As promised in December, the game is now completely free for everyone to enjoy—forever! This decision comes after modest sales during the first month and a half after release. While the game was still profitable, financial gain was never my primary motivation (I have an independent job outside of game development). My true passion lies in creating Zach-like games with open-ended puzzles and intricate technical solutions. Now, my goal is to reach a wider audience.
I just think that if the dev doesn’t care if they get paid or not then they should offer people back their money. I would assume few people would ask for their money back, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoting for suggesting the dev offer refunds. Is offering consumers a choice bad?
No, but suggesting they are somehow morally obligated to offer it is nonsensical. They didn’t need to make the game free, they chose to in order to increase its reach. That choice doesn’t hurt anyone who paid, it just benefits others going forward.
I really don’t understand where you’re coming from with this. If you bought it in the last two weeks (or more, Steam is pretty generous), request a refund through Steam. If not, nothing changes for you because you bought at a price you thought was a good deal.
I could understand if they broke some form of promise, like they stopped developing during early access, they promised to fix some things and didn’t, or they disable multiplayer servers, but none of that seems to be the case here. In what way are existing owned harmed by them making the game free going forward?
Sort of. Steam offers refunds for any reason. They use that phrase on their FAQ.
But if you already knew that, why did you bother with the first comment?
I just think that if the dev doesn’t care if they get paid or not then they should offer people back their money. I would assume few people would ask for their money back, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoting for suggesting the dev offer refunds. Is offering consumers a choice bad?
No, but suggesting they are somehow morally obligated to offer it is nonsensical. They didn’t need to make the game free, they chose to in order to increase its reach. That choice doesn’t hurt anyone who paid, it just benefits others going forward.
I really don’t understand where you’re coming from with this. If you bought it in the last two weeks (or more, Steam is pretty generous), request a refund through Steam. If not, nothing changes for you because you bought at a price you thought was a good deal.
I could understand if they broke some form of promise, like they stopped developing during early access, they promised to fix some things and didn’t, or they disable multiplayer servers, but none of that seems to be the case here. In what way are existing owned harmed by them making the game free going forward?