustomize subscription. I didn't have any choice in the matter. Same with Twilight.

Don't you remember the part where you held the gun to my head and made me input my Paypal information? Or did that slip your mind?

Well yea but I don't do that to every user of course. We have goons for that...

145

Frogboy

on May 05, 2008

From the folk bitching on message boards I expect it, but to see such whining from someone in the industry who I HAD respected... Asinine ranting like this is enough for me to reconsider evangelizing Stardock as a company who "gets it", as clearly your attitude is just as pathetic as the rest of them out there.

So you lose respect for me because I object to people who try to bully companies into taking away options from customers?

That was, after all, the 1 sentence summary of the article.

You don't want to pay $10 for some extra content, that's your right. If it doesn't meet your needs, then don't buy it. But that's not what happens. People will create such a public uproar that it causes companies to simply not release anything at all.

It is unfortunate that Oblivion started with the Horse Armor thing because I could see where people might have been willing to pay $10 for more content as long as the content was sufficient.

And my example of being willing to buy more content for TF2 or some other game is still valid - if *I* as a gamer want to buy something, why shouldn't I be able to simply because there are people who don't want to pay for it?

In the real world, if someone puts out some widget that I don't like, I don't buy it. On the Internet, people not only don't buy it but take it on themselves to try to force the product off the market at the drop of a hat.

146

Frogboy

on May 05, 2008

I'm a writer. I get paid to write. I can't charge the people I write for extra if I add a few paragraphs after they've paid for the initial article. And yet here you are, bitching about people being upset having to do that with computer software.

Your analogy is flawed.

No one is stopping you from TRYING to charge extra for providing additional paragraphs. If people think those extra paragraphs are worth it, they'll buy it. Otherwise, they won't.

By contrast, to use your analogy, in the software world it is more like I write an article that I give away for free but then people scream that I also sell a book that expands on the topic covered by the article.

147

mrkingpest@gmail.com

on May 05, 2008

Now Brad, Did you wake up on the foot side or the pillow side of the bed today.

Man you seem angry-- oh well still-- gonna be laughing at this one for a while

"Seriously, could you wander off somewhere else."

148

Jacob Marley

on May 05, 2008

The irony of all this, is that computer software is about the only place where people act as though they are entitled to everything for free. When is the last time any of you walked into Macy's, picked up an expensive designer watch, and expected to walk out with it for free? (Unless you really want to take a ride in that cool black and white car with the flashing lights in the top?) For the most part, people understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, it's just that for some reason, when they get on-line, some people don't think that this rule applies any longer.

149

Bodyless

on May 05, 2008

There is a difference between writing on demand and writing and then forcing the demand (and payment) from the customer.The first is good, but he described the latter.

So people are forced to buy optional content?

Yes, in some case they are. Thats the point we were trying to make.

See my other post:

The hate for such "for pay stuff" originated from games where you had to buy additional features to enjoy the original game in the first place. Mainly online games where you needed to buy something to be able to compete with other players.

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.

This might be an example dependig how balanced the new character would be. If it was so overpowered that you had to play the new character yourself to not being bashed all over the place by other players, it would be almost like forcing everyone to pay $10 to continue playing. Now would you want that?

Now alot of people hate such for pay content and wont make a differnce between "good" and "bad" ones.

150

krdrevil

on May 05, 2008

I think the addition of for-pay stuff is always a good idea in single-player, and under certain conditions, for multiplayer.

To me, in competitive multiplayer, balance is of utmost importance. The best example of where the line is for me is the difference between Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2. I bought BF1942 and both expansions, and enjoyed the game for years. I bought BF2 and only played until the first expansion.

The difference is that for the 1942 expansions when you played the expanded content, you only played with others who had that expanded content. In BF2 they allowed the expansion weapons to be used in the standard maps against people who didn't have access to those weapons. I considered that to be unfair, and immediately lost interest in the game. I won't buy any further games in the series, because I would expect them to eventually unbalance it again in this way.

Your TF2 example would be a case where I would only like it if I had the option to play on servers only with others who don't have the expanded content. If so, I'd almost certainly buy the bonus character. If not, you have games where not all tactical options are available to both sides. I would love to see them add pay-for content to TF2, but only if they allowed people to play the stock game on stock servers. Otherwise, we could easily get into the treadmill that collectible card games perpetrate. You can't keep up with your peers unless you keep spending...

For a strawman, let's say I bought an online chess-matchup game and enjoyed it. Then the developer introduced pay-for content that allowed the buyer to replace one bishop with a second queen, and then matched up those with the pay-for content with those who didn't buy it. I would leave that service permanently, and perhaps a bit grumpily. I wouldn't mind, however, if those with the bonus always played together.

Now it's their game, they're free to change whatever they think brings the most value to the most people, and at what price. It's not anything worth getting upset or flaming developers about, we're playing games not curing cancer here. If I don't like it, I just won't buy it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!