My office is the top corner there. The corner facing the pic.

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

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...

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?      

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.

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.

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.

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...

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....;)

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.

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.

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 

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....;)

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?......  

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?

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?

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.

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

 

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.

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.

 

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."

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.

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

See my other post:

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.