Slashdot Mirror
The Return Of Shareware Games
An anonymous reader writes "CNN has a new column up looking at the re-emerging trend of shareware as a means to distribute games. With development prices soaring and space on retail shelves getting scarce, smaller companies like PopCap Games and GarageGames are returning to gaming's roots - and making money in the process."
Wow, people aren't just cracking them like we used to do?
Do you mean addictive, or slimming?
I don't know about you guys but I miss the days of being able to try a demo before buying a game...sometimes months prior to the release. I remember playing the Quake III: Arena beta for months before it was released at which point I was first in line to purchase it.
:)
Nowadays you get games that are released without demos or in the cause of Unreal 2003 a demo months after the game is available retail. Is it just me or does it make more sense to either release demos/shareware prior to launch rather then waste development time weeks after launch when most people have demoed it at a friend's house by now.
Just my observations
Oh and another great thing about shareware is it can be freely ported and released on different platforms without it being considered piracy. Its nice playing Heretic Shareware on my Dreamcast.
With the emergence of games shipping unfinished, with so many bugs and really pathetic gameplay, is it any wonder shareware is coming back. Its the simple phrase - "Try before you buy".
Most development houses are pushed these days by publishers to get games out in peak selling periods, and often these games are lacking in more than a few departments. Thats why shareware could work once more, especially with ease of purchase over the internet and bandwidth these days.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
"Wow, i wonder if Duke Nukem Forever will be shareware?"
There's no ware to share.
"Derp de derp."
Ambrosia Software has been doing this on the Mac for ages. Their games are always fun, reasonably priced shareware.
I've bought more than a handful of their titles, and have had more fun with them than most commercial releases provide.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
The poor site didn't stand a chance. Here's Google's cached version.
Now all of their money will be going into paying for extra bandwidth...
"Please be patient and try again in a few moments.
GarageGames.com is currently experiencing an extremely high volume of traffic. Your patience is greatly appreciated.
--GarageGames"
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
The bottomline is that it does not matter whether the publisher calls the game or program shareware or not. It is by default shareware, till I decide to convert it to payware or freeware. It just goes to show how the shareware philosophy is no longer on the fringes but it is the mainstream.
With so much of warez, crackz and serialz, put out by some brilliant minds, I think there is no real difference between a shareware and payware today, esp. in this superconnected space of internet. You can try anything, whether shareware or payware, for almost as long as you like, and if you really like it, then you pay for it. It is the same philosophy that I use for music files too.
From many programs that I try, I choose only a few that I eventually buy. Thus, from my point-of-view it makes no difference whether the publisher calls it shareware or not. With all the crackz and serials every game/program is shareware for me till I decide to convert it to either payware or freeware. It is nice that some publishers are waking up to this reality.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
- The demos tend to be representative of the final game. I don't get to play 1/10 of 1 level with 99% of the the features disabled - as I often do with boxed software. It's not in a shareware developer's best interest to turn you off with a bad demo. There is no shelf presence to make you think "Damn, I should give that a second-chance"
- Instant gratification. I can download a demo, decide I like it, place and order and receive my liscense code within a matter of minutes. The days of waiting for your registration to be processed are coming to an end.
- Price. I can get most games for $20, $30 tops. This, coupled with the faster registration times I mentioned above make shareware more of an impluse buy than ever.
- Developers generally have a better attitude. This is purely subjective, but in my experience the developers are much more interested in what the community thinks of their product and how it can be improved than the "boxed" developers. The "release and forget" mentality is simply not that big of an issue in the shareware community.
- More complex games are showing up as shareware. In the past, simple Tetris-like games have been the mainstays of the shareware industry. Escape Velocity, and the Mac version of Uplink are good examples of this. More users with high-bandwith connections are making epic-scale games easier to distribute.
We've been making money selling shareware products (really, just electronically distributed/sold products these days) for the past 15 years, and making money at it. Yes, with a real office, real employees, and real paychecks.
The bottomline is that it does not matter whether the publisher calls the game or program shareware or not. It is by default shareware, till I decide to convert it to payware or freeware. It just goes to show how the shareware philosophy is no longer on the fringes but it is the mainstream.
This is a very good point
The term "shareware" has been bastardised over the last decade. Back when the concept first arose, SHAREWARE was software you could share with your friends and, if you felt it warranted it, you sent the author a donation. There was nothing crippled, there was nothing missing. You could freely copy it, and the developer might make a few bucks.
This new usage of the word now means nothing more than game demos put out by developers who can't/won't get their games on the store shelves.
In short, it AIN'T SHAREWARE, not by the correct definition.
And that, by the way, is the first time my cat has ever stepped on my keyboard and successfully posted to Slashdot.
Schnapple
Playing UT taught me that I hate teenagers. I'm amazed that more parents don't eat their young.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
The problem with this article is that 90% of the "shareware" I download isn't shareware at all, it's a demo.
The way I (and most people I know) define these terms:
Shareware: Software distributed in a fully functioning, non-limited version. A request is distributed along with the software that asks the user to send some money to the author(s). whether or not you send the money, the software will have all features and not disable itself at any time. The software may have a "nag" screen that asks for you to send the fee.
Demo: Software that is disabled or restricted in some way from it's full version. To use the software's full feature set, or to use it for an ulimited amount of time requires you to pay a fee. Not paying the fee will cause the software to disable itself, or to continue to operate in a lesser manner than the full version.
Freeware: Shareware that has no request for money. the software is free.
Free Software: Similar to freeware, but the source code is usually available and usable by end users.
There is a VERY large push today (apparently backed by sites like Versiontracker) to use "shareware" and "demo" interchangeably. Sorry, but I just don't but it. I pay shareware fees when I use truely shareware software. I've decided to boycott any software that claims to be shareware but is in fact a demo.
Some software (such as BBEdit on the Mac) sort of blur the line a little. BBEdit Light is freeware, you may use all the program's features for as long as you like. But Light is also a demo for the full BBEdit which is commercial software that has more features than Light. There is also a true demo version of BBEdit that is lauch limited, then refuses to operate.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
between work, beach and going out
You're lying.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
It seems that the the low cost and ease of distribution and charging that the internet gives us is once more making it viable for the small one-man firms to trade.
A prime example of this is Llamasoft, Jeff Minters old company. Back in the 80's and early nineties he produced what many people would say are some of the finest examples of really addictively playable games. Revenge of the Mutant Camels, and Llamatron being some of my favourites.
For many years since the Yak has put most of these old versions on his website for people to download and enjoy, claiming it wasnt worth the expense of trying to sell anymore, but with little or no new material available.
Now it seems he has relaunched Llamasoft and is releasing new improved games as shareware, with full versions available for about 5UKP, which is serious value for money for work of this high a calibre.