3 ms·

It worked okay for Minecraft. Lifetime licenses for anything that is related to a service is a terrible idea, in the same way that not linking cost to usage ca

It worked okay for Minecraft. Lifetime licenses for anything that is related to a service is a terrible idea, in the same way that not linking cost to usage can also be problematic. For a standalone application, it can make a lot of sense along with bringing customer loyalty as they are treated well. FL Studio is another example, and they also demonstrated how you can add new revenue paths, whilst still providing excellent value to your original customers.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
I suppose you’ve not played Minecraft lately. Microsoft has loaded it with monetization. Yes you can buy a license to play Minecraft with updates for forever (although I don’t think they assure you of this, as the developer in question did). But you’ll be constantly bombarded with Marketplace appeals. My daughter and I play it all the time together with her friends, which since some play on a switch we have to pay a monthly fee for a realm. Then they’re constantly asking for “gold coins” to buy skins and stuff with. Microsoft injects animations into the Home Screen to pull you into the market place, which is rendered like a flashing crack casino for kids. I suppose that’s another option for the developer.
- mobiuscog 4y ago
  I used Minecraft as an example for the original developer, who was certainly financially independent as a result of the success. For an ongoing concern, it is often the case that microtransactions, or additional paid features, are offered - some more 'strongly' than others - but if the core value proposition that was initially paid for remains intact, that seems reasonable. The excessive marketing of Minecraft monetisation by Microsoft, is certainly not something to praise, but it has not reduced the ability of original owners to continue playing. I can download the latest Java version (and server) and play completely offline on a LAN, with no problem, all as part of the price I first paid back when it was in alpha ~12 years ago. Realms need to be paid for, as they are the ongoing 'service' which needs to be funded.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I suppose you’ve not played Minecraft lately. Microsoft has loaded it with monetization. Yes you can buy a license to play Minecraft with updates for forever (although I don’t think they assure you of this, as the developer in question did). But you’ll be constantly bombarded with Marketplace appeals. My daughter and I play it all the time together with her friends, which since some play on a switch we have to pay a monthly fee for a realm. Then they’re constantly asking for “gold coins” to buy skins and stuff with. Microsoft injects animations into the Home Screen to pull you into the market place, which is rendered like a flashing crack casino for kids. I suppose that’s another option for the developer.

mobiuscog 4y ago
I used Minecraft as an example for the original developer, who was certainly financially independent as a result of the success. For an ongoing concern, it is often the case that microtransactions, or additional paid features, are offered - some more 'strongly' than others - but if the core value proposition that was initially paid for remains intact, that seems reasonable. The excessive marketing of Minecraft monetisation by Microsoft, is certainly not something to praise, but it has not reduced the ability of original owners to continue playing. I can download the latest Java version (and server) and play completely offline on a LAN, with no problem, all as part of the price I first paid back when it was in alpha ~12 years ago. Realms need to be paid for, as they are the ongoing 'service' which needs to be funded.