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 4)

Vinraith

on Apr 23, 2008

No, I was referring to you. Asking for the "modicum of respect" is a pretty hefty form of appeasement - one might say you seem to feel yourself "entitled" to said respect.

He is entitled to a modicum of respect, any poster who himself behaves respectfully is. I have to admit I'm a little baffled by Brad's unnecessary hostility in that response, I chalk it up to being overworked and generally being in a bad mood.

Fungus

on Apr 23, 2008

No, I was referring to you. Asking for the "modicum of respect" is a pretty hefty form of appeasement - one might say you seem to feel yourself "entitled" to said respect.

You seem to forget, I *did* pay for the software. That *does* entitle me to a little respect. It's not a "hefty form of appeasement". I didn't complain about the fact that they charge for their software. I owned up and purchased it because I felt that it was worth it. Since when does that give someone (especially the CEO of the company I paid the money to) to treat me like garbage? Business 101 my friend. I paid for the software, I recommend it to people. I don't expect any exceptional treatment, just normal respect. How is that "hefty appeasement"? Do you pay for software, or any goods or services, which the expectation to be treated like garbage to the person you just paid the money to? C'mon, you're just being ridiculous here if you think otherwise.

Fungus

on Apr 23, 2008

I find it sad that you consider Frogboy's comments unprofessional. He simply stated what many people who read your post were thinking - and without the profanities that most would have answered with.

What I find sad is, you and several others applaud Brad for "speaking his mind", yet chastise me for speaking mine.

Fungus

on Apr 23, 2008

I'm willing to chalk it up to such too (he did admit putting in a lot of work on GalCiv2 at the moment). I'd rather just bury the hatchet, because frankly, I *do* really like Stardock products, and was hoping to get into skinning more, and I'd hate to be turned off by what basically amounts to a case of the grumps

Tsed

on Apr 23, 2008

I'd love to put up a module that just changes the United Planets in GalCiv II. Or a module that adds new types of planets or new super abilities or new random events or whatever. But I'm not doing that for free. We'd have to be paid for it. I'd probably ask for $9.95 or something per module. But would we get massively flamed? Probably.

Eh, there'd be some flaming, but retards will bitch about anything. They're just noise.

Personally, $10 for a UP overhaul (bribes please!) would be a sale for me.

Now, I mentioned in the earlier thread that I wouldn't be interested in an earlier thread that I would NOT be interested in a subscription, but that's due to something else entirely -- how I use the game. In that case, it's got nothing to do with the cash, and everything to do with the fact that I play GC2 in spurts, and a subscription doesn't really lend itself to that, as far as I'm concerned. The money isn't so much the issue as that during most months, I'd be paying for nothing.

Micro-transactions, on the other hand, appeal in a number of ways. I get new content cheap, and a sense of ownership. Yeah, yeah, we all know we don't "own" GCII, we license it, etc. But having the subscription looming overhead sorta implies a "if I stop paying, I lose my features!", whereas with the micro-transactions, I know that after our money has exchanged hands, that updated content will be mine to use for the forseeable future. More a psychological difference, but hey, it's how I feel about these things.

THAT SAID.

If $10 for a UP overhaul is what you guys have in mind for a cost-to-content ratio for microtransactions, I genuinely think the option has some real potential.

Frogboy

on Apr 23, 2008

What I find sad is, you and several others applaud Brad for "speaking his mind", yet chastise me for speaking mine.

No Fungus, they simply believe we both have the right to speak our minds. You are the one arguing that I don't have the right to speak my mind -- your original response explicitly stated that my post (i.e. me speaking my mind) made you less likely to purchase our software. To which I responded with basically "Oh wah, don't buy our software then".

You have the right to speak your mind and I have the right as well. And I also understand that there are consequences to speaking ones mind (i.e. potentially lost sales by the sensitive people of the world) but clearly I've made the choice that I value the freedom to say what I want over maximizing sales. I've long since passed the point where I need to do anything at all. I could have retired awhile ago. So I am not inclined to put up with anything I don't want to put up with. I just want to be free to make cool stuff and speak my mind.

As I said elsewhere, I am kind of a jerk. I am just usually less tired so I am able to simulate non-jerkiness better. But my answer to someone telling me what I can and can't say publicly is always to tell them not to buy our stuff. In the OS/2 days (when I was younger and even grumpier) I used to forcibly refund people's products and then black list them from buying anything from us in the future when they'd complain about me writing an opinion piece. But I'm better now.

DethAdder

on Apr 23, 2008

I think the shareware model is a good one and over the years I've found a lot of good products that I have bought. In fact I rarely by games or software that I can't try a demo of at least.

I actually didn't realize there was such a large group opposed to the practice. It is a perfectly sensible way of showing off your products to potential customers. Shareware had been used for many years(Had the Shareware Wolfenstein 3D on my 386DX which I later bought way on back), It just seems that any bitching about it would of long been over after all this time. Then again, new generations of these people are gettin online for the first time everyday.

Vinraith

on Apr 23, 2008

This is why most companies have PR people. No human being can be expected to code and be friendly to customers (leastwise at the same time), that's just not human.

Now about that UP upgrade...

Tsed

on Apr 23, 2008

But my answer to someone telling me what I can and can't say publicly is always to tell them not to buy our stuff. In the OS/2 days (when I was younger and even grumpier) I used to forcibly refund people's products and then black list them from buying anything from us in the future when they'd complain about me writing an opinion piece. But I'm better now.

Hilarious and awesome.

This is why most companies have PR people. No human being can be expected to code and be friendly to customers, that's just not human.

I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

Vinraith

on Apr 23, 2008

I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

Exactly what I was thinking of.

Mumblefratz

on Apr 23, 2008

Let me tell the whiners a truth about life: Money is exchanged for goods and services

And the corollary to this is: You can't buy love, but you sure can rent it.

This also reminds me of when the Red Cross started asking people if they've ever exchanged sex for money before giving blood. I knew a young woman (not quite so young anymore, I know because I married her) that asked "Does jewelry count”. I have to assume that jewelry doesn’t count since from my experience that would preclude most women from donating blood.

ColdSteelRain

on Apr 23, 2008

Ass, gas, or grass, nobody rides for free.

Crude, but succinct.

Fungus

on Apr 23, 2008

You are the one arguing that I don't have the right to speak my mind -- your original response explicitly stated that my post (i.e. me speaking my mind)

I never said you couldn't say what you wanted to, I just found it rather... odd to read a CEO so blatantly trash talking. I run my own business as well, and I couldn't imagine talking that way to a customer or potential customer (unless they started the confrontation first, and even then I try to settle the issue diplomatically. Trash talk is always a last resort). I merely pointed out that your rant was unprofessional (was I wrong?), and the fact you were willing to treat potential customers as such (ie total lack of respect) did take me aback. We all have bad days when we are tired and grumpy and tend to take things out on other people. We just shouldn't make a habit of such things, IMO. I enjoy Stardock products and don't regret purchasing them. But I see nothing wrong in asking you to keep in mind that people spend their hard earned money on such products. If I wanted to pay for someone to trash talk to me, I'm sure I could find someone a LOT prettier than you

WIllythemailboy

on Apr 23, 2008

Let me tell the whiners a truth about life: Money is exchanged for goods and servicesAnd the corollary to this is: You can't buy love, but you sure can rent it. This also reminds me of when the Red Cross started asking people if they've ever exchanged sex for money before giving blood. I knew a young woman (not quite so young anymore, I know because I married her) that asked "Does jewelry count”. I have to assume that jewelry doesn’t count since from my experience that would preclude most women from donating blood.

That pretty well sums up my theory of relationships - ALL women charge for sex, we just have a label for those that expect cash

This also may explain my spectacular failures in this venue

Alfonse

on Apr 23, 2008

Ahh, but there's a question here: Should you be "massively flamed" for it? That is, would the people flaming you be wrong for doing so?

The reason I wouldn't agree with this is that it lacks holistic game design. It rests on the idea that games are made of Lego, where you can just slap on individual parts and bits, and a game with more parts and bits is better than one with fewer. And I do not hold to that.

Great games are like a well-tuned clock. The pieces fit together and interlock, they work correctly by design. And simply changing/adding more things does not a priori make the clock better. A clock with 3 hands isn't better than one with 2.

The Half-Life 2 episodes, for example, didn't add new weapons for a very specific reason: the old ones covered the bases. Shotgun, sniper rifle, pistol, rapid-fire, and explosives. Adding more guns would just be adding more guns, not making the game better.

I wouldn't say you should be massively flamed for selling incremental tweaks for your game. But I would also suggest that there are perfectly reasonable arguments against that kind of game building that have nothing to do with money.

the fact you were willing to treat potential customers as such (ie total lack of respect) did take me aback.

Well, maybe it's about time. This whole "The customer is always right" nonsense has gone on long enough. Sometimes, the customer needs to be smacked in the face to see that maybe it's not such a bad idea.

And the only customers that Brad has a lack of respect for are those that are clearly disrespecting him and what he wants to make. It's one thing to dislike the idea on principle (as I did); it's another to say that, "Yes, I think this addition is good, but I don't want to pay for it just because I don't feel like I should have to."

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!