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.

My mistake, this *IS* about DLC. Brad, that's a line of business ethics, and why people reject it. Same thing with EA's "cash 4 gunz" thing they were going to do with Bad Company.

As soon as you do that in a multiplayer game, you've now created the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. The 'haves' are given a distinct advantage over the 'have nots'.

A good example of comprimise was Battlefield 2142. Buying the expansion pack for it let you unlock a slew of new gizmos. Most were worthless, but a few did give you a distinct advantage. However, EA had enough sense to allow normal players to use 'Field Upgrades' to get access to these expansion-only gadgets. When you got enough team points, you earned a field upgrade, and for as long as you stayed on that server, could keep them, allowing you to use the 'expansion' stuff.

The second issue is also one of ethics. PC gaming has been a relatively open platform for games for neigh-upon twenty years now. By offering 'official' DLC, you are not providing any service whatsoever that hasn't existed in the past for free. Instead, your comprimising a pillar of PC gaming, undermining the platform as a whole. Allowing DLC and doing something like limiting the SDK (so you can maintain a monopoly on your 'mods') is extremely shady, and it doesn't help that most of this DLC is tragically overpriced.

I used to play Natural Selection. I made a mod myself that'd offer an in-game voice menu function that with a few keystrokes in certain patterns, I could spout information. "VNH" would say "I need health", whereas "VNA" would call for ammo. The menu was context-sensitive on the map, and saying "VAH1" would perhaps call to attack the Cargo Bay hive. I also had custom modeled guns, some made specifically for me. My maps used custom textures.

All of this for the grand sum of $0. How many years down the line until we see games stop allowing mods altogether? How many years until the models use unreadable formats, that developers refuse to release? Or until the game simply bans you completely for using any 'unauthorized' content whatsoever? I already see some of that last one (Crysis - adding the music from Warhead will ban you from multiplayer servers).

Were developers in charge of things, that voice menu would've cost $10. The guns about $8, the maps and textures $15.

If I can make shit for free, why should we be EXPECTED to pay for the same free stuff? Because it's 'official'? I have to eat too, don't I? Hell it's not even my JOB to make this shit, I'm not making royalties on the sales of the game here.

That is NOT freeware. That is demoware, crippleware, shareware or whatever you want to call it. Just because some people call a dog a horse, doesn't automatically make it so.

What Brad was talking about in his original post (back in April, hehe) are freeware versions in which all the existing functions are FULLY functional. Then there is another version which extends the basic functionality but which you do have to pay for. It's not like the freeware version is useless - quite the opposite, in fact it does everything (and more) that other existing/competing freeware versions do.

Didn't you just answer your own question? 'I have to eat too (but)... It's not my job to make... I'm not making royalties on the sales'

You obviously have a source of income, and it is NOT the game. If it WAS your job and you DID get royalties and if having food to eat depended on how many sales of the game you made, then you would probably feel very strongly otherwise.

YOU made a choice to offer some expansion stuff for free. It is *your* choice to make. Now allow others, who are perhaps not in the same financial situation as you (doesn't really matter, though), the choice of asking payment for their work. If it's not good, nobody will buy anyway.

OMG! Blah, blah, blah!

Oh Jesus, here we go AGAIN Bradley. Someone bitches and the best you can come up with is f**k off! Give me a break, get out of the sandbox would you. What does CEO stand for Chief Executive Oriface!  Man people must think your a real peach to work for. Maybe McCain should have choosen you as his running mate, you're my way or the highway mentality fit perfectly with his philosophy. As for the clown who said something about peoples computers being full of pirated stuff, please, not everyone is a friggin' thief. I've paid for everything I've gotten unless it was freewre. Well except those oldies I can't find in the store. You know the classics I used to listen to in the 50's and 60's when I was hoseing Bradleys Mom in the backseat of my Chevy. Hey, I don't mean to sound unappreciative here, I love the Stardock and the Log on Studio, but I'm not a Gamer and don't care about skinning. The fact these programs were free and gave me the opportunity to try them and keep them is all the sweeter. You go with your bad self, Bradley!!!

Where did all these abusive people come from suddenly? This thread is going down the toilet fast

I agree wholeheartedly. If you don't want it don't buy it. If you are never willing to pay for cool stuff you won't have any.

Samurye.

they hide in the shadows until weeks have gone by to make sure no one's watching so they can pass through like a drive-by and run away and hide again, since that's much safer than showing up when a post is active.

it also, because it's easier to ignore forum policy and personally attack on a lanquished thread than one that's active and likely to be moderated