I'm sorry I have disappointed you, I just might be a little oldskool when it comes to things like this. Pay-to-play used to be normal back in the day, with free demos.

Indie devs are working so freaking hard on projects, sometimes 24/7 and can sometimes barely survive, or even worse, they have to abandon their work after putting so much effort and energy in it... and you want that those devs to work for free?! How about you guys work for free as well?
This is their daily bread so accept that they won't work ONLY to please you! No offense but those discussions set me up.

Yes, i don't understand the concept of asking for free indie games.

How can you see a developer as someone who begs for money? Someone who begs for money has done nothing to provide YOU with any good or service. They just sit around and hope. Developers provide a tangible good that increases your happiness by a margin (whatever it may be). How do these compare? If pasik was on some random forum asking for 5 dollars for no good reason, yes, he would be a beggar. However, he is working hard on a game that will ultimately provide you with happiness and entertainment and you want this for FREE?

And let me ask if you own ANY other paid games. Are those developers beggars to? EA, Blizzard, Activision, Nintendo, Bungie. Are you saying these companies are all beggars? Because if you see this developer as a beggar, you then by definition see all of the above companies...actually ANY company as a beggar.

Yes some indie devs do provide games for free. These devs do not need the money to support their development of personal lives. Not all devs are the same.

for the seven dollars/euro it costs for this game, it is up to you to decide from the FREE demo if the game will provide enough entertainment to make the 7 bucks worth it. If you think it is, buy it. If you don't think it will do the trick, spend your seven dollars elsewhere. That is how the economy works.

However, being the not so close minded person I am , if you are underage and/or do not have a form of paying for the game and would really like to, I empathize with your issues but asking for a game to be free is not the right solution. Hell, post a topic in the off-topic section asking maybe for a trade of some sort (someone did already) or even a gift. I've known people to gift games to random other people simply because the gifter loved the game so much that he wanted the joy of it to be given to someone else as well.

BUT if your views of having a set price for an indie game as being wrong are simply that, then I hope my arguments above can perhaps help influence that view a little.

ComJak

_________________
ComJak's house... stay out of it

Just read through six pages worth of arguing whether the game should be free or not. As a young web developer I understand what it is like to be working on a project months on end without getting paid anything, you do that work for free because its what you need to do to make a income in the future. I intend to become a indie developer when I have made enough capital to sustain myself, and some of the comments I have read today actually sickens me.

All indie developers should be paid. The reason they should be paid is because they are the ones who are driving the games industry they are bringing new innovative ideas into games where's the larger company's can only bring in cheap remakes (with a few exceptions). Indie developers can make millions, true, like Minecraft that is quite simply a voxel survival game and it has made a turnover so large that the developer can afford his own games company. However with most indie developers they create their game with a part time job so they survive on the bare minimum of wages, their game is made with love, hard work, and determination to give a entertainment experience like no other.

With Running with rifles I think that my £6 (somewhere around that) was put to a good cause, I get the satisfaction of knowing that I am supporting a indie game developer and best of all I get to try the game early! I didn't even play the demo before buying the game. That money was not wasted, it was used to help pasik keep his servers running, or to buy some food, basically sustain himself. For all I know without my contribution he may of gone without food that week. Though I am sure that is not the case it certainly can and does happen to indie developers.

As for all the 'teen' players well my answer to that is that I am 17 years old, I have had a current account since I was 14 years old and have been buying games off the internet with pocket money/wages for years. If a teenager seriously wants to get into pc gaming then they are going to have to get a bank account, its not like its the hardest thing in the world.

As for the small community on the forums, I dont think we need a big community just as yet, this game is still in heavy development which means if there was a larger community Pasik may be overrun by bug reports, suggestions, requests, technical issues, etc. Its best that a few dedicated people give good quality feedback than having a huge player base shouting at the single indie developer to change something or fix that.

This concludes my post, I have given you my opinion and I think that Running with rifles will be very popular when it reaches final release. I will continue to support this game and its developer any way I can. I hope whoever reads this has a better understanding of why indie games should be pay to play.

EDIT: I intended to counter some of the half-truths of the "Non-Free" camp; however, I've been told that in my effort to be as concise as possible I have come off as a textbook. I'm sorry if this has turned away or killed any discussion that may have followed. Allow me to right these wrongs with the magical application of three short words...

Oh, but sirs! Property rights are the norm of resolving the incompatibility between more than one man's control over scarce resources. The elephant in the room is that the sharing of ideas and information (software) is non-rivalrous; in contrast with the rivalrous borrowing of one's vehicle—depriving the owner of its use. Software can no longer be economized once it enters the realm of reproduction-without-ruin. Those who expect a free game after the fact of its creation are not the same as those who expect the free production of facilities before it has begun. Demand that men pay in exchange for the abundance of air that nature has bestowed, and you'll soon find that every one of them is a heartless parasite of the Earth!

Since it is explicitly difficult to profit from what you have no control over ("piracy"), the alternative is to market the goods and services you can produce at scarcity and value. GOG.com is an excellent example of packaging a free good—games that lack DRM protection—with the prospect of their future labor in ensuring convenience, compatibility, support, among other goodies like soundtracks and wallpapers. They did not so much compete with other means of free games as they did captivate those who value it.

Of course, these are just economic observations and not my submission for a strategy. In respect of IP law (however much I disagree with it) I have always felt morally obligated to pay for my games. I see it as at least an act of courtesy to comply with the business model that may have stipulated any loans or investments beforehand.

Personal commendations to TheGent and pasik for respectably collaborating on opposite sides of the product! There are strawmen out there regarding the lack of empathy for developers that comes with the demand of a free game. I think this thread serves as a testimony of sincere logic and support for RWR.

_________________
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
~ * ~ * G R E Y * ~ * ~ * P R I D E * ~ * ~