Pay For Games On Pandora?

[Exophase]

people don't be freetards good things cost good money
also something open-source does not have to be free e.g. openoffice

OpenOffice doesn't cost money. That's probably the biggest reason why people use it.

 

[puppydee]

I'll just be going for the free games since I don't have a credit card and it's a bummer to get my sister to do it everytime coz she lives miles away and I hardly get to see her anyway.

 

[MarkoeZ]

I'd pay, if the price is correct ofcourse

From the other side, and i can't help thinking a bit in that direction: As a simple starting homebrew developer with some great artists behind me, i want to provide a fun, fully playable, one player version of Panjoust for free (maybe with basic 2 player action), and might make a full featured, multiplayer version (controllers for sure, network, perhaps), with extra levels, for 1 euro, or more if you think it's worth it. Not much drm, if any, so if it works out nice, it can probably be found online somewhere eventually. I don't really mind that, but if donations are made, they will (hopefully) be correctly shared amongst artists, contributors, and a bit for me. I'm not in it for the money though, it will probably not be beyond the range of spending money on the appstore anyway

Cheers!

 

[DrCJBoduma]

I like the idea of there being a "donate" button, so those who wish to donate can (and select an amount they feel comfortable with).

 

[Creature XL]

didn't read the thread so far, but want to say that I used to want everything for free in my student times.
Now I have money, and I am willing to spend it for software. As long as it is not too much
I would be willing to pay up to 5 Euro/Dollar for home-brew and more for professional SW.

But what would be the best system is to pay as much as I like.
So i can pay 1 Euro fro a app I use seldom and 5 or even more for an app I use regular or a game i had/have lots of fun with. Something like the "Donation" which were quit popular on the GP2x (and maybe other consoles).

Now i will read the thread on my phone and will see that at least 10 people said the same as I did

 

[Exophase]

Regarding emulators: almost all of the ones mentioned on Pandora are ports of open source emulators. Someone can charge for a port, but the open source requirements have to be met, and no one can take back the open source status of existing versions. There could be new versions that are closed/pay if they have the okay if the trademark holders, but this would be extra to anything demonstrated. What's out there now is a baseline that can definitely be met for free given people are willing to port for free (and they will be).

The only ones we've seen really mentioned that aren't open source ports are Dreamcast and PSP.

For my two emulators, gpSP is open source and someone is always free to port it. Temper, my PC-Engine emulator, is closed source but I won't charge for it. If I do another GBA emulator it'll be closed source, and so will anything else I do. I'll almost definitely continue to charge for these things on big market platforms like Android and iPhone (like I have been for new closed gpSP versions). On Pandora it's a lot less likely that I will because I think the climate's a lot different and there's just much less money to be made, and there are way more competitors willing to do it for free if you try that. I can't promise I won't charge though, or maybe for "plus" versions on the store.

 

[Asiyura]

The "Pay what you want" way is really great.
I'm pretty much broke (bought a mac and the pandora when I had a job), so I contribute with small sums only (between 0 and 5€ via paypal).

An example: if it wasn't for the release of the Humble Indie Bundle, I could never afford to buy world of goo or gish.
But since I've bought this bundle, I couldn't afford to contribute to Ardour.

 

[-Tj-]

The "pay what you want" system is my favorite, but I'm not against a dev charging what they feel is fair. Of course free is nice, but I know how hard it is for some to create their software AND put food on the table.

 

[Tempel]

The only thing that concerns me is the culture of money-grabbing that could be generated. With the iPhone app store, you always hear about the people who made it big with their $1 app that makes farting noises or something equally ridiculous, leading to hordes of people trying to get rich by the same scheme. I don't mind apps being ridiculous, nor apps costing money, but I really dislike that culture of looking at everything as a potential profit source.

But I don't think that's as much of a concern here. We've got two things on our side: one, there's an established culture here that's mostly open and sharing; and two, Craig's app store doesn't yet support payments (I think), which will allow free content to become entrenched in the Pandora-specific subculture before paid apps get big.

As for my own content, whenever it appears, I figure that, if it's not costing me to make, it won't cost to consume. So as long as all my work is spare-time, just-for-fun, it'll be free; I don't see myself taking a year off to make a game any time soon, so it'll stay that way for a long while.

 

[Exophase]

The only thing that concerns me is the culture of money-grabbing that could be generated. With the iPhone app store, you always hear about the people who made it big with their $1 app that makes farting noises or something equally ridiculous, leading to hordes of people trying to get rich by the same scheme. I don't mind apps being ridiculous, nor apps costing money, but I really dislike that culture of looking at everything as a potential profit source.

But I don't think that's as much of a concern here. We've got two things on our side: one, there's an established culture here that's mostly open and sharing; and two, Craig's app store doesn't yet support payments (I think), which will allow free content to become entrenched in the Pandora-specific subculture before paid apps get big.

As for my own content, whenever it appears, I figure that, if it's not costing me to make, it won't cost to consume. So as long as all my work is spare-time, just-for-fun, it'll be free; I don't see myself taking a year off to make a game any time soon, so it'll stay that way for a long while.

The dearth of actual Pandoras that will be out there should discourage this. Anyone who thinks they'll make substantial money on a stupid $1 app advertised to at best a few thousand potential customers is an idiot.

I doubt very many things will even break $1k in sales, unless they cost $40 and people are actually willing to pay this.

The "pay what you want" system is my favorite, but I'm not against a dev charging what they feel is fair. Of course free is nice, but I know how hard it is for some to create their software AND put food on the table.

I don't understand this concept of fair pricing. Unless you're talking about receiving a bill afterwards for something like a medical procedure then no one is being cheated by a purchase they don't have to make. People vote with their purchases, and price is ultimately dictated by balancing per-unit profit with potential sales volume - most people selling will have some interest in maximizing this. You really either care about getting money or you don't. Of course you can have very many reasons for wanting money or not wanting it. They don't necessarily reflect very heavily on you as a person; someone wanting to make money to support his elderly mother would probably not be seen as intrinsically more selfish than someone who doesn't care to make money because he already has millions in the bank.

I also don't understand the notion that wanting to make money off of software beyond what you "need" to survive is sacrilege. We're generally talking about $1-$6 for an app in this context, or about the cost of a sandwich from a fast food restaurant. Yes, if you buy dozens of these apps costs add up, but this is where the competitive nature of the market threshes out those things that people aren't willing to let bubble to the top. To be marketable a piece of software really has to stand above others and has to be worth buying. But as far as I'm concerned software not worth spending $1 on is barely worth the time spent downloading it, much less using it.

I think really the issue is less one of practicality and more a matter of symbolism - people often feel outraged by having to spend money on software. Strangely, people expect a LOT of things from software that they don't from other works (see how a painter reacts to the suggestion that his paintings be placed under a GPL-like license). I'm not really sure what the deal is with that, maybe it's a certain mindset somehow natural to a subset of programmers.

But no, I don't think anyone deserves money for software. Likewise, I don't think anyone deserves software without paying for it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that people deserve or are entitled to just about nothing. The cold truth of this world is you eventually stop focusing on how things "should" be according to your personal worldview and you operate with things as they are.

Incidentally, I think some crowds actually treat you worse if you give away something for free. By attracting those not willing to pay for something you also get a lot of people who walk all over you and expect you to cater to their every desire - they expect you to keep updating the software forever and make it your life's sole purpose, they expect you to be their 24/7 tech support, implement every feature they want... etc. I've encountered some shockingly selfish people. It doesn't really matter if they're a minority. Yes, if you charge people have a sense of entitlement, but if you sell in a place where they're constantly making little purchases that diminishes. At the very least the sense of entitlement is in decent scale with what the money they paid really meant to them (virtually nothing).

 

[tristan.clark]

The "pay what you want" system is my favorite, but I'm not against a dev charging what they feel is fair. Of course free is nice, but I know how hard it is for some to create their software AND put food on the table.

IIRC a large number who downloaded the Humble Indie Bundle (for example) didn't pay even though it was for charity. I think the 'pay what you want' system is a praiseworthy ideal but open to abuse. IHMO you either charge for software or you don't. If you ask payment for Pandora software then with such a small market it really has to be a killer app.

 

[Alpha2]

If the games are good I dont see a reason why a developer can't ask for money for a game. If the prices are decent and arent coupled with a DRM scheme that makes them more of a hassle than a pleasure to use then it's something many people may consider.

But I think it also needs to be considered what type of community we have here. People who use emulators, hack PSPs to use isos and jail break iphones are NOT the best audience to be asking money from. That's not to say everyone would reject the idea but a game that people are willing to pay for has to be significantly better than the stuff that's being delivered free of charge from people who just like making stuff for people to enjoy.

 

[Tom`]

I think really the issue is less one of practicality and more a matter of symbolism - people often feel outraged by having to spend money on software. Strangely, people expect a LOT of things from software that they don't from other works (see how a painter reacts to the suggestion that his paintings be placed under a GPL-like license). I'm not really sure what the deal is with that, maybe it's a certain mindset somehow natural to a subset of programmers.

But software is fundamentally different from artistic works - Stallman specifically acknowledges this (I don't remember exactly where, unfortunately). Software is utilitarian, and so changing it to suit a particular purpose is very often warranted or required - whether to fix bugs or implement new features, this is a fundamental conceptual difference between a piece of software and and artistic work. And software distributed as object code is generally impossible (or at the very least, extremely difficult) to change - the reason Stallman originally came up with the idea of free software, leading directly to the GPL, was that he was unable to fix a malfunctioning printer driver because he was not allowed access to the source code. In this case, there would not even be a copyright issue, since distribution of the work would not necessarily take place. So it's entirely understandable that expectations would be different.

I think that there is a responsibility on the part of the developer to fix any major bugs in software (s)he's accepted money for, though.

 

[Aninhumer]

I think the "Pay what you like" scheme has a significant advantage over "Play and donate" in that laziness is a significant impediment to donating, even for people who are willing to part with the money. Once they've put their details in however, they don't mind paying a fair price.

However, I've been wondering, perhaps a better scheme than true "Pay what you want" might be "Pay at least X"?
I'm interested to see how many of the people who pay 1p would be equally happy to pay say 50p, it's still pocket change after all. It would need around 2% to keep paying to keep the same overall revenue. The others would probably pirate, but then it's impossible to get true pirates to pay seriously for something anyway.

However there is of course also the possibility that people who would otherwise pay more might see that as a suggested "fair price", and reduce how much they pay.

 

[maiden]

I have recently started an indie game-studio, and will finish of some old projects.. (got a bunch of them..).
I will make Small "quality*" games for 1$ - 2$ each, but maybe donations is a better idea, and then release source when donations reach 100$
I have no illusions that this will bring in any big cash, but some extra cash for pizza and beer is never wrong ( i am a poor student...).
where i live, 10$ = 1 Pizza, 5$ = 1 beer.

* will not try to sell anything i would not pay for, and i am not too easy to satisfy...

I currently got Gp2x, Wiz, Dingux, smartq7, Pandora, and n900 as my target platforms.
hmm. i think i know why i am poor...

my primary goal is to bring networkgaming to the pandora ,
multiplayer > singelplayer.
My score > your score

 

[WizardStan]

However, I've been wondering, perhaps a better scheme than true "Pay what you want" might be "Pay at least X"?
I'm interested to see how many of the people who pay 1p would be equally happy to pay say 50p, it's still pocket change after all. It would need around 2% to keep paying to keep the same overall revenue. The others would probably pirate, but then it's impossible to get true pirates to pay seriously for something anyway.

When the humble indie bundle was ending and the final tallies were given, I found myself wishing I was back in university just so that I could get a grant to perform such an experiment.

 

[Exophase]

But software is fundamentally different from artistic works - Stallman specifically acknowledges this (I don't remember exactly where, unfortunately). Software is utilitarian, and so changing it to suit a particular purpose is very often warranted or required - whether to fix bugs or implement new features, this is a fundamental conceptual difference between a piece of software and and artistic work. And software distributed as object code is generally impossible (or at the very least, extremely difficult) to change - the reason Stallman originally came up with the idea of free software, leading directly to the GPL, was that he was unable to fix a malfunctioning printer driver because he was not allowed access to the source code. In this case, there would not even be a copyright issue, since distribution of the work would not necessarily take place. So it's entirely understandable that expectations would be different.

That's just the thing; not every piece of software is a printer driver, or as you put it, "utilitarian." Yes, Stallman contends that artistic assets including in a game need not be under GPL like "freedom", but certainly the software, ALL software must be, and I don't think it's appropriate for him to declare this. But leave it to him to take one issue and over-generalize it dramatically, all in the name of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not software can be considered comparable with art depends on how the creator views it, and to a lesser extent how its recipients view it. Universal rules need not apply.

I think that there is a responsibility on the part of the developer to fix any major bugs in software (s)he's accepted money for, though.

Yes, in so much as you should honor what you said you were supplying. And to just not be a jerk.

 

[pder]

I have and I'd be willing to donate to some open source projects if they interested me. I would not pay money for any closed source software on the Pandora.

 

[Tom`]

That's just the thing; not every piece of software is a printer driver, or as you put it, "utilitarian." Yes, Stallman contends that artistic assets including in a game need not be under GPL like "freedom", but certainly the software, ALL software must be, and I don't think it's appropriate for him to declare this. But leave it to him to take one issue and over-generalize it dramatically, all in the name of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not software can be considered comparable with art depends on how the creator views it, and to a lesser extent how its recipients view it. Universal rules need not apply.

Yes, Stallman may sometimes be guilty of over-generalization - yet I think his point of view is absolutely necessary, to keep the Overton window anchored. In any event, I think the distinction with respect to source code remains universally applicable - if nothing else, works in the public domain can be and always have been a source of artistic innovation, something that will never happen with software that doesn't have available source code. (Of course, the currently ridiculous copyright regimen will probably ensure that any public-domain software would be obsolete, anyway, but there's at least some hope here).

edit: I mean software that has passed into the public domain, rather than actively being released into the public domain, since those usually have source available.

 

[WizardStan]

That's just the thing; not every piece of software is a printer driver, or as you put it, "utilitarian." Yes, Stallman contends that artistic assets including in a game need not be under GPL like "freedom", but certainly the software, ALL software must be, and I don't think it's appropriate for him to declare this. But leave it to him to take one issue and over-generalize it dramatically, all in the name of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not software can be considered comparable with art depends on how the creator views it, and to a lesser extent how its recipients view it. Universal rules need not apply.

Actually, it seems to me that his views on software are much closer to how art actually works.
When you buy a piece of art, it is yours to do with as you please. Hang it up in your office and enjoy it. Resell it. Paint a mustache on it. Cut it to pieces and glue them back together along with other pieces of art you've purchased and package it as an entirely new piece of art. Stallman just wanted the same thing with software: the right to reasonably be able to alter or update what you have purchased.
Closed source software is kind of like the artist laminating his work to prevent the buyer from tampering with it.

edit: and when I say "art" I mean a physical piece of art: a painting you've commissioned, for example.