Switching a licensing model...
There never
was one here.
This game specifically was never FOSS, but it did have a different licensing scheme / financial model (donate to help support the development of this here free game). Every person donating knew there was also a public version, can you really say that none of them cared? that none of them were donating specifically because there was a public version?
If they care about that, and care enough, they're free to stop donating. That is entirely in line with what
donating means.
In regards to demo. A demo is when a complete software product is made, then a small portion is made freely available to "try before you buy".
A formerly free product suddenly changing their licensing model is not a demo. Even if it does coincidentally result in a "try before you buy" situation, the details differ.
Act V was never a 'free product'. The actual, 'demo' part never changed. Well, okay, it changed but for the better, Steam money being used to
improve the 'demo'.
And people here were advocating for
reducing the current amount of 'demo' by a factor of 4 or so. They thought having
too much of the game available to try was somehow 'manipulative', whatever that actually means.
Let us be clear. What
exactly are you arguing for here? The removal of Acts II-IV from the free version? The addition of Act V to the free version? The removal of the free version altogether? Something else?
Steam
...
How is that making more money?
Massively bigger market share in advertising the game. A convenient e-publishing platform that cuts down costs
a lot.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is this genuinely the first time you've encountered Steam's advantages for everyone involved, including indie devs? Never wondered why Steam is
swamped with shovelware and why there are so many indie devs around today? Steam is a
gigantic enabler for the small developer.
Steam's model relies on getting a constant stream of new customers, while patreon relies on retaining your patrons, supporters who donate to support you for month after month. There might be an initial lump sum from steam but it will taper off much more quickly.
You're
massively underestimating how much smaller Patreon is compared to Steam. Even a trickle by Steam standards is quite respectable for anyone who's not in the
absolute top of Patreon.
Also, the game is not complete. So right now, the Steam version is basically a preorder/early access/in development/whatever kind of game. Yeah, potentially manipulative. But unlike the vast majority of companies who practice that, Ravager actually lets you sample pretty much everything
that's ready for
free. If 4MW actually manages to take all the Steam moneys and
fails to produce Act V,
then we can start talking about
actual manipulation.
In any case, it's nearing a year on Steam, and 4MW looks to be satisfied with the money they're getting from there. Your theorycrafting (with zero
actual numbers or analysis!) means little in comparison.
Only way to get more on steam is via DLC glut. But that just makes for an even tougher sell as it alienates many customers.
Which is why
The_Searcher proposed adding "certain extras that doesn't affect the main game but offers extra value" aka DLC?
I hate DLC as much as the next grumpy gamer, but people are not as opposed to DLC these days as you'd think.
But you really got to be very very careful in thinking through the long term consequences of fiddling with licensing / financial models.
There is no licencing. There is only a cut-off point where they say: this is as far as we are able/willing to work for free/using donations. Nothing is removed that anybody ever had, or was promised to get.
