Developer of Hive Time reflects on the release and their pay what you want model

I'd be happy to pay $10 if it went up for sale on Steam. I'm not sure I buy into the whole "doing so now would also mean abandoning commitments" argument against that, unless keeping the game up-to-date on two (or more) platforms is unviable, and putting the game on Steam would mean having to remove the game from Itch. It reads more like Cheese doesn't want to put the game on Steam due to stubbornness, which is perfectly fine -- it's stubbornness on my part stopping me buying the game on Itch after all.

I'd be happy to pay $10 if it went up for sale on Steam. I'm not sure I buy into the whole "doing so now would also mean abandoning commitments" argument against that, unless keeping the game up-to-date on two (or more) platforms is unviable, and putting the game on Steam would mean having to remove the game from Itch. It reads more like Cheese doesn't want to put the game on Steam due to stubbornness, which is perfectly fine -- it's stubbornness on my part stopping me buying the game on Itch after all.

The commitment he's talking about is a self-imposed philosophical one: being able to buy the game without having to create an account, as well as the pay-what-you-want model.

The full set of commitments/constraints (pay-what-you-want pricing, being able to buy/play without requiring a storefront account, being able to buy/play without requiring a storefront client, being able to play without forced updates) that I've embraced significantly limit the storefronts I can sell the game on.

You don't (necessarily) need to be running the Steam client to run a game you purchased through Steam, but you do need a Steam account and to have run the Steam client at some point to download it. It is possible to continue running non-updated versions of software through Steam, but it requires manual intervention since Steam was created as a means to get updates out to everyone.

Later in the piece he describes Steam as "less user-friendly" because he views those constraints as important.

Interesting read, though.


Last edited by CatKiller on 24 October 2020 at 2:51 pm UTC

being able to buy the game without having to create an account

That's great, but stopping others who do want to create an account from buying the game is counter productive. I'm ok with steam, I support them because they are doing good for Linux, and I don't really want to have multiple store fronts / game launchers. They think putting this only on itch has the benefit of no account and pay what you want, but the truth is it's stopping me who want to have an account and want to pay full price from buying the game. It shouldn't be only itch, it should be including itch IMO.


Last edited by ShabbyX on 25 October 2020 at 5:29 am UTC

It is possible to continue running non-updated versions of software through Steam, but it requires manual intervention since Steam was created as a means to get updates out to everyone.

That manual intervention is so far beyond what a typical user is going to be up for, and it needs to be re-done every time the game updates (which a user might not notice and may end up accidentally launching a new game, risking their saves, etc. if there are any format changes or other backwards compatibility breakages). That is very much in conflict with the kind of customer experience that I'm committed to providing for this game.

I'll be honest and say I'd forgotten about hive time, but now I've gainful employment once more then I bought a copy. I quite approve of the game myself.

Super appreciated. Many thanks

I don't really want to have multiple store fronts / game launchers

The whole point here is that you do not need to have those. I'm totally happy with people choosing to not buy or play the game, though 👍

As mentioned in the article, I tested that the game runs happily through the Steam client when added as a "non-Steam game" before release, so anybody who wants to have the experience of playing the game through Steam can do so without problems.


Ultimately, one of my goals with this game was to study and write about the dynamics of pay-what-you-want games, and I wouldn't really be able to do that if it was also available with a different pricing model (especially in a place where I wouldn't be able to advertise its pay-what-you-want identity to prospective players).

The article goes into more detail, but Hive Time has been downloaded over 40,000 times, and including Itch bundle purchasers has over 800,000 owners. Insofar as finding an audience goes, the game has been far more successful than I had expected or wanted - on both counts, more than some of the games I've worked on that are on other platforms (including Steam).

Edit: Fixed URL


Last edited by Cheeseness on 26 October 2020 at 8:56 am UTC

I'd be happy to pay $10 if it went up for sale on Steam. I'm not sure I buy into the whole "doing so now would also mean abandoning commitments" argument against that, unless keeping the game up-to-date on two (or more) platforms is unviable, and putting the game on Steam would mean having to remove the game from Itch. It reads more like Cheese doesn't want to put the game on Steam due to stubbornness, which is perfectly fine -- it's stubbornness on my part stopping me buying the game on Itch after all.

Stubborness with arguments = commitment
Stubborness without arguments = stupidity

I don't really want to have multiple store fronts / game launchers

The whole point here is that you do not need to have those

Added as a non-steam game works, but then you don't get updates. Selling steam keys per pay-what-you-want may work, probably with a special clause that steam keys require a minimum because steam charges you or something.

I don't really want to have multiple store fronts / game launchers

The whole point here is that you do not need to have those

Added as a non-steam game works, but then you don't get updates. Selling steam keys per pay-what-you-want may work, probably with a special clause that steam keys require a minimum because steam charges you or something.

Steam does not charge developers for keys. I can request 10000 keys to use on another store/bundle/giveaway and Steam is 100% ok with that.

I mean I get it, all your games managed in one place.

If this is the desire, wouldn't one be able to achieve such thing using Lutris?


Last edited by Rooster on 25 October 2020 at 5:32 pm UTC

That manual intervention is so far beyond what a typical user is going to be up for, and it needs to be re-done every time the game updates (which a user might not notice and may end up accidentally launching a new game, risking their saves, etc. if there are any format changes or other backwards compatibility breakages).

Not really. If you're running a game without the Steam client (which depends on whether the game dev uses Steam features or not, but is trivial if they aren't) just copy the game files wherever you want and run them from there.

The instructions you linked to were for specifically rolling back an update that a game dev has pushed, where the game dev hasn't made the option otherwise available to use an older version. Breaking changes between versions are also the dev's choice.

[quote=ShabbyX]

Added as a non-steam game works, but then you don't get updates. Selling steam keys per pay-what-you-want may work, probably with a special clause that steam keys require a minimum because steam charges you or something.

Nothing stops you from installing a newer version whenever it suits you.
There are lots of different possible ways to ship stuff on Steam and combine that distribution on other platforms, but as I've said, it's just not appropriate for this project. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of saying that meat should be made available to participants in a study on the effects of vegetarian diets. Being available on Steam (a platform that does not offer pay-what-you-want pricing) would specifically prevent me from being able to study and write about a project that only uses pay-what-you-want pricing. It would prevents me from seeing whether people who might prefer to buy a game on Steam would still be willing to buy elsewhere (turns out, most are)

Steam does not charge developers for keys. I can request 10000 keys to use on another store/bundle/giveaway and Steam is 100% ok with that.

It's slightly more wrinkly than that. Valve have always had the power to deny the generation of free keys, and exercise it from time to time when something crops up that isn't a good fit for the store (in order to preserve pay-what-you-want pricing, I'd effectively have to have a game that wasn't available for purchase on the Steam storefront, but for which I was selling keys elsewhere - that feels like the kind of inappropriate use of the platform they'd be keen to crack down on).

Not really. If you're running a game without the Steam client (which depends on whether the game dev uses Steam features or not, but is trivial if they aren't) just copy the game files wherever you want and run them from there.

The instructions you linked to were for specifically rolling back an update that a game dev has pushed, where the game dev hasn't made the option otherwise available to use an older version. Breaking changes between versions are also the dev's choice.

Even just copying the files is way out of band for standard user experience, and specifically involves circumventing the platform's intended behaviour. From a developer perspective, I don't feel comfortable recommending manual workarounds like that to my customers.

That said, if one is cool with copying files elsewhere and adding the game back in as a non-Steam game, that's awfully close to the exact steps one would have to do to download the game from Itch and run it through the Steam client...

Breaking changes between versions is often not a conscious choice on the part of developers. I put some effort into maintain backwards/forwards compatibility with user data, but statistically speaking, there will eventually be something that I overlook or just plain mess up. That said, I should be free to consciously change file formats if that feels like the right thing to do for the future of the project without that risking a forced update upsetting the files of users who'd prefer to run an older version (even if you make older versions available in another branch, a user still needs to notice an unwanted update and manually switch branches without accidentally launching the game - it's a mess).

And for something entirely different, something that caught my eye and I just liked was the menu scroll indicator: rather than a straight line, it follows the edge of a hexagon. Nice little touch there.

Thanks! I had that idea long before the game had a menu. It was a bit finicky to set up, but I'm really glad I was able to implement it and that people appreciate it :)


Last edited by Cheeseness on 26 October 2020 at 10:14 am UTC

I will forever remember Hive Time as the first and only game I created a mod for. Yes, I'm a modder now!* In my hive, all the bees are named Eric and I love them semi-carnally!

* I edited two json files, wooo!

Even just copying the files is way out of band for standard user experience, and specifically involves circumventing the platform's intended behaviour. From a developer perspective, I don't feel comfortable recommending manual workarounds like that to my customers.

Manually copying files around is the "user-friendly" outcome that you were looking for. I'm not trying to be argumentative here; it's entirely a dev's decision whether they choose to release on Steam or choose not to release on Steam, and that's fine.

The client's intended behaviour is an auto-updater, yes, for Counter-Strike, I believe, but there's a button in the client to easily show a game's files: that is also intended behaviour. It opens up your normal file browser at the appropriate location so you can do whatever file management stuff you'd do if you'd got the files from anywhere else.

That said, if one is cool with copying files elsewhere and adding the game back in as a non-Steam game, that's awfully close to the exact steps one would have to do to download the game from Itch and run it through the Steam client...

Why would you add the game back into Steam? The hypothetical is that not using the Steam client is superior to using the Steam client.

Breaking changes between versions is often not a conscious choice on the part of developers. I put some effort into maintain backwards/forwards compatibility with user data, but statistically speaking, there will eventually be something that I overlook or just plain mess up. That said, I should be free to consciously change file formats if that feels like the right thing to do for the future of the project without that risking a forced update upsetting the files of users who'd prefer to run an older version (even if you make older versions available in another branch, a user still needs to notice an unwanted update and manually switch branches without accidentally launching the game - it's a mess).

The file formats, manifests and scripts are entirely the developer's choice. There's no reason why a dev couldn't copy a game's files to a backup location prior to running an update in preparation for users using those files should they opt in to using an older branch. Each update comes with a News link where a dev can provide information on the changes and instruction on how to opt into an older branch, and the Steam client comes with access to the Steam forum for direct contact between devs and customers.

To reiterate: you can't easily do pay-what-you-want with Steam, and you can't distribute files without the customer using the Steam client. Those are absolutely valid reasons for a dev choosing not to release on Steam, and it's the dev's choice where they release regardless. If a dev wants people to be able to run older branches, and customers want to run older branches, that is absolutely something that can be done with the Steam client; the issues arise when a customer wants to run older branches and the dev doesn't want them to, which isn't the case here. At any point (assuming the game doesn't use Steam features, and so requires the Steam client to run) a customer can also independently take whichever version they're happy with and run it from wherever they prefer.

Apologies for the slow responses - some personal life challenges have made it difficult to give attention to this sort of stuff.

I will forever remember Hive Time as the first and only game I created a mod for.

Very nice! Even if it's just for silly stuff, I'm super happy that people feel like they can find some extra fun by poking around in the data files :)

The client's intended behaviour is an auto-updater, yes, for Counter-Strike, I believe, but there's a button in the client to easily show a game's files: that is also intended behaviour. It opens up your normal file browser at the appropriate location so you can do whatever file management stuff you'd do if you'd got the files from anywhere else.

That's still buried behind a dialogue and a bunch of clicks that makes it entirely undiscoverable, and is still outside intended user behaviour (IIRC the intention for the browse local files option was to make installing mods easier when it was added back before Steam Workshop existed). An acceptable solution wouldn't require me to hand-hold users who hadn't done it before through the process.

Why would you add the game back into Steam? The hypothetical is that not using the Steam client is superior to using the Steam client.

The perspective I'm coming from for this line of discussion is only that I find the forced auto-updating behaviour of the client to be inappropriate and incompatible with the experience I'd like to provide my players with. The majority of users who've seemed keen to get the game on Steam have specifically been interested in running it through the client, which tracks for me - I can't imagine why someone would prefer to buy the game through Steam if they didn't want to run things through the Steam client.

There's no reason why a dev couldn't copy a game's files to a backup location prior to running an update in preparation for users using those files should they opt in to using an older branch.

No reason aside from being wasteful and not respectful of users' hard drive space/lifespan in order to have a pretty clunky work around for something that shouldn't need working around in the first place. Recall that an option to entirely disable updates per game used to exist, and that was removed - it doesn't make much sense for me to overlook that the platform has moved toward making avoiding unwanted updates increasingly more awkward for users (it's totally fine if others want to, but that's not where I'm at).