Humble Frozenbyte Bundle Success!

By Jim Rossignol on April 15th, 2011 at 1:21 pm.

Games are magic.
The third Humble Indie Bundle, this time featuring just Frozenbyte games – Trine, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds Survivor, Jack Claw, and Splot – has proven to be something of a success. It has sold approximately 100,000 units and $500,000 within the first 48 hours. Frozenbyte say: “This is all thanks to the very supportive communities around the world and also all the media outlets. So on behalf of Frozenbyte, Humble Bundle, Child’s Play and EFF I would like to express our sincerest gratitude.”

Hooray! You can pay what you want just here.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , , .

89 Comments »

  1. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    I wonder how much had to go towards Frozenbyte so they broke even..
    I think in the last indie bundle, it was something like 3-5$?

    • Mike says:

      How can they not break even? They’ve already made the game.

    • Javier-de-Ass says:

      no no. these are hand duplicated copies of the games. INDIE!

    • Archonsod says:

      Dunno, but I suspect my moving the sliders to 100% charity and 0% everyone else probably doesn’t help.

    • Mike says:

      Oh wait, perhaps he means the Humble organisers? I’m sure it’s less than $3 per sale. Last time they made a huge amount I think.

    • Corrupt_Tiki says:

      @Mike, ah yes, that is what I was meaning, ahh, I’m too tired right now to proof-read :<

  2. Xocrates says:

    I like how Garry Newman decided to one-up Notch by donating one more cent than him.

    • Vague-rant says:

      Hah! Another guy (possibly Notch) called “What now, Garry?” went to 2000.02.

      I wish I had that much money to spend on effectively a pissing competition/generous act.

    • mlaskus says:

      Haha, Notch retailiated :P
      EDIT: ninja’d :(

    • psyk says:

      Vague-rant agreed, funny as though.

      http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8317/unleddn.jpg

      4000.02 notch
      2000.01 gary

    • BAReFOOt says:

      …and they say there is no Linux market…
      HOLY SHIT, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT CHART!
      IT. IS. AWESOME!
      LINUX ALL BOOSTIN’ ’N SHIT!
      GIVIN’ TONS OF MONEY!
      IT EVEN BEAT THE MAC! THE MAC! BOOYAAA!
      RULIN’ THE FUCKIN WORLD!
      (I have no idea how that meme is called. ;)

  3. CaLe says:

    My $0.01 contributed to this massive success. Probably not, actually.

    • Fwiffo says:

      I hope that’s all you had in the bank.

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:

      Surely this is a joke or something? That is just piracy without the illegalness. Worse, in fact; at least if you were a pirate, your downloading the games would only be through pirates’ bandwidth.

      Instead, you’re costing a charitable organisation more than you are compensating them. Well done you!

      It almost makes me wish that they set a minimum value next time…

    • Calneon says:

      And you felt the need to tout about this why? Do you feel proud that you have actually COST a charitable organisation money?

    • CaLe says:

      Yes I feel fine about it. Charitable organizations receive too much money as it is. They should be giving me money.

    • durns says:

      Don’t feed the (rather poor attempt at a) troll

    • AiglosCelt says:

      Seller offers consumer the option to purchase their product for one cent -> blame consumer when they take said option

    • tyrsius says:

      This is a pay-what-you-want model. How dare you pay what you want!

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      “that is piracy without all the illegalness” – you mean… NOT PIRACY?!?

      That’s like a ham sandwich without all the pork.
      That’s like M&Ms without all the candy.
      That’s like gold without all the metal.

    • Bhazor says:

      You’re right, it isn’t piracy. It’s worse.

      With piracy it’s just the loss of a potential sale here it’s the loss of a potential sale plus Paypal fees of $0.15 each time.

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      Look, pay what you want means pay what you want.

      I paid just under the average amount for a PC user. What went into my purchase decision?

      I already own Trine on PSN and paid a good price for it. I don’t play violent of bloody games so won’t play Shadowgrounds.

      Someone else will pay more than I do, someone else will pay less, depending on how valuable the bundle is for them, how much they can afford, and other factors. We can argue that everyone should pay a good amount because it is “fair”, but by the rules of the event, fair is paying what you want.

      No one has to justify why what they wanted to pay was what they wanted to pay. For everyone in the bottom % will be someone in the top %.

      At the end, the Humble Bundle people, developers, and charities will have to think about whether the average and total amounts raised were worth the experience. Humble Bundle can then adjust their process in the future by raising the floor price. But given that this is the 3rd time they’re doing this, then their cost-benefit analysis has shown that the marketing buzz of PWYW has been valuable despite low-payers.

      I’ve gone to the grocery store, used a coupon, and come out with a free item. This is worse than piracy because I actually took money away from the sausage maker?

  4. Xorlathor says:

    Is it just me, or did the last humble bundle do far better than this? I thought they got close to 2 million…

    • Mike says:

      More games + around Christmas. Also this has only been going for two days!

    • icupnimpn2 says:

      Far fewer games, much less variety, less source code, less music. I don’t think the current bundle has quite the same mass appeal of “something for everyone.” We get one unreleased game with no real info about what it is or how it plays. One arcade shooter & sequel, one platform game, and a bare-bones prototype that can be completed in about two minutes.

      Still a nice opportunity for those interested, but may be fewer people interested.

  5. Mike says:

    The soundtracks are great, too. It’s little things like that that I thought I would never use, but Trine’s soundtrack in particular is glorious. Plus, three bonus tracks from Trine 2!

    • rei says:

      Ooh, they had soundtracks, thanks for the heads up! I just plugged the code into Steam and never even looked at the actual site.

  6. Vinraith says:

    I was a supporter of the last two, but I think I may give this one a pass. Already own, played, enjoyed, got frustrated with, and set aside Trine, and the other games don’t look particularly interesting.

    • AiglosCelt says:

      They’re actually quite spectacular

    • KenTWOu says:

      I’ve got strange feelings about Trine Steam demo. The game as a platformer is so narrow and frustrating. The Lost Vikings by Blizzard was much better. I don’t like Shadowgrounds too. So I think, I’ll pass. Don’t want to pay for games I won’t be playing.

  7. rei says:

    I like how you’re completely flippant about hurting them in transaction fees and imagine you’re being clever. Just pirate the games next time if you don’t want to pay.

  8. Gonefornow says:

    Got them for 10$, which rounded nicely to 7.06 euros.

    Now I finally get to play Trine.
    Back in the day when it came out I was sure to get it, but for some reason I bought Torchlight instead (I don’t regret that at all, mind you) and forgot all about Trine.
    This was a fine way of redeeming myself from that little incident.

  9. Kill_The_Drive says:

    What you’re doing is also illegal, because you’re stealing money from the developers by paying less than the fees are.

  10. Mario Figueiredo says:

    Excuse me, but in Simon’s defense it’s “Pay What You Want”, not “Pay What Others Want”. If you have a problem with, that don’t buy it. Just don’t try to jump on to your high horses, because you look ridiculous on them.

  11. phosgene says:

    The last bundles I had gotten for $0.01 because I’m an asshole.

    I legitimately felt bad so I gave them $50 for this one.

  12. oceanclub says:

    What the heck, I have too many games as it is, but decided to spend at least as much as the average Linux geek, so they can’t whine too much about lazy/stingy Windoze drones.

    P.

  13. A-Scale says:

    I bought one copy for myself at $6 and one for my friend at $1. I can’t justify spending a full hour’s wage on a game I already have.

  14. Berzee says:

    “What you’re doing is not illegal, because it’s not against the law”

    fixed it for you, Kill_the_Drive

  15. Quirk says:

    Trine and Shadowgrounds Survivor both have great local co-op. You can plug in two keyboards and two mice, if you have the space. Trine recognises things rather more smoothly, Shadowgrounds Survivor needs a bit more setup.

    Played Trine through twice, once with my flatmate, once with my girlfriend. I’d got good enough on the first playthrough that the demonic final level wasn’t too bad on the second run. My girlfriend loved Trine to bits, and I think it would rank very high on her list of favourite games. If local co-op on the PC appeals to you, and you haven’t tried Trine, you really ought to.

  16. Kill_The_Drive says:

    I don’t understand why you people are so proud to pirate.

  17. Vague-rant says:

    Right, don’t look down our/your high horses at people who pay 0.01. Also, people who pay 0.01 stop being smug about how you got one up on the world. Clever you.

  18. Spider Jerusalem says:

    I mean, it does literally say: “pay what you want”.

  19. Wulf says:

    To those who only paid a 01 of your monetary units, well, keep in mind that Wolfire have been really nice to you. They’re paying for you to have those games – and in regards to the last two bundles they said that they’d field the cost for those who can’t afford it. That’s how awesome they are. And if you’re taking advantage of them… well, these are the sorts of people you’re taking advantage of.

    If that’s the case, do you like drowning puppies and clubbing baby seals in your spare time?

    I’m sorry, I just find taking advantage of Wolfire to be reprehensible.

    Wolfire are just too damned nice for their own good, sometimes, but that’s part of the reason why I have so much love for them.

    Suffice it to say, I bought it despite already owning Trine. I had no interest in Shadowgrounds, so I suppose I bought it just on the promise of Splot. But I like the people involved, and again, I see this as funding. It’s no different than Overgrowth or Kickstarter projects. Hopefully this will be the way forward, and just as hopefully there’ll be people out there generous enough to offset the ones who can afford to pay a decent amount for this package but choose not to.

    • rayne117 says:

      OMG IT SAYS PAY WHATEVER YOU WANT I DON’T CARE ABOUT THEIR SERVERS GET OFF YOUR HORSEY OMG YOU MAKE ME FEEL SO SAD STOP

      EDIT: OMG PIRACY IS NOT LEGAL I AM SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE PIRATEZ

    • Teddy Leach says:

      Rawr.

      Also, Wulf, ‘pay what you want’ really does mean that you can pay what you damn well please. No-one is under any obligation to spend more than $00.01. You have to expect things like that when someone says “you can pay what you want”.

      That doesn’t mean it’s right, but they are well within their rights to do it.

    • Bhazor says:

      And we’re well within our rights to call them whatever we want for it.

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      Yeah. And we who pay 1c are well within our own rights to call your holier than thou attitude.

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      @Teddy, Let me tell you about what’s right…

      There’s not one single bundle (and I bought all of them with the exception of the Frozenbyte) in which the games I deemed worth having, had not already been purchased by me when they were released on your usual stores. Meaning I actually owned many of the games by the time I bought the bundles. I did my part. On the business relationship between me and these indie developers, I payed for their games. Those games in the bundle that I did not have, were simply because I didn’t want to have them.

      I always buy 3 bundles at the possible lowest price. And this I do not for me (because I already own the games I want, and I don’t care about the games I don’t want) but to offer them to 3 friends of mine. If anyone thinks this is wrong you can go and l…

    • Wulf says:

      @Teddy Leach

      I kinda fail to see the relevance of your comment, yanno? I don’t know whether this is just reading issues or what, but I didn’t say that people couldn’t. What I did say is that it’s reprehensible. You can go to a public event that’s for charity, eat all the cookies, enjoy the entertainment, and then leave without paying a penny, thus costing the people who’re putting it on. It’s not illegal, I never said it was, I said it was reprehensible.

      Legality doesn’t change my feelings on what is or is not reprehensible. Here’s where my problem is, y’see… I just don’t see the relevance or even the point of bringing up the legality thereof. :p I might even have been baiting to see how many people jump up defensively at this, to see how many people likely did that reprehensible act. People tend to get crazy-defensive when they’re called on doing something that they know is reprehensible.

      @Mario

      Sure it’s holier-than-thou, but, you know, that kind of attitude is earned by having a good sense of ethics. If I’m going to try to practise having the best ethics on a day to day basis, then you can be bloody sure that I’ll be holier-than-thou when I see people who just aren’t bothering to, or frankly couldn’t care less about it.

  20. whydidyoumakemeregister says:

    I want some debit card proof that people really paid 1 cent. The credit transaction fees are probably 300X that.

    • tyrsius says:

      Actually with paypal the transaction fee is like 3%. Which probably means paypal is getting screwed.

    • Bhazor says:

      3% plus 20p for transactions between £0.01 and £15,000.

  21. TechRogue says:

    Linux user here…I paid $60 for mine.

  22. Vinraith says:

    Ah the $0.01 crowd, proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished.

  23. Serenegoose says:

    Vinraith I am shocked. Are you sincerely suggesting that someone should do, or -not do- something based on grounds (these hypothetical ‘ethics’ I’ve heard talked about in the drawing room) other than whether it is technically permitted or not? But surely we must do the most self-concerned thing which is permitted at all times, or all will fall to chaos! Surely if you -can- do something, you must! Even, no, especially, if it’s generally an inconsiderate thing to do! Isn’t this a lesson we’ve all learned by our fourth birthday?

  24. Serenegoose says:

    Trine is ridiculously highly polished. Sometimes I can’t see my screen through the bloom.

  25. BAReFOOt says:

    Just so you know: EVERYONE in this thread fell for a troll. You all fail at life.You should know that usage of the word “piracy” alone already makes you a criminal who supports the MAFIAA, and deserves to hang with them. So there’s no point in defending yourself against a troll mentioning the word. FAIL.

  26. MD says:

    To the people getting up in arms about the $0.01 crowd: do you also consider it a despicable act to download freeware games without making a donation? Often a developer will host their free games on their own website, so you’re costing them bandwidth and giving them nothing in return.

    • Vinraith says:

      “Pay what you want” is not synonymous with “free.” Freeware is nominally released without intent to make money. “pay what you want” promotions are intended to produce revenue. In this case the intent is to generate revenue for both the developers, charities, and the providing site. You are legally free to subvert that intention, of course, but it is a subversion of the intent of the providing parties, which downloading freeware without paying is not.

    • Bhazor says:

      Also having to pay Paypal costs they’re making another loss of about 20p a go. Unless Paypal charges less for charity or something.

      https://www.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-receiving-fees-outside

      So, yeah.

    • MD says:

      I was under the impression that Paypal’s fees could cut a payment down to $0.00, but not below. Can someone confirm whether that extra 20p comes off even when there’s nothing left?

      @Vinraith

      ““Pay what you want” is not synonymous with “free.””

      No, but people here are treating it as if it’s synonymous with ‘pay what you want, but if that amount is too low you’re a bastard’

      “Freeware is nominally released without intent to make money. “pay what you want” promotions are intended to produce revenue. In this case the intent is to generate revenue for both the developers, charities, and the providing site. You are legally free to subvert that intention, of course, but it is a subversion of the intent of the providing parties, which downloading freeware without paying is not.”

      Well yeah, it’s a subversion of their intent in the same sense that not buying their games at all is a subversion of their intent to make money, or going into a supermarket and buying their loss leaders and nothing else is a subversion of their intent to make money, or counting cards is a subversion of the casino’s attempt to make money.

      If you think those examples are unfair or irrelevant or silly, ignore them, because I think this is a better one: how about playing a microtransaction-based Free-to-Play MMO and never spending a cent? If you consider that unethical, then we’ll just have to agree that we have incompatible ethical standards. But if you think it’s okay, then I think, based on what you’ve said so far, you’re being inconsistent.

      edit: Just for the record, my use of the phrase ‘$0.01 crowd’ wasn’t meant as a way of singling you out, Vinraith. It was one of those things where my brain noticed those words and held on to them, but made me think they were my own. (I also used the word ‘reprehensible’ the first time, then edited it out when I realised it looked like I was quoting Wulf.)

    • Vinraith says:

      @MD

      First off, even if Paypal fees don’t cost the site money (and I’d like to know if that’s true) the bandwidth utilized by freeloaders will, so we’re talking about people taking money, not just failing to give it.

      Second, one of the intended targets of revenue here is charity. If that were not the case, I would not regard this in quite the same light. It’s one thing to play a free MMO without giving any money to a publisher that wants to milk you for every cent you’re worth, it’s another to take what’s on offer here and not stick a dollar in the jar for sick kids. Forget the devs and forget the humble bundle site itself, I wouldn’t even bother to comment if that’s all that was going on. It’s taking the products on offer, failing to give even a pittance to a good cause, then bragging about how smart that makes you that pisses me off (to be totally clear, none of those “you’s” are you personally, MD).

      So, what we have, to my thinking, is the equivalent of someone walking into the store, emptying the “leave a penny take a penny tray” into their pocket, walking out, then bragging about how stupid the store is for giving out free money. Illegal? No, but definitely a dick move.

    • MD says:

      I guess what matters to me though, regarding charity, is the end result rather than the symbolism. So from my perspective, freeloading on the Humble Bundle is ethically neutral. Or if it’s ethically negative, then only in the same way that buying unnecessary luxury items is ethically negative; that is, according to the principle — which I can’t dispute, but which is violated to a varying degree by all of us — that we should give as much as we possibly can to those who really need it.* But freeloading on the bundle doesn’t stop you from making charitable donations by other means, so yeah, neutral.

      The bandwidth isn’t directly costing the charities anything, so I’m tempted to just go back to my ‘freeware developers’ analogy. But to be fair, you could argue that using Wolfire’s bandwidth without paying does hurt the charities indirectly, by making the overall project less likely to succeed. But surely it’s only doing that to a trivial extent, and could probably be compensated for by adding a few cents to one’s next charitable donation.

      *I guess a simpler and less tangential way of putting this is to say that it’s ethically equivalent to not buying the bundle at all, minus the trivial negative consequences I mentioned in the next paragraph.

    • MD says:

      But yeah, I do understand the annoyance directed at those who make a big deal about paying $0.01, and act like they’re sticking it to the man or whatever. My problem is just that a lot of the responses don’t stop at ‘it’s nothing to be proud of/you’re making yourself look like a bit of a jerk’, but go on to state or imply that freeloading on the Bundle is a pretty terrible thing to do in the first place.

    • Vinraith says:

      I guess a simpler and less tangential way of putting this is to say that it’s ethically equivalent to not buying the bundle at all, minus the trivial negative consequences I mentioned in the next paragraph.

      And I suppose I would say that people generating any negative consequences for someone I feel is trying to do a good thing piss me off, no matter how trivial those consequences may be. Going on to brag about it, in turns, irritates me enough that I end up making a snarky comment (which is pretty trivial in and of itself, really).

    • MD says:

      Yep, fair enough. It looks like our disagreements aren’t all that large — mostly just a bit of a difference in perspective, and in the sorts of things that instinctively bother us.

      Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a 2 o’clock appointment at the puppy-hunting range.

      (Kidding! Wulf, let’s just agree to disagree on this one :p)

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      It’s really not about “sticking it to the man”, but more about people not feeling they have to justify their actions simply because they do not conform to the ethical patterns imposed by others. Everytime I discuss indie bundles I’m automatically put on the defensive. It’s inevitable because, as soon as I mention I pay the minimum possible value for them, I know I will get a choir of complaints probing at my ethical background. So, I feel forced to act like a jerk every time I mention it. It’s my pre-emptive strike at the inevitable jerks that will soon hit the reply button.

      If buying indie bundles was the extent of my contributions to charity, I’d be a very sad person if i considered that meaningful at all. They aren’t. I don’t care about indie bundles one bit. And to be perfectly clear, I don’t care about indie developers one bit either. I pay for their games when they release them, if I want and like their games (at the price an indie title goes on the market these days, I’d be nuts if I didn’t). My relationship with a business selling games is strictly commercial and nothing more. I may like some of them more than the others, but I don’t even for one moment care about their financial status or develop any sort of enthusiasm for anything else other than their games. So a indie bundle is completely and utterly useless to me. Meanwhile. any charity proceedings are also not in my horizon of contributions. I contribute to local charity only or, directly, to international associations when I want, when I can, and when I bloody well think they deserve it.

      The 3 bundles I always buy in bulk since the humble indie bundle, I do at the lowest possible price. And will gladly keep doing it. Then I just send the whole thing to three of my friends. Most of those games I already own and those I don’t by the time they reach an indie bundle, is because I never wanted to have them. As far as I’m concerned, if the organizers feel they are being ripped of, they can raise the minimum price. But as long as they don’t do it, I will exercise my ability to get away with offering my friends a game bundle at the lowest possible expense. Not because I feel entitled to, but because I can. And anyone feeling they need to question my moral integrity, should probably look at themselves first, least they pass for an hypocrite. Anything certainly goes at that point, including questioning anyone so concerned about these developers why they didn’t buy their games when they were released, or so concerned about charity why they feel spending hundreds of euros/pound/dollars an year in games is going to save the world of hunger and misery.

    • Bhazor says:

      Reply to Mario

      … or you could pay a $1 and save yourself a lot of time in writing lenghty essays about how totally justified your dick move is. Or you could just not boast about paying a penny (which as I said elsewhere costs the team and thus the charity money). Basically stop being a jerk, or stop telling us about being a jerk, or at least stop calling us jerks and then no ones upset.

    • benjaminlobato says:

      Mario, fine, you want to be that way and only pay one cent for these indie bundles. But why exactly do you feel the need to brag about this on the comment threads here, considering you know what the reaction is going to be?

      As someone already mentioned, what you are doing is equivalent to emptying the ‘leave a penny-take a penny tray’ into your pocket, and then bragging about it. Actually it’s worse, as after the bandwidth and transaction costs, Wolfire will be losing money because of you. You may think you are a real maverick that, in your words, doesn’t “conform to the ethical patterns imposed by others.” You should realize that everyone else just sees you as a jerk.

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      Actually I was not bragging. I replied to someone criticizing Simon’s 1 cent purchase. And later when I said I too purchase indie bundles for 1c in a challenging tone (with that “sue me”), I was convinced I was in the same thread as before. Because I wasn’t after all, that did sound like a bit off. I concede there.

      In any case, it’s irrelevant. It’s still about people feeling they have to intrude on someone else’s financial decisions and derive from there ethical and moral baselines all should abide to or be chastised and socially excluded. Intruding on the publishers for launching “Pay what you want” campaigns, and the buyers for deciding to pay what they bloody want!

      People who do this are no different from all those self-righteous and judgmental public figures we all are quick to criticize when they appear. And self-righteousness is always one step away from hypocrisy and moral absolutism. People who do this would do themselves and the society a favor, if they pondered about what exactly is that they are doing, and whether what they are doing is consistent with what they actually think and do at every turn in their lives; on any matter they face, and for everyone involved despite their emotional attachment to that person, institution or business organization. They will quickly find the hypocrisy behind their words.

    • Wulf says:

      Dude, you’re totally bragging. I look at your posts and it’s like you’re feeling a little gleeful about doing the naughty to a bunch of indies. Not brave enough to go out and rob a bank, so you short-change a bunch of indies in a charity event and then tell everyone you did it, and why you did it. It’s bragging. If it wasn’t then you’d have kept quiet and not felt the need to justify doing the naughty.

  27. Teddy Leach says:

    Three quarters of my cash always goes to Wolfire, and a quarter to the developers. I really should make that half-half next time.

  28. jalf says:

    Suffice it to say, I bought it despite already owning Trine. I had no interest in Shadowgrounds, so I suppose I bought it just on the promise of Splot. But I like the people involved, and again, I see this as funding

    Well, aren’t you a hero?

    Here’s the thing though. Game developers and publishers sometimes forget this fact, just like, apparently, you have.

    Games are a business. if you put a game up for sale, people buy it if and when they like. If you set a price, then people are under absolutely no goddamn obligation to *overbid*.

    If you say “pay whatever you like for my game”, then *expect* people to pay what they like. The people at Wolfire are not “nice”, they are running a company, and they have figured out that such sales are good business. That’s all there is to it.

    There is nothing morally wrong about paying the price the seller is demanding. If they demand “at least 0.001 dollar”, then I can damn well buy the game for 0.001 dollar and I don’t have to feel the least guilty about it.

    Bitching about how “the intention” is to produce revenue is both absurd and irrelevant. Why should the consumer have to worry about what your “intention” is when you put a product up for sale?

    Claiming that people who pay 1 cent are “subverting” this or that is ridiculous. If Wolfire has a problem with people paying 0.01 dollar, then they should raise the minimum price. They haven’t done that *because they don’t have a problem with it*.

    And you know what?

    If they do have a problem with it, if they truly are running this charade solely to make people feel *guilty* about the games the amount of money they spend on games? If that is their intention, then FUCK YOU WOLFIRE.

    The last thing I want when I buy a game is a fucking guilt trip, or a moral obligation to do *more than is asked of me*. I don’t believe that Wolfire is as stupid as the people here clamoring about how evil you have to be to pay the minimum amount, but if they were, it would only make them look bad, because it’d make them stupid, mean-spirited and manipulative.

    Ah the $0.01 crowd, proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished.

    What is the “good deed” here, exactly? They’re not the ones giving money to charity. And, according to your morals, they’re not even allowing us to buy games on the cheap. If we follow your rules, then they’re expecting to be paid as much as normal, but rather than simply saying up front what price they want, they say “oh, you can pay whatever you like. We’ll just go and cry in a corner if you pay us too little, hint hint nudge nudge”.

    The only potentially good deed here is *allowing people to buy games cheaply*. And that is only a good deed if they actually *intend for people to buy games cheaply*. If it is just a trick to pressure people into buying more games *at the usual price*, then I can’t really see this “good deed” of which you speak.

    So, to the holier-than–thou “I paid $150 for a game that normally costs $15 just because they allowed me to buy it for 1 cent” crowd: grow up, shut up and put up. Quit whining. Wolfire is doing very well on these sales, and people buying the game *at any price point* are just doing what Wolfire *wants’ people to do.

    • Bhazor says:

      … defensive much?

    • benjaminlobato says:

      That sure was a lot of words just to prove to everyone that you are an ass.

    • Vinraith says:

      What is the “good deed” here, exactly? They’re not the ones giving money to charity.

      They’re giving away goods at discount prices to encourage donations to charity.

      And, according to your morals, they’re not even allowing us to buy games on the cheap.

      So to be clear, in your mind the only options are “pay full price” or “pay 1 cent?”

      Quit whining.

      Take your own advice. The only whining I see in this thread is incredibly defensive individuals like yourself. It’s almost as if you feel you’ve done something wrong and need to justify it.

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      Hello jalf.

      It seems you spent an awful lot of time writing your post, is that right?

      Anyway, have a nice day. :)

    • JackShandy says:

      Hooray for capitalism! Gouge every cent you can, jalf, you loveable scrooge.

      -I can’t help but wonder what the intended outcome of this post was. It’s clear a lot of work has been put into it. Did you expect it to change people’s opinions or make them agree with you?

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      Heh heh! It’s funny how people like Jalf would write out entire essays just to defend themselves from being called a cheapskate. Lets keep calling ‘em sleazy and see huge essays rolling out. It’s positively entertaining!

    • Wulf says:

      Hey jalf – you mad, bro?

      I’m personally inclined to believe he’s a little bit mad. In more ways than one.

      Do you think he’s mad? I think he’s mad.

      Targeting someone for saying that they bought something, thus giving money to a developer they like, and then going on with a completely irrelevant rant? Rock bottom is way up there. We’re way past rock bottom at this point.

      Good grief.

  29. bill says:

    Good lord, the quality of the commenting on RPS has gone downhill and the number of trolls has jumped. What is it about this kind of deal that encourages all the assholes and trolls to come out of the woodwork?

    • Wulf says:

      I know, right? Christ.

      I looked back here out of curiosity to see whether anyone had any thoughts on the games they’d played, and well…

  30. Tengil says:

    I wish there were some other charities associated with this. While I can sort of understand Child’s Play I just feel like there are so many worthier causes that they could solicit money for charities which do not have anything to do with gaming as well.

  31. Rii says:

    The minimum price should be set so as to cover PayPal + bandwidth fees. Allowing folks to bid $0.01 and then complaining when they do is a little foolish.

    That said, if you’re really only willing to pay $0.01, hit up the torrents instead. No PayPal fees, and the bandwidth requirements are shared amongst other similarly-minded souls.

    And if you’re deliberately out to punish the charity for this exercise in non-traditional capitalism, then you can go fuck yourself.

  32. princec says:

    Shockingly deluded and bordering on sociopathic understanding of morality and ethics here from certain posters.

    Also: consider that the bundle had instead been strapped thusly: “Pay what you think they’re worth”. Which means you could still pay your one cent. Tell me to my face in the pub you thought the game I wrote was worth a fraction of a cent and then see if I’ll buy you a pint.