What is stopping someone from publishing SNKRX to a site like itch.io and
selling it for 1€ instead? And if nothing is stopping it, why hasn't someone
done it yet (that I know of).
>What is stopping someone from publishing SNKRX to a site like itch.io and selling it for 1€ instead?
Nothing, that's my whole point.
>And if nothing is stopping it, why hasn't someone done it yet (that I know of).
Not everything that can happen has happened (or will happen).
But many programs in similar open status were indeed taken and sold this way. And sure, it's legal and a particular creator might be fine if that happened to his program. But that wasn't what we were discussing in this subthread, but the fitability of this model for people wanting to make a living, e.g. the proposition that: "I guess he's kind of undercutting himself by making it available on github, but I bet most people would rather pay 3€ and have nice steam features than download and compile a game off a site they likely don't know".
Well, first, the undercutters might put their version in a nice site like Steam as well. And that's just one case (or e.g. Steam discourages them, even though what they'd be doing is legal), there's also games/apps that they are sold in the author's website or on iOS/Android app stores - and for those anybody undercutting them with their own build/copy would have an equally convenient/prestigious delivery trivially.
Now, there are some cases where the original creator would fare better, but not because of the basic mechanics of the model, but because of other factors: e.g. a creator could have a nice following and be well loved in the community, to the point that most users would go out of their way to buy their version for support, and not the third party ones, even if the latter are undercutting it.
For the average program and the average creator without fans though, if they are concerned about their own sales, that's more of a "put it out in the open and pray you don't get undercut" proposition...
Nothing, that's my whole point.
>And if nothing is stopping it, why hasn't someone done it yet (that I know of).
Not everything that can happen has happened (or will happen).
But many programs in similar open status were indeed taken and sold this way. And sure, it's legal and a particular creator might be fine if that happened to his program. But that wasn't what we were discussing in this subthread, but the fitability of this model for people wanting to make a living, e.g. the proposition that: "I guess he's kind of undercutting himself by making it available on github, but I bet most people would rather pay 3€ and have nice steam features than download and compile a game off a site they likely don't know".
Well, first, the undercutters might put their version in a nice site like Steam as well. And that's just one case (or e.g. Steam discourages them, even though what they'd be doing is legal), there's also games/apps that they are sold in the author's website or on iOS/Android app stores - and for those anybody undercutting them with their own build/copy would have an equally convenient/prestigious delivery trivially.
Now, there are some cases where the original creator would fare better, but not because of the basic mechanics of the model, but because of other factors: e.g. a creator could have a nice following and be well loved in the community, to the point that most users would go out of their way to buy their version for support, and not the third party ones, even if the latter are undercutting it.
For the average program and the average creator without fans though, if they are concerned about their own sales, that's more of a "put it out in the open and pray you don't get undercut" proposition...