Touche.

Frogboy's post is not altogther wrong, but his tone, and the gleeful Objectivist tone of most of the commenters, makes me want to take a shower. Or maybe replay Bioshock to see the consequences of unchecked capitalism run wild. There's few events in gaming more satisfying then going upside the head of Bioshock's smug, hypocritical Ayn Rand stand-in, Andrew Ryan (though I wish it was interactive rather than a cut scene).

The specific example you give about TF2 I have to disagree with. TF 2 is multiplayer so releasing a few $10 addons would soon make the game broken online unless you buy the addons because the servers would look after the interests of the "hardcore" who are very active in that game and likely would own all expansions/addons whatever.

Sure maybe people whine about stuff not being free. Does it matter? I thought Stardocks policy was to sell to those who will buy?

Some stuff I've found out.

People when given the choice between something that costs $0 and something that costs $99, will choose the free, crappier item a lot more then if the same choice is offered for $1 and $100. Free is a powerful incentive, which means that not-free is a powerful disincentive. That's where the flaming comes from.

My issue is companies that don't deliver their money's worth. Thankfully you guys do on the things I get.

There is a concern that games are going to move entirely to the microtransaction model, which means that really good games will cost more in the end, since you're paying per month.

Draginol, I agree with almost everything you said. However, I think you're delving into an entirely different issue with your TF2 example. In that case, the players who don't buy the new class WOULD be hurt by the existence of it, as it would be fundamentally altering the game balance. As a competitive multiplayer game, it's tough to say that giving people who pay more a new class (with unique abilities that give new strategies) does not harm the people who do not buy access to it. You're essentially giving a leg up (in the form of more tactical options) to players willing to shell out the extra money. In that case, I think that players could legitimately complain about the for-pay content.

Its a similar issue whenever you let people with an expansion pack play people without one, and still let them use all their new toys. I remember back when I used to play Mechwarrior 4, where there were two "Mech-Packs" that would give players 4 new chassis to play around with, which they could then trot out in multiplayer matches, giving those players many more options for their mech characteristics.

Personally I completely agree with Brad. I also find it easier to respect him as a person because he is willing to speak his mind and stick to his guns. Consumers in this country have really been pushing the customer is always right bit way too far. The reality is most people are idiots and sheep. Individuals may be smart, but people in general are dumb as rocks. As far as being sheep you can see this behavior all the time everywhere you look.

I have no problem paying for products if I have the money and feel it is worth the money. I even buy some products that I think are overpriced because they are required so that I can use other products that I actually value. Windows is a prime example. I like to play games, while Linux and OS X are good operating systems I can not use them for the vast majority of games on the market. So I am forced to purchase Windows which I do not believe to be worth over $100 for an OEM and over $200 - $400 for a retail version which just provides a box and a manual. I don't believe MS Office is worth over $300 either but fortunately I have a choice to either use free open office or pay for a more feature but still affordable copy of star office. At the same time I would have no problem with buying this https://store.artlebedev.com/computer_add-ons/optimus/ for the asking price of $1564.72 if I had the money. Pretty steep for a keyboard, but I'd be willing to pay even more for this one http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-tactus/

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that some things should be open source, However I also believe that certain things should not be and it encourages people to create the things we enjoy if they can earn a living in the process. I think open source is good for OS's because things get fixed faster and I feel more secure than the Windows and Mac practices of security through obscurity. And for the people that think Mac is open source, think again. OS X sits on an open source layer based on BSD which is a Linux like OS. OS X itself, it's api's and other software are entirely proprietary. There are many examples of closed source software being built upon open source foundations. Just because part of the software is open source does not mean the software as a whole is open. Cross Over Office which is based on Wine is a perfect example of this.

Stardock has a great business model. They reward their customers for purchasing and registering their products. I wish more companies would follow their example. The movie industry would have no worries about pirates if they allowed digital downloads that provided extra content as well as wide and full screen formats, and provided an easy cost effective way to upgrade your video collection to the latest format.

The OEM version should not be over $50, and the retail boxed version should not be over $100.

After all, the OS goes on EVERY computer - not like the various programs we each choose to use.
And paying an extra $100-$300 for a box and manual? Please!
How much does a CD, sticker and pamphlet cost - vs. a CD, sticker and book?

The pricing should reflect the 'expected quantity to be sold/dev cost', I personally think.
If you need to compete for a market share and won't see your program in more than 1-5% of the market, the profit margin should be higher.
But if you don't really compete (like Microsoft with Intel boxes - which covers well over 90% of the market), the profit margin can (and should) be much lower.

While Brad has many a relevant point, there's a user side of things as well, and it isn't just the unwashed blind masses that feel this way.

Here's a truth: not all software companies are ethical. Not all shareware was released with magnanimous intent. Some of it timebombed. Some of it deliberately went out of its way to annoy you for not registering. Some wouldn't uninstall all the way, leaving scattered detritus across the hard drive. Some left its hooks right in the system, phoning personal information back to the mothership. Some of it was just bad.

I think some of the backlash for microtransactions and pay-for content comes from a lot of mistrust of software and game publisher (note: publishers) that have actually acted to squeeze as much from their users as possible. I think some of the backlash that Brad backbacklashes against has its roots in a mistrust that the software/game publishing industry has brought on itself.

This is where at least some of the kneejerk backlash comes from. As gamers, we're already beta-testing supposedly finished products when we buy a game on its sale date. Later on, we get the patches that make it work correctly, and sometimes not even that. Or, maybe a publisher might deliberately withold a feature or unlockable character, so they can sell it for greater profit later.

It's not illegal, or even from a business standpoint, unethical. But it's kind of a bastard thing to do. There is a fundamental dishonesty consumers put up with in so many transactions: cars, food, vacations, polititians, our own jobs, stuff that has nothing at all to do with games, that we're just kind of getting sick of it, and maybe a little paranoid. Games are supposed to be our escape from this shit!

Now, based on my experiences, Stardock is unlikely to do this. If an expansion comes out for GalCiv, it isn't because they withheld a damn thing; it's because they see a fan base slavering for more goodness, and they really, genuinely want to provide more of that goodness. But not everyone 'knows' this and trusts this. They see Stardock first as any other publisher, a potential EA, to be tolerated as a dealer of their substance of choice, but not to be trusted, at least not initially.

Luckily, a company like Stardock is around to help win back some of that trust. Not that it's your mission to do so, it isn't. You're a business, frogboy, draginol, not an emissary on behalf of the software industry. But even acting as openly and honestly as you do, you're going to get flames. These people are not necessarily greedy, or retarded. Maybe they've been burned themselves once or twice. I know I have.

You're not going to win over all the naysayers overnight. Fortunately, you don't need to, and you need only see your current success to verify this. I have my misgivings about any activation system that locks down an installed game that I paid for. I don't like it. As fair and as open as it is, I don't like it. But I still paid for it, and I'm pretty happy with what I have, even if I'm a little leery of having to ask permission every time I have to reinstall Windows (which happens pretty often). The good will you've fostered so far, hell, it's won me over. I hope that means something.

And, though I am very nearly a card-carrying fan of Stardock, I thought some of Brad's language is a bit rough-edged. But hell, if he's this hands on with a forum, maybe this is why this game is so good.

You're right, that's why the game is so good.


All of the Stardock team is hands-on with the forum's - and their customers.
That is what makes them so great!

Brad may come off as a bit rough at times, but I would rather have that than what other devs and companies deliver.

This company delivers honesty, integrity and performance aimed directly at the users.
How many others can say the same?

If Brad wants to deliver a rant about something, he has a reason and I am willing to listen.
And in this case, I agree with him.
His right to freedom of speech should not be limited by his position.

All I'm gonna say on this matter is this...Thank god for Brad...otherwise I'd have to look at all those icons on my desktop and that shitty looking luna. So Brad....beat me...whip me...talk dirty to me...be grumpy all you want...but just keep making this cool software...shareware...freeware...I don't care.

I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it....I have yet to find anything on the net that has given me the value and enjoyment for my money than Brads dream has. And as someone else on here has said....nobody is twisting they're arm to buy it...and they more than likely spend more money on dumb shit that isn't half as worth it.

And if I were you I'd probably say the same thing or something like....here's your money back...go buy an Etch-A-Sketch.

Oh...and ID...you know your only renting those donuts!

As far as flamers...they're idiots anyway and I wouldn't lose one second of sleep over them...and anyone thats serious about customizing they're desktop will know real value when they see it...I did...I never even bothered with the freeware stuff...and I couldn't get my wallet out fast enough to buy what I saw.

You run a stand up business Brad that you should be proud of....and the day you decide to retire and take up bee keeping will be a sad day indeed. And if you do...may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits!

Stardock isn't doing anything wrong. They aren't creating an O/S that has trouble working w/other desktop proggies then charging for theirs, that'd be fishy. They are simply putting a price on something they spent money making. The market decides if they are right to do so or not. I bought object desktop and consider it worth it. Others haven't. That's good I think, for selfish reasons. The more people who don't buy it because they think its too expensive will help to bring the price down, which benefits me. => yay me!

And I think that's the most important point. Finding that spot where the feature being sold is worth that much money to the customer.



Well, Valve. And Blizzard. Though that's some pretty good company to be among

Mmm. I get all my knowledge of philosophy and economics from console first-person shooters, too.

One thing that consistently annoys me is how some consumers abuse the phrase "the customer is always right" usually to justify their own inappropriate behavior.

One of the greatest tidbits I picked up was that the customer isn't always right but, has a valid point, well at least from their perspective.

If you haven't bought anything than you're not a customer and I'll quote Dr. Denis Leary on this one, "shut the fuck up".