4 ms·

That will only die when people start seeing “free” as a negative or a red flag, especially when it’s on a highly polished piece of software or a service that co

by api 3y ago

That will only die when people start seeing “free” as a negative or a red flag, especially when it’s on a highly polished piece of software or a service that costs money to run. Until then it’s impossible to bootstrap because you’ll be eaten alive by someone with funding dumping on the market.

phkahler 3y ago
That will only die when people start seeing “free” as a negative or a red flag, especially when it’s on a highly polished piece of software or a service that costs money to run. August 1st Facebook shut down the servers for EchoVR, a formerly popular VR game. The announced it months ago. In the days leading up to the shutdown, people were still making fun of those who paid for optional items. You know, supported the game we were all going to miss. I said maybe if more people paid they might not shut it down. I think one kid actually had a bit of an epiphany.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  That's not really the user's fault though. They didn't pay because the things to buy were not appealing enough. The developers should've either chosen a better monetization strategy or made the optional items sufficiently appealing. I've seen some other games too where people felt compelled to throw money at them because they feared that otherwise development would be halted and the servers shut down, and it has always been indicative of a game in a bad state (since it typically means that the players are seeing the player count on Steam etc and realizing that the game is likely financially unsustainable).
  - phkahler 3y ago
    >> That's not really the user's fault though. They didn't pay because the things to buy were not appealing enough. My point was that people not only don't pay if they don't have to, they ridicule those who do, even while enjoying the benefit provided by those who do. It's a weird disconnect rooted in selfishness.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >They didn't pay because the things to buy were not appealing enough. There are a lot of things I don't buy (both online and off) because I'm not willing to pay what they're sold for--which may or may not be what they cost. I don't have an unlimited pile of money. And most things end eventually although if they're commoditized enough they may end up continuing to be offered by somebody/somebodies at some price.
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
That entire playbook is predicated on cheap and plentiful VC money. If that money dries up--which was the premise of the original comment--that strategy will die off, regardless of consumer behaviour.

by api 3y ago

phkahler 3y ago

That will only die when people start seeing “free” as a negative or a red flag, especially when it’s on a highly polished piece of software or a service that costs money to run. August 1st Facebook shut down the servers for EchoVR, a formerly popular VR game. The announced it months ago. In the days leading up to the shutdown, people were still making fun of those who paid for optional items. You know, supported the game we were all going to miss. I said maybe if more people paid they might not shut it down. I think one kid actually had a bit of an epiphany.

dotnet00 3y ago
That's not really the user's fault though. They didn't pay because the things to buy were not appealing enough. The developers should've either chosen a better monetization strategy or made the optional items sufficiently appealing. I've seen some other games too where people felt compelled to throw money at them because they feared that otherwise development would be halted and the servers shut down, and it has always been indicative of a game in a bad state (since it typically means that the players are seeing the player count on Steam etc and realizing that the game is likely financially unsustainable).
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> That's not really the user's fault though. They didn't pay because the things to buy were not appealing enough. My point was that people not only don't pay if they don't have to, they ridicule those who do, even while enjoying the benefit provided by those who do. It's a weird disconnect rooted in selfishness.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >They didn't pay because the things to buy were not appealing enough. There are a lot of things I don't buy (both online and off) because I'm not willing to pay what they're sold for--which may or may not be what they cost. I don't have an unlimited pile of money. And most things end eventually although if they're commoditized enough they may end up continuing to be offered by somebody/somebodies at some price.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago

That entire playbook is predicated on cheap and plentiful VC money. If that money dries up--which was the premise of the original comment--that strategy will die off, regardless of consumer behaviour.