The existence of for-pay stuff doesn't hurt you
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 by Draginol | Discussion: 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.
 |
|
Page 7 of 11 | |
|
|---|
ZubaZ
Reply #122 Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:10 AM
Reply #122 Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:10 AM
What concerns me is 0 Karma? Hell I even have a 1 and he runs the joint!
I tried to give one and got an error. (
robertthew
Reply #123 Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:51 AM
Reply #123 Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:51 AM
Sorry, was I complaining? Hey, thanks for the free stuff.
drexler
Reply #124 Thursday, May 1, 2008 12:21 PM
Reply #124 Thursday, May 1, 2008 12:21 PM
yes there are a lot of whiners. who complain and trash a lot of stuff. boo hoo its the wrong color, or i don't like the start button. don't like it don't download it, or make your own. and of course don't buy it. i owe a lot of thanks to all of you creaters out there. THANKYOU! 
Tova7
Reply #125 Thursday, May 1, 2008 12:49 PM
Reply #125 Thursday, May 1, 2008 12:49 PM
That's a nice looking building...where are the offices...like where is Karma's office? Can you see it from this side?
Frogboy
Reply #126 Thursday, May 1, 2008 12:55 PM
Reply #126 Thursday, May 1, 2008 12:55 PM
My office is the top corner there. The corner facing the pic.
ShelbyGT_The_Car
Reply #127 Thursday, May 1, 2008 1:54 PM
Reply #127 Thursday, May 1, 2008 1:54 PM
You know I wish my basement looked that good!
I've got to say that the programs I've paid for here at Stardock are the best there is anywhere. Plus they are just plain good people that work there too. If I got a problem it gets fixed. If I want something good for my desktop I always buy it. I'd rather pay for it to keep people like this going. For one good reason "It always does exactly what they say it does and it is the best !"
SGT
I've got to say that the programs I've paid for here at Stardock are the best there is anywhere. Plus they are just plain good people that work there too. If I got a problem it gets fixed. If I want something good for my desktop I always buy it. I'd rather pay for it to keep people like this going. For one good reason "It always does exactly what they say it does and it is the best !"
SGT
Alstein
Reply #128 Thursday, May 1, 2008 2:36 PM
Reply #128 Thursday, May 1, 2008 2:36 PM
Good people tend to produce good product. Something that screams common sense to me.
Honestly, I'd love to work for a place like Stardock, but I don't have a skillset that they would pay me enough to do work for them. I don't think Stardock needs a weatherman or economist, programmers and web designers maybe, but that's not me...
Honestly, I'd love to work for a place like Stardock, but I don't have a skillset that they would pay me enough to do work for them. I don't think Stardock needs a weatherman or economist, programmers and web designers maybe, but that's not me...
TheDanO
Reply #129 Thursday, May 1, 2008 7:08 PM
Reply #129 Thursday, May 1, 2008 7:08 PM
Wow ya Americans want everything for free. somehow we owe it to the people of the USA to value out rime at nothing. I did see a funny comment tho ..."when will people grow up" that is TOO funny I'm 40 (kids now don't do anything but cry and whine) and all i have seen is that people have no backbone, everything offends them... lol and those that can not create things with their minds that don't work (because they have never used them but to listen)think that people with "SKILLS" are not trying to make something more other than a failed mark in life-business-skills.
I say close the ears to the whiners. when the can talk with some logic then ill listen.
And PLEASE SMILE it is good for you and free for now 
I LOVE the programs and thank everyone for all your time and effort that is why i BUY things and i don't live at home i have a disabled wife and mother-in-law and i take care of them and i pay so why cant they?
I LOVE the programs and thank everyone for all your time and effort that is why i BUY things and i don't live at home i have a disabled wife and mother-in-law and i take care of them and i pay so why cant they?
Weidbrewer
Reply #130 Friday, May 2, 2008 2:30 PM
Reply #130 Friday, May 2, 2008 2:30 PM
As a follow-up to Brad's original post, I actually installed My Colors + Sins of a Solar Empire Theme last night. Wow, I am impressed. It looks great. It's unfortunate that I really don't see the desktop of my gaming machine very often, and the other four machines I use on a regular basis are Linux, or I'd buy the full version in a heartbeat.
Bodyless
Reply #131 Saturday, May 3, 2008 9:36 AM
Reply #131 Saturday, May 3, 2008 9:36 AM
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.
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.
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.
Alfonse
Reply #132 Saturday, May 3, 2008 2:39 PM
Actually, the TF2 example is an example of the wrong kind of paying structure. It's a perfect example of how games are not Legos where you can freely remove one piece and the rest stay put.
Every piece in Chess, even the Pawns, are vital. Chess as a game doesn't work if you have no Queen from the start. And Chess is fundamentally unbalanced if one side starts with a Queen and the other doesn't. TF2 is very much like this.
Every class in TF2 exists for a purpose. They are imperatived. The Pryo's primary designed purpose is to kill clusters and kill Spies. If there was no Pyro, the game would be unbalanced in favor of Spies. If the Pyro were a class you had to pay for, then the success or failure of your team is based on how much they're willing to pay for the complete game.
Or, if there was no Pyro, Spies would be significantly nerfed from what they are now so that they would be properly balanced. So, if you add Pyros, then it now utterly owns Spies. Unless they improve Spies to their current levels, thus forcing you to by Pyros.
TF2 is not something you can just take bits away from or put more bits in. It is a balanced, competitive multiplayer game. The casual player may feel that you can just slap some extra stuff on, but anyone who is even remotely serious about the game knows that everything exists for a purpose.
Adding a new TF2 class is like having the deleted scenes added to the DVD release of a movie. More often than not, the movie is worse off for having the extraneous material added. Even the Lord of the Rings extended editions suffered from this for a couple of the added and extended scenes.
Plus, there's the fact that this is a multiplayer game. If you add a new TF2 class, it must also exist for a purpose. That is, like all other TF2 classes, it cannot be superfluous. That is, there must be some tactic that this class is designed to stop which cannot be stopped by normal means, or this class must enable some tactic that would otherwise be impossible. Which means that multiplayer balance is destroyed; you're stratifying the playerbase. There are people who have the new class and people who don't. And the ones with the new class are going to be fundamentally better off in multiplayer than those who don't. It's this fundamental fact that killed off EA's ridiculous "Purchase Guns" nonsense.
Honestly, what concerns me the most is that the lead game designer for a major PC game release is promoting a concept that is clearly antithetical to good game design. Maybe it's his CEO nature overriding his Game Design sense.
Reply #132 Saturday, May 3, 2008 2:39 PM
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?
Actually, the TF2 example is an example of the wrong kind of paying structure. It's a perfect example of how games are not Legos where you can freely remove one piece and the rest stay put.
Every piece in Chess, even the Pawns, are vital. Chess as a game doesn't work if you have no Queen from the start. And Chess is fundamentally unbalanced if one side starts with a Queen and the other doesn't. TF2 is very much like this.
Every class in TF2 exists for a purpose. They are imperatived. The Pryo's primary designed purpose is to kill clusters and kill Spies. If there was no Pyro, the game would be unbalanced in favor of Spies. If the Pyro were a class you had to pay for, then the success or failure of your team is based on how much they're willing to pay for the complete game.
Or, if there was no Pyro, Spies would be significantly nerfed from what they are now so that they would be properly balanced. So, if you add Pyros, then it now utterly owns Spies. Unless they improve Spies to their current levels, thus forcing you to by Pyros.
TF2 is not something you can just take bits away from or put more bits in. It is a balanced, competitive multiplayer game. The casual player may feel that you can just slap some extra stuff on, but anyone who is even remotely serious about the game knows that everything exists for a purpose.
Adding a new TF2 class is like having the deleted scenes added to the DVD release of a movie. More often than not, the movie is worse off for having the extraneous material added. Even the Lord of the Rings extended editions suffered from this for a couple of the added and extended scenes.
Plus, there's the fact that this is a multiplayer game. If you add a new TF2 class, it must also exist for a purpose. That is, like all other TF2 classes, it cannot be superfluous. That is, there must be some tactic that this class is designed to stop which cannot be stopped by normal means, or this class must enable some tactic that would otherwise be impossible. Which means that multiplayer balance is destroyed; you're stratifying the playerbase. There are people who have the new class and people who don't. And the ones with the new class are going to be fundamentally better off in multiplayer than those who don't. It's this fundamental fact that killed off EA's ridiculous "Purchase Guns" nonsense.
Honestly, what concerns me the most is that the lead game designer for a major PC game release is promoting a concept that is clearly antithetical to good game design. Maybe it's his CEO nature overriding his Game Design sense.
StarBudd
Reply #133 Sunday, May 4, 2008 11:56 PM
Reply #133 Sunday, May 4, 2008 11:56 PM
Yes, the truth is that everyone wants everything for free - and so, what nonsense! It's a shame people think like that! Maybe they want the internet to be called the "Freenet"...
But it's true, life just doesn't work that way - ya know what I mean. Years ago, I used to be "engaged" in this inexhaustive whiner's club and saw everything the way they do - a very narrow-minded point of view. The truth is, you get so caught up with this ill trend till you just don't realize it... and so, it used to influence me so bad. But TODAY, I've moved away from that kind of thinking and to such a point that I firmly took a stand against whiners and pathetic complainers who have got nothing better to do. On the net, it's gotten so out-of-hand till it's become a plague in a sort. People whine and complain to MANIPULATE circumstances. If the company is too soft, they will give in. Ranting is not OK for good mental health - believe me, it's just a negative atmosphere that causes more harm than good (especially to the one who rants inexhaustibly).
To my understanding, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the freeware bait luring you in for the shareware experience. That's perfectly normal business endeavors. The only reason why people rant, criticize, complain, and whine, is that they think they will succeed in changing the situation. They consider it as a form of "pressure" applied towards companies. Is it sensible to expect people to work for free? - hardly so! Do these pathetic whiners get a paycheck for all the hours they put in and expect others to do the same BUT for free... - what pure nonsense...!! Personally, I'm very ashamed of the attitude that prevails today on the net. It's just downright disgusting. They should start to create new and severe laws for the net that would protect companies from this relentless harassment. Yes, this situation has got to change...
As for Stardock products... their setup is just fine. Keep up the good work Stardock - it's much loved and appreciated...
Jafo
Reply #134 Monday, May 5, 2008 12:07 AM
Reply #134 Monday, May 5, 2008 12:07 AM
The only reason why people rant, criticize, complain, and whine, is that they think they will succeed in changing the situation.
It's a false hope. However, when they grudgingly come to this realization they storm off with the opinion [they always had, really] that they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
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....
UncleDrood
Reply #135 Monday, May 5, 2008 12:58 AM
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.
Your comment about the "parasite class" is a little far fetched and overblown. Far to much crap is pulled by the software industry these days ripping off the public (poor quality, bugs etc...), it's understandable people get pissed off when they feel they've been led on and only given three quarters of a product. Particularly when they can wait a while and get the expansion and game bundled for free. Well look at Gal Civ II. You can get the whole bundle for only $20 more than the original game cost. Not saying Stardock are doing anything wrong, but perhaps if companies like Microsoft weren't abusing this paid content model (by massively charging Canadians for example), it wouldn't be looked upon so poorly.
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.
This bitching is as bad as Crytek saying they're not being PC exclusive anymore due to "rampant piracy". Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the absurd system requirements of "Crysis". I know I didn't even bother trying the demo because I knew it was going to run like crap. But instead of admitting their hugely overpriced tech demo can't be run by 90% of PC's out there, they blame piracy. I went and checked a torrent to see how busy it was. Almost nobody on it.
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.
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.
What's ironic is the fact that in todays world, more likely the people complaining are doing so because because between rising gas prices, food prices, interest rates, housing costs, kids etc... There is less money to go around. But no, far better to just wheel out the same old tired cliches instead of analyzing. It's a lot easier to just go "Goddamn freeloaders" than put any real thought into it beyond simple "Software costs, ergo we charge". It's overly simplistic, on BOTH sides of the argument. 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.
Reply #135 Monday, May 5, 2008 12:58 AM
Before the current generation of l33t-speaking parasites 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.
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.
Your comment about the "parasite class" is a little far fetched and overblown. Far to much crap is pulled by the software industry these days ripping off the public (poor quality, bugs etc...), it's understandable people get pissed off when they feel they've been led on and only given three quarters of a product. Particularly when they can wait a while and get the expansion and game bundled for free. Well look at Gal Civ II. You can get the whole bundle for only $20 more than the original game cost. Not saying Stardock are doing anything wrong, but perhaps if companies like Microsoft weren't abusing this paid content model (by massively charging Canadians for example), it wouldn't be looked upon so poorly.
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.
This bitching is as bad as Crytek saying they're not being PC exclusive anymore due to "rampant piracy". Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the absurd system requirements of "Crysis". I know I didn't even bother trying the demo because I knew it was going to run like crap. But instead of admitting their hugely overpriced tech demo can't be run by 90% of PC's out there, they blame piracy. I went and checked a torrent to see how busy it was. Almost nobody on it.
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.
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.
What's ironic is the fact that in todays world, more likely the people complaining are doing so because because between rising gas prices, food prices, interest rates, housing costs, kids etc... There is less money to go around. But no, far better to just wheel out the same old tired cliches instead of analyzing. It's a lot easier to just go "Goddamn freeloaders" than put any real thought into it beyond simple "Software costs, ergo we charge". It's overly simplistic, on BOTH sides of the argument. 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.
Alfonse
Reply #136 Monday, May 5, 2008 2:03 AM
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.
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.
Reply #136 Monday, May 5, 2008 2:03 AM
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.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #137 Monday, May 5, 2008 3:14 AM
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
Reply #137 Monday, May 5, 2008 3:14 AM
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
Jafo
Reply #138 Monday, May 5, 2008 3:28 AM
Reply #138 Monday, May 5, 2008 3:28 AM
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....
Old_Crab
Reply #139 Monday, May 5, 2008 3:34 AM
Reply #139 Monday, May 5, 2008 3:34 AM
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?...... 
Bodyless
Reply #140 Monday, May 5, 2008 12:05 PM
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.
Reply #140 Monday, May 5, 2008 12:05 PM
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....
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.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
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 and downloading skins.
- 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!
|
|
Page 7 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:07 AM
What concerns me is 0 Karma? Hell I even have a 1 and he runs the joint!