Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
I have a question (several, actually) -- when a publisher releases a game, do you feel that they owe you, the players of that game, updates to the game in perpeptuity?
How many updates do they owe you for the money you paid for the original game?
Do they owe you more than a bug-free version of the game as it was originally presented?
Do they owe you continual support/updates without you paying any more for this?
Do they owe you a sequel to the game, no matter how well the original did?
Do they owe you a sequel even if the original author of the game is not interested in doing that himself?
Do they owe it to you to release the source code to the game as open source?
Should a game developer/publisher ignore financial motivations (and thus possibly face bankruptcy or at least a weak business model resulting in less captial for the next project) in order to appease their customers in the above scenarios?
I'm curious where people think the line is drawn... what you expect to get for your money.
------------------ Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Quote
Originally posted by andrew: How many updates do they owe you for the money you paid for the original game?
I'd say as long as the game is being updated, the people who paid for it should get those updates. Maybe if it's a really big update (and I mean big) that might warrant a small fee, but I'm not sure.
**
I have a question (several, actually) -- when a publisher releases a game, do you feel that they owe you, the players of that game, updates to the game in perpeptuity? How many updates do they owe you for the money you paid for the original game? Do they owe you more than a bug-free version of the game as it was originally presented? The publisher owes me a bug-free version of the game as it was originally presented (I assume by that you mean "as advertised"?). If the version of the game that I received when I payed for it does not meet that, the publisher should be obligated to provide updates at no additional cost until it meets those requirements. In addition, updates as necessary to keep the game functioning in the latest os versions (and/or the latest version of libraries, etc. that the game uses) should be provided at no cost unless it would involve a rewrite of the majority of the game. In that case, it would be appropriate for the publisher to stop supporting newer os version (and correct the System Requirements to specify that) or to provide the upgrade for a price slightly less than if I were buying the game for the first time.
Do they owe you continual support/updates without you paying any more for this? Continual support (as in tech support)? Yes. The publisher should always provide assistance to users attempting to run the game in an environment that meets the System Requirements for the game. Continual updates? See above.
Do they owe you a sequel to the game, no matter how well the original did? Do they owe you a sequel even if the original author of the game is not interested in doing that himself? No, they don't owe me a sequel. (But it's always nice if it's possible :))
Do they owe it to you to release the source code to the game as open source? Absolutely not.
**Should a game developer/publisher ignore financial motivations (and thus possibly face bankruptcy or at least a weak business model resulting in less captial for the next project) in order to appease their customers in the above scenarios? ** There is such a thing as self-preservation. A company should never knowingly put themselves at risk. Customers can't possibly be appeased if there's no one left to appease them.
-Elizabeth
------------------ The (url="http://"http://employees.3gi.com/~ereid/ferazel")Ferazel's Wand Player's Guide(/url) (http://employees.3gi.../~ereid/ferazel)
Originally posted by andrew: ** I'm curious where people think the line is drawn... what you expect to get for your money.
Not much of a gamer (as others here obviously are...), but mostly support Shareware. FW is the first real "game" I've ever played. So, that said, IMHO all a game developer "owes" a customer is a bug free game, and if it takes a couple of minor updates, those should be free to those who have paid. Major upgrades are nice, and if the developer wants to offer them to existing customers for a lower price than to new customers, it works for both the developer & the purchaser. (I am in marketing and know it is much cheaper to keep an existing customer than to develop a new one.)
(I do have some registered shareware where the developer emails me everytime they release a new version, and all upgrades are free, but this is the exception rather than the rule.)
Most importantly, any sales organization has to walk a fine line between keeping their existing customers happy and going broke doing so. Others have posted on this topic but I'll just say that, once 1.03 was issued, everything I needed to find out has been answered in this forum.
I think FW offered excellent value for money and I will continue to support Ambrosia products.
EGC
------------------
(QUOTE)Originally posted by andrew:
I agree with most of the other responders. All the developer owes me is a bug-free version of the game.
It is probably good marketing strategy to provide minor updates at no cost. But I am willing to pay for major updates that add new features (e.g., new Ferazel levels).
Cathy
The game deveoper has to provide the game as advertised as the others said and also, while not always required, it is genneral good practice to provide an editor. (as Ambrosia has: ) However, a company, if they are going to release upgrades or sequals they have a certain responcibility to quality. If it is an update/ expansion it should be not just MORE then the original it should be better in quality and also (though not as importantly) in size. If it is a sequal it should not be an addon in disquise. A sequel should be in the spirit of the original but it should add significant improvements that are tangible and directly affect game play. Overall the game should be better in every way. Most think that the sequal has to be like a movie sequal in the fact that it is chronologicaly after it. I dissagree, the story can be before the original, so long after that it bears no resemblance, it could be the same time but in a place far away, or even in the same place but different substantialy. (no stupid parralel universe explanations are needed, the game will merely be the game the developer would of made had they had more time and resources available.) I was quite dissapointed with EVO becuase it realy was an add on pretending to be new game. The game play was more or less the same as a plug in with the same universe in EV would provide, it added no new and easy to add features like those in Ares (which was a good game) such as collidability and significantly better AI. While EVO was a great game, and the price for buying it for people who already owned EV was reasonable, it did not have the neccesary amount of improvements to make it a good sequal.
-Walter- (at annother location so unable to post under registered name.)
(QUOTE)Originally posted by andrew: **I have a question (several, actually) -- when a publisher releases a game, do you feel that they owe you, the players of that game, updates to the game in perpeptuity?
Should a game developer/publisher ignore financial motivations (and thus possibly face bankruptcy or at least a weak business model resulting in less captial for the next project) in order to appease their customers in the above scenarios? .
**(/QUOTE} Dear Andrew,
When the game stablizes out for the majority...then you should be satisfied. If you are offering a product to the public and expect not only for us to purchase it...but also spread the word as to it's 'got to have it' potential....that question is really one for you to answer as the publisher. If it is bringing in profits on a continual basis...why wouldn't you? --------------- I feel that until the game has reached the stable point as Ferazel seems to have, ..then updates are necessary. But not in perpeptuity...nothing is in perpeptuity even life. --------------------- Clarify that statement.. --------------------------- Support services, certainly, and usually webboards like this solve that issue. Any thing past that, phone or email service at a reasonable cost wouldn't be unacceptable to most of us.
------------------- No, and since I supported the ball rolling in here for that call..let me clarify that point. Sequels happen when they happen. Look at Star Wars. The support that Ben has received for Ferazel may not garner a sequel at the moment..but down the line...the comments and support from those of us who thoroughly enjoyed this game...may be the impetus to pick up Ferazel again. ---------------- Owe...??? NO ---------------- Absoulutely not. ---------- No, but on the other side of the coin, neither should you..the financial reaper of the these customer's business, dismiss our thoughts and opinions about your product. I don't expect you to drop everything and start another Ferazel...because I was so enthralled by it. But, I hope that all of our comments to you exhibited the loyalty and appreciation for a superbly created game, and that we as Mac loyalists...know a good thing when we see it.
---------- I got what I expected.....didn't you? Looking forward to the next treasure from Ambrosia...and till my wand dims....Ferazel rules my heart!!! --------------
(This message has been edited by cjazz (edited 06-22-2000).)
Originally posted by andrew: I have a question (several, actually) -- when a publisher releases a game, do you feel that they owe you, the players of that game, updates to the game in perpeptuity?
Excellent questions, Andrew. I think "owe" is a very strong word.
** How many updates do they owe you for the money you paid for the original game? **
Enough updates that the game behaves "as advertised," especially if any bugs crop up that prevent playing the game or completion of the game. I'm in the middle on OS updates and new hardware that "breaks" older software. It's frustrating for the user, but I don't think I would go as far as saying that a publisher owes me a free update. I'm always grateful for such efforts, but I could see paying a reasonable upgrade fee. (As an example of a non-reasonable upgrade fee, Norton makes you basically re-buy NUM everytime Apple updates the OS - Ouch!)
** Do they owe you more than a bug-free version of the game as it was originally presented? **
Nope. Always a nice bonus though.
** Do they owe you continual support/updates without you paying any more for this? **
(Updates I dealt with above) - Depends on the level of support and what is spelled out when the game is purchased. I think that gratis email support for a year or two after the purchase isn't unreasonable. However, phone and more in-depth support I can reasonably see having a time limit.
** Do they owe you a sequel to the game, no matter how well the original did? **
Nope. Again, nice bonus if it does happen.
** Do they owe you a sequel even if the original author of the game is not interested in doing that himself? **
Nope.
About that last part: Damn strait, and gamers tend to not like sell outs.
Running a small business is tough, but that is like saying choosing who to vote for and managing your finances is tough so the government should control all of us. The problem with selling the company is that once you sell it THATS IT. They can do what ever they want with it. Many people do not understand that when you give away your freedom it is not an easy thing to get it back. I think that the backlash is justified, Bungie sold their soul and that is all that can be said.
-Walter-