That's how the entire industry works. Clients offer you money for tweaks in the software and then it's your turn to decide whether or not the changes are worth the money and the customer goodwill. Devs decided that it isn't - I respect that. Stil, of course we're using money as a tool to try and get someone to change something, that's the standard approach.

As for what is and what isn't for me... I really won't go into that discussion with you again. I'm fairly sure I know better than you, thank you very much.

What are you talking about? This isn't contract work. Can you seriously not understand the difference between what you're talking about and retail? 15 USD is not in the same realm as the money you'd spend for the kind of work you're equating it to. If you want to be taken seriously, open up your own kickstarter to get the devs to make an easy mode for Volgarr.

Also, the game isn't for you if you have to alter the game experience. You're just being delusional.

Look, I'm being polite. You're being aggressive again for whatever reason, so that's where the discussion comes to a sudden halt. I'm really in no mood to lose my energy in explaining how popular demand (I believe that's the right term in English - can't really be arsed to look it up at this point) works to get called names.

Well, I just bit the bullet and bought the game :) After a few hours of heroic action I'm now at world 3 with the oh-so endearing ghosts :( and my criticism still stands. I'm not sure why I'm persisting with this but there's something very addictive, I think it's the spears.

At least if we could continue from the checkpoint when reloading the game rather than the start of the world... I don't think that would in any way reduce the challenge of this game ?!!

Who are you to say who the game is for, get off your high horse . Your kind of atittude is why online games suck for most of us.

I'm still waiting for official soundtrack being added, I'd get it for that alone - and perhaps even play it when I can muster the time needed to get anywhere in the game. Which I can't right now, sadly enough.

The soundtrack is epic and a welcome change from the usual retro chiptune nightmares in all the retro shovelware.

The point I was actually making was that if enough people withhold their money, dev might decide to opt to implement a change - which they might not do if the same amount of people want the change, but get the game regardless. There's a massive difference there. I was not currently talking about artistic integrity, nor do I really care to - I thought I have made it quite clear that I respect the decision of the dev now that it's been clearly voiced. Kudos on business classes, I have worked for several years as freelance developer if we have to go into e-peen territory. Just want to be clear on that.

I addressed that point with my (sarcastic) comment about opening up a kickstarter to show how many people would pay money for the game if it had more checkpoints, because you cannot figure that out based on a vocal minority. I'm willing to bet there are very few people that are in the market for this type of game that will pay if it gets more checkpoints, though.

Also, my comment on business classes has less to do with epeen and everything to do with you trying to downplay my intelligence on the subject. Just want to be clear on that.

I have never downplayed your intelligence, all I have done was to try an explain our position. You're the one who has started with insults (albeit minor ones) yet again.

You keep calling it bullying - I call it informing. I wouldn't have gotten the game regardless. Now I have two choices - I either voice my opinion on why don't I get the game or I keep quiet. If I voice my opinion and a sufficient amount of people do the same, dev is actually informed that a part of the potential market would be interested, if they implement changes. Nobody is forcing the dev to do anything in any way, shape or form - they can now make an informed decision on the next course of action. If I had to choose between people keeping quiet about withholding their money even when they are interested and them actually telling me 'Look, here's why I didn't buy it', I will always go for the second option, even if I decide not to cater to them - at least I know they exist.

And that's what I'm talking about. It's a situation I have faced myself and a situation faced by my current company many times in the past.

That's all fine and dandy, but that's not how the comments came off at all.

"I am sitting here thinking about buying it and trying to make a decision on whether I want to support this sort of game design. I think I won't.."

and

"Or, you know, devs can just lose money. They have already lost my 10 bucks. They have lost it to me buying Rage, actually - if Volgarr the Viking optionally had more checkpoints, I would have spent my 10 bucks on it as, quite frankly, I want to play trough Volgarr the Viking more."

Your comment is more of a demand than a request, more of a demand than a way to inform. (Actually, scratch that, it's not even a demand. You're flat out saying they lost the money, and you already spent the money elsewhere. There is no longer an "if you do this I'll gladly pay!" That's a "you fucked up, and lost your chance in my eyes") You can sugar coat it all you want, but there is nothing "informing" about it. It's condescending and presumptuous, and all of your comments have been this way (proof in your comments about how you try to explain the business to me). It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to come off this way, because you did. You can bump someone on the street, and despite not meaning to, it's still rude.

The reason why I decided to ignore your post last time is because you continued to display this same rude behavior, all while using the victim card. It wouldn't be an issue if you did this once or twice, but you have done this in all of your comments (just look back at how "I'm a programmer, it's easy to implement X into game that I never saw the code for!").

Edit: We can go back and forth forever trying to one up each other and pretend that the each person is worse than the other, but I will not waste my time anymore. It was good to get through work messing around, but it's the weekend now.

I'm still playing through Volgarr on and off, and now am in World 6. I like the game, but ... look, I "get" artistic integrity, and the desire on the part of the developers to try and recreate as much of the "classic" spirit with Volgarr as a game. At the same time, though, the simple fact is, the developers are providing a product (Volgarr) to an audience for purchase. While customers certainly don't have the right to "bully" a company into fitting their needs, it really is bad business practice for any company (in any industry, really) not to at least respond affirmatively to customer desires. If there's a demand for something, and it makes sense, then a company should engage in a good-faith effort to consider what customers are saying (this plays to the "implied contract" aspect of business), and not dismiss it outright in the name of "artistic integrity." Simple as that. To do so otherwise, quite frankly, shows willful disregard on the part of the company, and shows how little they value their customers. I will continue playing Volgarr until I finish it, but the developer's persistence in not granting customers' wishes for more save points has caused me to decide not to purchase any future software from them. It's corporate elitism at its worst. Even now, Electronic Arts is reconsidering the online-always requirement for SimCity after customers asked for it (and this was after the company insisted on saying "no" to changing the online-always requirement at first). Again, I totally get artistic integrity, but couldn't a compromise be made? Let customers have the option to choose if they want to have a checkpoint right before boss battles, at least. What is so hard about that? What this really boils down to is good/bad business practices. And right now, the developer is engaging in bad business practices through willful ignorance of customer desires. A shame, really. Quote re: implied contracts (or quasi-contracts): "A quasi-contract is not really a contract at all in the normal meaning of a contract," according to one scholar, but rather is "an obligation imposed on a party to make things fair."

It doesn't make sense and the demand is minor.

All I can say to that is "wow" ... okay; I'm done with this.