Charityware – good or bad idea?

Charityware - good or bad idea?

I was just downloading Glum Buster, an aparently interesting indie platformer I saw it on TIGSource, and I saw that it uses a rather… intriguing new payment model called “Charityware”.

Basically, it’s donate-ware, but half (it’s not quite as simple as that, but basically half) your donation goes to charity.

Obviously, that’s nice and all, but it does seem to me to be a bit disingenuous – I would expect charityware to be giving all the donation to charity.  What do you guys think?

8 Responses to “Charityware – good or bad idea?”

  1. Wrongfire:

    I would say half sounds good actually.

    but then again the fact that these are donations makes it strange…

    Its almost like hes trying to get into the media or something.

    “Look at me I give half of the donations I get to charity!”
    Probably gets him more donations too.

    Odd situation.

  2. Ian:

    It just seems like he’s trying to obfuscate the fact that he’s not giving it all – I think he should be more straightforward.
    Giving money to charity is good and all, don’t get me wrong, but this feels cynical to me.

  3. Wrongfire:

    Yeah its very weird.
    Why call it charityware if only 50% is going to charity…

    plus the game is very weird.

  4. Alex:

    The idea is sound, the buzzword is misleading. It should be called halftocharityware.

  5. Alex:

    Or Igivecharityapieceofmypieware.

  6. Ian:

    yeah, HalfToCharity-ware is a bit more genuous.

  7. Ben Sizer:

    To be honest, when I downloaded this I didn’t read the small print and thought that by ‘charityware’ he was just describing the idea of ‘give what you can’. If half goes to charity rather than him that’s fine by me, although making this clearer would be good. I’m not cynical about it – nobody is rolling in cash as a result of this scheme. He’s just trying to provide an incentive to go through the whole transaction process, which is probably the biggest barrier to collecting donations. If you can donate to two sources in one go then it halves that ‘friction’, and if one source is a charity then that reduces it even further.

  8. Ian:

    So you’re saying that it’s kind of like killing two birds with one stone (or transaction)… ok, interesting.