Message #823

From: Melinda Green <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] commercializing cubing
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:33:46 -0800


I’d love to hear other members opinions too but for my sake I think that
you deserve everything that you can get for your creative works. The
problem as you wonder is just how much you can hope for. People hate to
pay for software or other digital content but as you point out they’ll
gladly pay for physical objects. I suppose there’s some sort of animal
instinct here because intellectually it doesn’t make sense. The article
you cite seems to want everybody to suddenly feel differently, and that
seems like a very silly thing to ask. Maybe we feel that when we pay for
something, it should cost the other person something too, otherwise it’s
not fair. Whatever the reason, I doubt that you could make more than one
or two thousand dollars from a virtual twisty puzzle. Maybe you could
make more but I suspect that you’d have to put a lot more effort into
promoting it and protecting it, and that those efforts wouldn’t be
nearly as fun as your day job. But what do I know? You can certainly
charge for it and then change your mind later if you like too. You might
also try finding the highest quality, most successful looking commercial
puzzle software and asking the creators how it’s going for them. If it’s
not working for the best of them then I’d be convinced that it’s an
unlikely way to make money. Plus they might have other suggestions.
Maybe Meffert would be a good person to ask. Regardless, I certainly
won’t hold it against you for trying.


Roice Nelson wrote:
> Hi all,
> Here’s a non-technical question I’d be curious for any and all to
> weigh in on. I’m on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik
> analogue program I’ve worked on a bit over the past half year, and was
> planning to post it free as I’ve done with other hobby projects. Then
> this blog post
> <>
> shows up in my reader today describing "the radical idea that you
> should sell what you make." I’m curious what others think of this.
> Is it unrealistic to expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik like
> program? Would doing something like that injure the commercial-free
> spirit of communities like this? Is the Rubik software market simply
> supersaturated with freeware, such that it’d be hopeless to try to
> charge anything for yet another Rubik program? (I tend to suspect the
> answer to the last is yes.)
> These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally
> incredible amount of work. I happily pay for physical puzzles on a
> regular basis, but have always downplayed the monetary value of the
> software versions. How come? I don’t think I’ve had any fundamental
> reversal in my plans or anything, but the blog entry at least made me
> want to post this.
> I’d love to hear your thoughts,
> Roice