Noontide13: The Ultimate Edition is thusly the first "Complete Collection"
eiii: I like that wording,
first "Complete Collection". :) So instead of buying The Under Games DLC now I'll rather wait for the
last complete edition. :P
Ah sorry for the confusion. My response there was in the context of what had been purported by other users that we had previously released other bundles as "Complete Collections" this is not the case, in fact we'd always purposefully avoided using terms such as "Complete" or "Ultimate" before due to the implication of a final release. Previous collections we're called "Gold" and "Anniversary" respectively.
So to clarify, this is indeed the First, Last and Only complete collection for WFTO (Though one may argue that because the Seasonal Worker Skins aren't included, as we felt they should remain very very optional that it's not entirely "Complete" Hence "Ultimate"). We don't plan to release any further paid content so hopefully that should clear up any ambiguity.
UsernameTaken2: Thank you for taking the time to make such a well-written reply. I completely agree that it's often hard to do what would be best for everyone within the sytem we have. If you want to know what I think would be more fair, then I rather like the pay-what-you-want model used by the Humble Bundle. Not only does that let people pay only what they can afford, it also makes it possible to pay *more* than usual (which is something I wanted to do for a few games that didn't acheive the popularity I felt they deserved). I have no idea if that could be made to work on a large scale.
You're welcome and I appreciate that you took the time to read my response, I often get a bit wordy and I have a bit of a reputation for walls of text! :D
It's certainly difficult and though the Humble model of "Pay-what-you-want" did actually come into my mind while typing my response it's hard to envision that as a potential way forward for the majority of the industry.
Obviously I can only speak from experience of WFTO and with that project being the only one I've ever had the fortunate to be involved in but it is a very very expensive endeavour to produce something even to this scale. As the production costs go up some degree of certainty is required to offset the risk and it would take a great deal of trust on the part of developers to trust that such a model would see reasonable returns and that there would be enough customers that spent higher than the break-even point to make up for the losses.
In an industry already fraught with risk, weakening discovery potential, oversaturation of products and stiff competition there's not many who would be willing to take that step. Though I do know some smaller indies, typically one-man-bands, that have tried this model on their own websites and charged a standard price elsewhere.
But when you start factoring in that your business supports permanent staff members, that you are responsible for feeding them and their families it is sometimes better to air on the safer side of business decisions. I know I speak for many on the team that I am glad to know that the leadership of Brightrock is looking out for me and the future of the company. It provides stability and thus allows us to focus on developing the games we love.
If we introduced some significant uncertainty it could be quite harmful for the creative process. However I'll also say that we're very much focussed on trying to be as consumer friendly as we can and it's always been my top concern as a community manager to ensure that our customers are happy with how we operate as a company, it's something we respect deeply here.
Thanks once again and I hope that sheds some light on a developers perspective. :)
Cheers!