Why is this game for sale? It's FREE online!

[vvbudh]

https://cataclysmdda.org/

[Dewit]

This isn't the first game on steam to do this. For the most part, it's to support One of the lead Devs and for steam features.

[Chel_Ka]

REEEEEEEEEEALYYYY???????????????????????

[Blitz4]

way i see it. you play the game offline. if you like it. you're going to want to open up your wallet to the devs. it's like the ultimate way to sell.

imagine if all games did this. who would ever pay the big publishers a thing when they're trying to sell various deluxe editions, microtransactions, addictive mechanics, season passes and calling customers idiots for not liking their game? (that happened more than once btw)

also risking it all on one game and not playtesting or ignoring what playtesters told you about what's wrong with the game would result in no sales.

it'd force the best games to the top instead of forcing games onto us. the best games would share the best mechanics and make games better and better.

it'd also force games to be worked on for less time as working on a game for 10 years when the entire market changed would be a disaster.

and if games are worked on for less time, you're going to see people find ways to make games in a year or so as efficiently as possible. it'd cut down costs on making games. it'd create more great games. you'd rarely say i have nothing to play because there'd be a flood of games out there for you to try, then buy. way more than today.

oh and less time on games, less money spent on games, means less need for ai art and the like.

imagine how that'd change the corrupt review practices, it'd nearly shut down all reviewers and replace them with actual reviewers with no greedy influences. yet i'm sure over time they'd find new ways to make money through social media, advertising and the like..

i do feel the fact this game is open source, that's worth a huge mention as well. there's some dead games that i've begged the publishers to make open source, but they don't care. they might make that remake one day..


know who would still be the digital games distributor? valve. cause they know how to make games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yomqk0C6kE

[Waylanderer]

Originally posted by Blitz4:

way i see it. you play the game offline. if you like it. you're going to want to open up your wallet to the devs. it's like the ultimate way to sell.

imagine if all games did this. who would ever pay the big publishers a thing when they're trying to sell various deluxe editions, microtransactions, addictive mechanics, season passes and calling customers idiots for not liking their game? (that happened more than once btw)

also risking it all on one game and not playtesting or ignoring what playtesters told you about what's wrong with the game would result in no sales.

it'd force the best games to the top instead of forcing games onto us. the best games would share the best mechanics and make games better and better.

it'd also force games to be worked on for less time as working on a game for 10 years when the entire market changed would be a disaster.

and if games are worked on for less time, you're going to see people find ways to make games in a year or so as efficiently as possible. it'd cut down costs on making games. it'd create more great games. you'd rarely say i have nothing to play because there'd be a flood of games out there for you to try, then buy. way more than today.

oh and less time on games, less money spent on games, means less need for ai art and the like.

imagine how that'd change the corrupt review practices, it'd nearly shut down all reviewers and replace them with actual reviewers with no greedy influences. yet i'm sure over time they'd find new ways to make money through social media, advertising and the like..

i do feel the fact this game is open source, that's worth a huge mention as well. there's some dead games that i've begged the publishers to make open source, but they don't care. they might make that remake one day..


know who would still be the digital games distributor? valve. cause they know how to make games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yomqk0C6kE

There should be a law (if there isn't one yet) that once a game hits a certain age the source code should go public under a GNU 3.0 license

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by Waylanderer:

Originally posted by Blitz4:

way i see it. you play the game offline. if you like it. you're going to want to open up your wallet to the devs. it's like the ultimate way to sell.

imagine if all games did this. who would ever pay the big publishers a thing when they're trying to sell various deluxe editions, microtransactions, addictive mechanics, season passes and calling customers idiots for not liking their game? (that happened more than once btw)

also risking it all on one game and not playtesting or ignoring what playtesters told you about what's wrong with the game would result in no sales.

it'd force the best games to the top instead of forcing games onto us. the best games would share the best mechanics and make games better and better.

it'd also force games to be worked on for less time as working on a game for 10 years when the entire market changed would be a disaster.

and if games are worked on for less time, you're going to see people find ways to make games in a year or so as efficiently as possible. it'd cut down costs on making games. it'd create more great games. you'd rarely say i have nothing to play because there'd be a flood of games out there for you to try, then buy. way more than today.

oh and less time on games, less money spent on games, means less need for ai art and the like.

imagine how that'd change the corrupt review practices, it'd nearly shut down all reviewers and replace them with actual reviewers with no greedy influences. yet i'm sure over time they'd find new ways to make money through social media, advertising and the like..

i do feel the fact this game is open source, that's worth a huge mention as well. there's some dead games that i've begged the publishers to make open source, but they don't care. they might make that remake one day..


know who would still be the digital games distributor? valve. cause they know how to make games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yomqk0C6kE

There should be a law (if there isn't one yet) that once a game hits a certain age the source code should go public under a GNU 3.0 license

lol.

[Blitz4]

Originally posted by Waylanderer:

Originally posted by Blitz4:

way i see it. you play the game offline. if you like it. you're going to want to open up your wallet to the devs. it's like the ultimate way to sell.

imagine if all games did this. who would ever pay the big publishers a thing when they're trying to sell various deluxe editions, microtransactions, addictive mechanics, season passes and calling customers idiots for not liking their game? (that happened more than once btw)

also risking it all on one game and not playtesting or ignoring what playtesters told you about what's wrong with the game would result in no sales.

it'd force the best games to the top instead of forcing games onto us. the best games would share the best mechanics and make games better and better.

it'd also force games to be worked on for less time as working on a game for 10 years when the entire market changed would be a disaster.

and if games are worked on for less time, you're going to see people find ways to make games in a year or so as efficiently as possible. it'd cut down costs on making games. it'd create more great games. you'd rarely say i have nothing to play because there'd be a flood of games out there for you to try, then buy. way more than today.

oh and less time on games, less money spent on games, means less need for ai art and the like.

imagine how that'd change the corrupt review practices, it'd nearly shut down all reviewers and replace them with actual reviewers with no greedy influences. yet i'm sure over time they'd find new ways to make money through social media, advertising and the like..

i do feel the fact this game is open source, that's worth a huge mention as well. there's some dead games that i've begged the publishers to make open source, but they don't care. they might make that remake one day..


know who would still be the digital games distributor? valve. cause they know how to make games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yomqk0C6kE

There should be a law (if there isn't one yet) that once a game hits a certain age the source code should go public under a GNU 3.0 license

as it is rn. the oldest copyrighted game is Asteroids (1979).
zero games have even hit the 70 year old mark.
so we'll have to wait until 2050 to see if the 70 year law applies to it or if it'll be the 100 year law for it to go into the public domain. yet will that mean the source or what?

[Righty]

Originally posted by Dewit:

This isn't the first game on steam to do this. For the most part, it's to support One of the lead Devs and for steam features.

"Support"
Then make it optional I only got the steam version expecting equal support for free and paid, I wanted the steam version just for the convenience, and the free version gets more updates then paid

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by Righty:

Originally posted by Dewit:

This isn't the first game on steam to do this. For the most part, it's to support One of the lead Devs and for steam features.

"Support"
Then make it optional I only got the steam version expecting equal support for free and paid, I wanted the steam version just for the convenience, and the free version gets more updates then paid

This follows the stable branch. Now 0.h.

Comparing to experimental is comparing two different products.

[Dewit]

Originally posted by Righty:

Originally posted by Dewit:

This isn't the first game on steam to do this. For the most part, it's to support One of the lead Devs and for steam features.

"Support"
Then make it optional I only got the steam version expecting equal support for free and paid, I wanted the steam version just for the convenience, and the free version gets more updates then paid

It is optional? You're not forced the buy the steam version. The steam version follows the stable releases, which takes significantly longer than the experimental branch. Comparing experimental to this is comparing two entirely different beasts.

[Righty]

Originally posted by Dewit:

Originally posted by Righty:

"Support"
Then make it optional I only got the steam version expecting equal support for free and paid, I wanted the steam version just for the convenience, and the free version gets more updates then paid

It is optional? You're not forced the buy the steam version. The steam version follows the stable releases, which takes significantly longer than the experimental branch. Comparing experimental to this is comparing two entirely different beasts.

Make it optional on steam... Literally, they can just use the play test feature but no there excuse to pay is to "support" support who? Why? Then can put the experimental version on steam with the playtest

[Zhilkin]

Originally posted by Righty:

Originally posted by Dewit:

It is optional? You're not forced the buy the steam version. The steam version follows the stable releases, which takes significantly longer than the experimental branch. Comparing experimental to this is comparing two entirely different beasts.

Make it optional on steam... Literally, they can just use the play test feature but no there excuse to pay is to "support" support who? Why? Then can put the experimental version on steam with the playtest

No.

[Dewit]

Originally posted by Righty:

Originally posted by Dewit:

It is optional? You're not forced the buy the steam version. The steam version follows the stable releases, which takes significantly longer than the experimental branch. Comparing experimental to this is comparing two entirely different beasts.

Make it optional on steam... Literally, they can just use the play test feature but no there excuse to pay is to "support" support who? Why? Then can put the experimental version on steam with the playtest

Or you can just play the experimental version from the catapult launcher if you so choose to do.

[vvbudh]

Don't tell me this is how you spent your Christmas?

[CringePotato]

Originally posted by Righty:

Originally posted by Dewit:

This isn't the first game on steam to do this. For the most part, it's to support One of the lead Devs and for steam features.

"Support"
Then make it optional I only got the steam version expecting equal support for free and paid, I wanted the steam version just for the convenience, and the free version gets more updates then paid

I agree with you that for stable releases we should have equal support to the free version, moreso we shouldn't have to wait around a month for an update. Getting experimental builds on Steam on the other hand would be a nightmare to get it working and would result in many people constantly complaining about their stuff breaking in the discussions.

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by Righty:

Originally posted by Dewit:

It is optional? You're not forced the buy the steam version. The steam version follows the stable releases, which takes significantly longer than the experimental branch. Comparing experimental to this is comparing two entirely different beasts.

Make it optional on steam... Literally, they can just use the play test feature but no there excuse to pay is to "support" support who? Why? Then can put the experimental version on steam with the playtest

Please point to any stated features of the Steam release that aren't being followed by the developer.