[agosta]

"It's possible" and "it's easy" to make money in open source are two wildly different things. Pretty sure the creator of this knows it's possible to make money in open source but that charging $33 per year is also probably not going to cover all their expenses. They've done a ton of work (they made 2 IDE extensions!) and have likely been paid very little for it so far. If it's not for you then don't buy it but don't try to tell someone they can't charge peanuts selling something they've spent a ton of time making. 33 a year is practically nothing. Sometimes I swear this whole industry has been spoiled by the gifts of free labor

[rafaelgoncalves]

I think the problem here is not the price but charging for what seems a personal project or a product that isn't even finished. Why someone have to pay to test if this works? Don't get any traction...

[agosta]

Loads of people buy the beta versions of games. Others wait for the thing to be finished. It's an MVP and whether people buy is some of the most valuable feedback this dev is going to get.

I understand complaining about price if it's truly outrageous, but demanding it be Open Source (which is most often just dog whistling for it to be free) is peak entitlement.

[rafaelgoncalves]

I can see your points and think they are legit. Only think there are more alternatives to get real feedback than selling, why not choose a closed beta like others comments said? This could be much more productive.

[agosta]

I agree with that. I'm not sure on the specifics of this rollout but I think it's all still pretty risk free - it's got a 7 day free trial. If it's not up to par, one can cancel.