Where to even begin...
Do you also walk into a construction site halfway through and scream that you shouldn't have to pay the contractors on a monthly basis until the entire construction is finished?
Comparing game development to paying contractors is a false analogy.
For a construction project, the client is the one who has commissioned the building. They are going to OWN the final product that has been built. Patreon supporters are not clients, they are voluntary supporters or early buyers who have NO ownership or guarantees. Not to mention that construction contracts have defined deliverables and payment schedules while Patreon pledges are open-ended donation without a guarantee of the finished product. And finally, consumers paying for the finished game are customers. Not investors. Not clients.
Each new build provides crucial user feedback and data that will directly shape the final FD3 release. By supporting this process, early adopters aren't paying more; they are funding the R&D phase
You're framing Patreon supporters as research investors rather than customers. That's misleading.
Patrons are not getting any kind of financial stake or future credit. They're just paying for temporary access. You're framing a commercial strategy as if it were crowdfunding science, which ultimately over-romanticizes your business model and avoids the actual criticisms at hand, namely that the total cost of monthly supporters is far exceeding the actual final price of your product. I'm not saying it's wrong to monetize development, but this kind of rhetoric is totally sidestepping the fairness issue which people have already brought up.
perhaps the most technically illiterate point you've made
if you put half the energy into building something
The most complex thing you'll ever animate is the motion of your fingers typing
Sorry mate, but this is textbook ad hominem.
Rather than disputing specific claims, you've chosen to attack competence and character. Despite what you might believe, this doesn't strengthen your claim. All you're doing with this strategy is reducing your credibility and alienating anyone remotely capable of critical thinking who reads your essay.
Besides, no one is being forced to subscribe
While true, it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. In the literary world, we call this a red herring.
We're not talking about coercion, but business ethics and values. By saying the equivalent of "You don't have to buy it", all you're doing is dodging the criticism rather than addressing if the model is exploitative.
Leveraging a pre-existing asset from the Unity or Unreal store is a fundamental principle of efficient indie software development.
Credit where credit's due: this point is partially valid. Reusing assets is normal in any kind of creative development. But you are missing the actual thrust of the original argument: the price is not justified if much of the game uses free or premade content. What you should have done is engage in a more detailed cost-to-effort argument, but instead you are trying to reframe it as a blatant misunderstanding of development practices.
That's deflection.
The fact that so many patrons do, despite the build currently being in a development phase, is a testament to their love for the quality work that is being done and that is very appreciated.
An appeal to popularity. Classic. You're implying that because others pay, the business model must be ethical or valid. On the contrary, popularity does not equal fairness or good value. A quick Google search will lead you to countless examples of rotten business models that thousands or millions of people bought into that were definitely neither ethical nor valid.
Appealing to popularity is meaningless. Cigarettes were wildly popular too. Didn’t make them healthy. Loot boxes are profitable. Doesn't make them ethical. Popularity shows what people will tolerate, not what’s right.
rigorous development process
it's easier to be a critic than a creator.
And finally, I've always had a big problem when people try to lean on emotional persuasion whenever money is involved. Mocking tone, self-aggrandizing phrasing, your attempts to moralize anyone who criticizes you. While you inserted them to make your post sound passionate, you're undermining professionalism and giving the impression of someone being defensive rather than reasonable.
Honestly, people can spend their money however they want. They’re adults. And frankly, I doubt anyone would even be here if they didn’t enjoy your earlier work. But when your entire defense of a questionable business model boils down to emotional posturing, false analogies, and moral grandstanding? That’s not conviction. That’s desperation.
