3 ms·

I'm sorry, but I share the idea that it's a silly reason. Paying for closed source software to contribute to open source gaming? I don't understand that. It's d

I'm sorry, but I share the idea that it's a silly reason. Paying for closed source software to contribute to open source gaming? I don't understand that. It's different than say, downloading Ubuntu and donating $20. With one you're saying "I enjoy this free product, take $20 to help continue development." With the other, you're telling them it's ok to not provide it for free, and you'll gladly pay for it. I bought Minecraft for what it was, and still is, a sandbox game that I've had hundreds of hours of fun in. I've bought it for several friends of mine for the same reason. But I won't buy something because of the chance it might become something I want, when it currently isn't. (I learned that lesson when pre-purchasing Spore).

clarry 12y ago
Actually the intended message was that I'll gladly pay for it since you promised to make it free. But I guess the message gets lost and this is another reason why voting with one's wallet doesn't work. We're still looking for a way to fund free games. And I don't think donations work too well. More importantly, the people who actually make games don't seem to find it working too well, because they are not making free donation-supported games. On the other hand, many game authors already see the value in eventually freeing their work. So if they promise to do that, it is a reasonably effective way of getting a free game by first helping them do what it takes to make it profitable enough to actually build and finish the game and eat something too. Is it not?