I suppose Palmer will answer that if he/she sees and it and feels like replying, but I think that "difference" is partly explained here?:
You must be registered to see the links
- implying (I think) some people might not have followed the whole story, got the full gist, and yet take exception to this or that plot twist. Because they have an allergic reaction to one or other character.
That post doesn't explain anything, it simply states that there is a difference.
But, I do think we'd need
@Palmer to clarify because I took the
what people that support us say from following along the story.
to mean that when the patron followers played chapters 14 that they didn't have the same criticism at that time, not that they don't have the same criticisms now, two chapters later, which means when they played the chapter, without any future knowledge or explanation, their view was that the chapter made sense and wasn't off putting at all. Which is fine. I'm just not sure why Palmer would tell us that, which is why I asked.
I think it's surely fair enough if developers pay heed to the people who keep them going (livelihood and morale) first...But wouldn't you, in almost any type of work (or life), pay first attention to those who sustain you?
Not necessarily.
Let's say I run a business. There are investors who get dividends from the success of the company. So far we're making profits but if I take a risk there's a possibility I could make a lot more money. Market research says its a good idea. However, the investors don't want to take the chance
Who do you trust? The people who don't know your business but know the market, or the investors who'd rather keep making a return on their money?
The fact is you have to take both and weigh your options. You can't ever just listen to one side of the table, especially if that table is agreeing with you. I understand that Palmer thinks that's what's he's doing, I'm simply asking about the purpose of the comparison. The two sides think differently. And? Is it supposed to make us rethink our positions just because the people that pay for the product liked it? As I already said, it's not surprising that there's less deviation amongst people who enjoyed the story enough that they were already willing to pay for it.
I think "ungrateful freeloaders" is a pugnacious term of your own, that tends to inflame the discussion if you are imputing it to Palmer - the developer having made it clear in more than one post that all decent feedback matters, and is listened to
...
But I don't think I've necessarily a right to expect whatever I want to be done!
Of course, ungrateful freeloaders is my own term, but I'm not trying to inflame anything. If I were content to sit back and think of Palmer as some obstinate dev with an ego, I wouldn't have then said that I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and ask what he meant. I'd have just gone away, believing him to be exactly what it seems. I understand that there's a difference between the paid and non-paid, I just don't see what the point of bringing it up to us is, unless it's meant to incite guilt or provoke us. So, I asked, because it may just be that I don't see the purpose.
I don't expect him to change anything either. He can't. At this point, my view of chapter 14 is effectively meaningless because he's already a few chapters ahead, and probably more in terms of planning. I'm not stamping my foot and demanding he go back and fix it. But I also don't read a book and then think 'well, this was published months/years ago, there's no point voicing my dissatisfaction with plot point X'. If Palmer wants to write the story he wants to write, more power to him, but there's no imperative on me as someone who's experiencing it to be accepting or agreeable.
