Request New way to fund virtual pinballs

[tripletopper]

If Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, and Goole are open to this, maybe there is a way Williams and Bally can make more money.

I notice that Twitch gets paid 7 cents an ad for various third party advertisers. 5 goes to the streaming talent, and 2 goes to Twitch. Maybe Bally can show a commercial when you start a game, or every drain, (depending on how many different advertisers they get, how much they get paid per ad, and much backlash there'd be) and you get he table for free. It's like inserting a virtual quarter into the machine every time you play a pinball game. Instead of paying with 25 cents, you pay with 30 seconds of your time.

This resolves the issue with licensing, so that if a table is not a uniquely Williams and Bally owned, but is licensed from a different IP holder, the tables and ads are segregated, so you know which portion of the money goes towards Terminator 2, especially if they think it will be more popular than other pinball tables.

Maybe it should be a ridiculously high price for a table like $5 a table to won outright. But you watch ads to earn plays. You earn credits on pinball tables for a so many cent discount on a license. Maybe there can be a minimum license price of 50 cents a table, if you pay with earned credits, but ad time will pay Farsight, Williams, Bally, and the system makers their respective shares of $10 of ad time per person on that table.

Games are a way better place to put ads than TV. With TV you can time shift. Companies had to come up with new ways to prevent time shifting like Fear the Talking Dead, a talk show about Fear the Walking Dead, on immediately following, or WWE texting polls, which occur live as it happens, so poor schlubs who time shift don't get the benefit of choosing an opponent or something like that.

But games must be played live to make sense. Literally the only types of games that can be time shifted are Chess and Checkers, games with no random mechanism and is turned based. Chess by mail was probably the world's first networked game. So maybe if you're doing a competitive pinball game online is a race to 2x replay value, and instead of subtracting points for a drain, you get penalized 30 seconds of you dong nothing while your opponents catch up. What a better place to put a commercial than in those 30 seconds you're penalized! If you ignore the commercial, get up and use the bathroom, you'll miss the startup cue and voluntarily penalize yourself more.

 

[FarSight_Matt]

I think games are the worst place for advertisements. They shatter immersion and encourage people to stop playing.

 

[tripletopper]

That's why the user has a choice. if they believe paying $1-5 per table license saves a few hours staggered in between drains, they'll pay it. If thery are a more causal fan, or maybe can't afford it until it';s on sale (why the Xbox One veriosn of Pinball Arcade table packs didn't have salkes is beyond me. I would have swooped them up more likely if they had biuy one season, get addtional seasons half off) maybe the free advergaming mode would way to earn money off those who would normally plunk one quarter into a pinball table at a time, but not necessarily own a digital version.

Look I'm not so cheap that a quality thing is worth it. I paid for a a season that had 4 tables I loved as a teen/kid, and compared to the individual licenses, it was like getting other tables for free. It was the season with Cyclone, Jackbot, Safecracker, and Addam's Family AT FULL BULK PRICE. IT was like $5 a table I really liked and getting the rest for $1 a piece. I understand if you are a pinball geek (and I'm using tha term affectionately, a decent proportion of my games are Pinball games and retro games) some games you want to own as unmolested as possible.

Maybe there some you like more than others, you pay full price for the ones you use the most, and pay with ad time (which I believe is easier than pay-per-credit) for the ones you dabble in. If it turns out you make more money on dabblers by advergaming than you do hoping a certain percentage of the trial dabblers pay up, then that would be the smart move, with the obvious premium pack where you pay to own an ad-free license.

With this option you make money off both die hards and casuals. And maybe you can have an every-so-often live tournament where being in the top certain percentage of scores on that tournament playthrought win a $1 off ad-free licenses. Does it really matter to you whether you get your money from people whipping out their paypals or from companies paying to put their product in front of the game? And does it have to be one or the other. Diehards can pay for the unmolested ad-free experience, and the rest can tag along.

Remember it's not being a measure of best al time score, but best instantaneous score of that playthrough, which means performance under pressure, whihc could be funded by so many ad views at that one particular table.

As for advertising on games not being effective? Most people know that these are third party ads. Most people know it's not meant to be taken as an endorsement by Farsight, the pinball makers, or any IP license holder, unless those commercials have such mentions in their ad content. TV viewers can watch TV and understand that he ad content is separate and independent. Also it gives you incentive not to drain or tilt. The better you are at the games, the less percentage of time is spent on ad time and a larger percentage on game time.

I don't know what the ad per viewer is, but Twitch advertisers, people watching other people play games, pulls in at least 7 cents per customer for an ad view( 5 for your choice of streamers and 2 for Twitch) , and that's their cheapskate option. They also have an option where you can pay Twitch to support their streamers. And twitch has ad limits to avoid ad abusers. Sometimes it's more quality than quantity, meaning there are comanies willing to pay $1 a head for ads. I have gotten 100 bit ads on twitch before, and then they freeze you ad watching ability until a new sponsor comes along.

It also doesn't have to be every drain. It can be every switch to a new table, every so many consecutive credits on one table, or every so many minutes on the same game.

But the advantage of ads is that with fixed licenses, it's one-and-done. Once you own the game, Farsight has no way to make money off you on that particular table any more. But the more a free ad-based game is played, the more money Farsight makes over time. If 50% of the downloaders buy one license for the tiltes they enjoy the most, they might make enough money through the lesser enthused tables just by playing and saying "why not it's free and it supports the company who makes these tables, and all it costs me is 30 seconds of time every so often" The 20% who buy every table would get you a good shot in the arm, but the 80% on 80% of the tables will give you a constant blood flow.

I guess Farsight would like the initial rush of diehards as well as the IV of the casual crowd. remember it doesn't have to be EITHER the big rush of an initial license, OR the gradual drip drip drip of casual players discovering it over time. It's probably better than buying add on DLC for table already in existence like head-to-head special competitive internet modes as add-ons, or hoping a higher percentage buy the premium license. If $10 /player/table is raised by ad revenue, then it would be in the diehards best interest if they value time to buy the license. As for the rest of us, that's more than you can sell virtual tables for on a free market.

Then there's the issue of whether you can have ad supported tables on Playstation, Xbox, Switch, Apple, and Android. I have never seen an ad-supported game on any of these systems, with content-independent ads (more like most TV ads) most ads are either hard baked in the game like Budweiser Tapper, or can't find a way to regularly pipe in new ads to make a sconstant stream, but with internet based ads that change over time, you can have ads that are independent of the content, and constantly raise money, becuase once the ad contract runs out, they can finsd a new sponsor. Or you can sell multiple 30 second intervals that rotate, go out, and come back in.

So yeah, I'm not saying change the canonical table to include ad content where it doesn't belong, like the "Company X Skill Shot" or a modes activated being sponsored, (the one exception being "Budweiser Tapper", but even Bally couldn't renew the license without controversy , so they called it Root Beer Tapper in kid-firendly venues, at home, and when the Bud license ran out. You did that for 94 World Cup Pinball, re-themed it to generic international soccer, and take out the official 94 WC mascot.) And it would 100% likely be bad if there was a cliffhanger break mid-ball-flight to post an ad for something. It would screw up the flow of the game. So the only natural break is either between drains or between credits. Since you're a litle more adverse to ads, maybe between credits.

But what's better $5/table/ paying player, or 10 cents per playthrough from every player for the life of the license. And giving the people the choice of buying an ad-free license or watching ads to pay for the games gives the user more options, and gives you more revenue streams. What the exact price of ad the market will bear per runthrough vs the the market value of the table ad-free license would determine it how free you are in ad-based games vs the cost of the ad-free license. You can probably use linear programming to figure out where the optimal price is.

You take advantage of one key factor, that GAMES CANNOT BE TIME SHIFTED, to maximize ad revenues. If you want the high score, you're a prisoner to the game, a voluntary prisoner, but a prisoner nonetheless. And if you hate to be a prisoner of the ads, do one of two things, either pay for the ad-free license, or not partake in the entertainment.

By the way my friends had a private gambling contest on who'd get the most Xbox Achievement points in a week. Let's just say used sales in 2014 of Hanna Montana: The Movie: The Game were up because of this bet, at least locally at the store level, just to get the easy 1000 achievement points. Imagine if you could earn free achievement points, would you just have to put up with 30 second ads just to add opportunities to add our points? If some people are willing to put up with bad games for an easy thousand points, then 30 seconds/credit for ad time is nothing. And if you've never played Hanna Montana: The Movie: The Game, my point exactly.

P.S. I would have bought the rest of the seasons if there were Xbox specials on Pinball seasons, but unfortunately, neither Xbox nor Farsight through the Xbox store offered pinball seasons for sale.

 

[Xanija]

I think games are the worst place for advertisements. They shatter immersion and encourage people to stop playing.

I absolutely hate advertisements in general and in video games even more. This is why I prefer spending few bucks for a game rather than being pestered by an ad. Only one thing is more annoying in the game industry these days, and that's the so-called "micro transaction" BS.

 

[tripletopper]

Advertisements: They are either absolutely destructive or a godsend. For the tables you play the most, it would be better to pay a few bucks for your favorites and save the ad time. For all the rest ad-based games would be smarter. Sega did that with Sega Forever, either watch ad breaks at times that won't interrupt play, like after a life or level, or some other logical relax point, or pay for the license at any time if you want to stop ads, or try the game a couple times, say the game isn't for you and the makers make a few extra cents on your sampling.

It's the opposite of TV advertising. In TV advertising, you see the hero in peril or see a team fall far behind and want to see the conclusion and then commercials hold your interested when you want to get back to the game, in passive media, it builds up drama.

But advertising has never really been tried in mainstream games, except for permanent baked in ads that's considererd part of the content, like Budweiser Tapper.

if you follow the TV model and place the ad at the most tense point where, in the case of pinball, you have a couple of seconds to hit a shot, and, if an ad interrupts it, everyone would be so mad, and rightly so, that their concentration was broken in mid shot, and it would be seen as cheap, and make you so frustrated that you never want to play again. It's one thing to interrpt it for an irresistable bathroom urge, you lose track of the current situation. You'll have to remember the speed and direction the ball was going in to pre-meditate an action, if you've memorized it. Otherwise you're at the mercy of reaction, and with LCD TV having a typical input lag of 33 ms, until you buy a specific low-lag monitor is hard to react to, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you probably lost a life.. The die hards probably have a low ping monitor, the casuals probably would not.

The game model is to introduce the the ad in a natural resting point. You don't have to think about yourt next move on a nervous hairtrigger. Sit back, celebrate the level beat, or mourn the lost life, for 30 seconds, and then go on. The smartest time to interrupt games for ads is when you have recenter your mind. So a level break, or a life break would be the perfect time. But limit to one 30 second commercial every 5 minutes at the worst.

It's bad enough to blame your bladder, but if the flow was interrupted because of an ad, you would create a "Frack this!" reaction and never turn on the game again. And the ads wouldn't be watched which doesn't help the gamer, doesn't help the advertiser, doesn't help Farsight, and doesn't help other monied interests in the table.

I don't have a cell phone, but I imagine the reason why Sega Forever failed on cell phones was not becuase of the choice of an ad-free license or adverware. It failed because no one wants to control character with a touchscreen on games meant to be controller with a joystick and 3-6 buttons. I bet you the Sega Forever concept would have succeeded better in the home console market where you have real controllers. The concept of giving people choice to play an advergame or buy a license didn't work, because after one cell phone play, you didn't want to play it again, so they made a penny to a dime times the number of Sega fans times the number of times it takes to realize that without the right controls, it sucks.

Unfortunately Microsoft and Sony are too closed minded to realize that money is money, and it doesn't matter whether it's off license sales or advertising. They make their percentage whether it's licensing of advertising. They sold the Sega Genesis disc for those consoles. The only reason I bought that disc was for online play, but that's a separate issue.

I can understand Nintendo's reluctance to use ads. They got an image to protect with Mario and friends. You don't want to see an ad for snuggle clothing or a few bad words or gory violence on a E rated game. Nintendo should ban ads for content that is less family friendly than the game's content suggests.

Likewise I doubt if Nintendo would want to advertise in their ads a game for PS4 and Xbox 1, unless they have a generic claim saying "Check your local game store or your system's ROM store to see if you can buy Game X", kind of like how they say "check local listing for channel and times" for shows not on their family of networks. And yes Cable/Satellite has ads for shows not on even their FAMILY of networks, like an ABC commercial on USA, an NBC/Universal network. That also opens it up to to coming to Nintendo systems if that ad campaign boosted sales.

But I've seen websites like GreaatDayGames.com which gives out both unlimited free plays and random prize drawing which depend on raffle tickets earned in said games (to be legal, you can't buy them, only earn them through play, but tend to earn more through skillful play), and they show one 30 second video ad every "natural break of the game, at least 5 minutes apart" 1 30-second commercial within 5 minutes of content is a 12:1 content to commercial ratio, where broadcast TV is close to 2:1 and basic cable is 2.5:1. Broadcasts don't ask for a dime from customers, and they stay in business. They got their start as a skill gaming contest, but when interstate internet skill gaming became illegal unless it contained NO random elements, they found they mode more money by offering them for free, paying some $50 prizes to a few "weighted random" raffles, placing ads to pay for that and make money, and not having to spend money on lawyers making sure they're legal with less sure footing. And they own no licenses for any popular stuff. All their stuff is in-house.

Imagine if they had stuff people were actually culturally aware of. They'd be even more popular, but then they have to discuss ad splits with other companies. People put up with 2:1 content-to-commercila ratios on TV, and advertising is less impactful due to time shifting and commercial skipping.

But video games have the advantage of be REQUIRED to be played live in order to be effective. There's no time shifting. There's no skipping commercials. That's why game companies make more money with less proportionate ad time, while broadcasters have to collect rebroadcast fees to pay for skipped commercials on Tivos.

If you don't like the idea of having ads in the canonical games, think of it as having commercials in free fully-functional demos of the game, and then you buy the game to skip the ads if you think you'll like it enough where you save time.

Some people have more money than time, so spending 30 seconds on an ad who makes a thousand dollars a minute loses $500 of theoretical income per commercial, so a $5 license would be valuable. Likewise, especially on digital titles, when you have to commit money, and you have more time than money, like me, on Social Security disability, you either have to wait for sales, or only buy the games you're really interested in. Depending on what else I have to buy, $30 for 10 tables at once seems like a lot when you make the minimum Social Security income of less than $1000/month and pay quite a bit of that towards rent in your parents' house.

I will probably buy one Gottlieb pack a month because $10 for 5-10 tables is a good deal, being $2 or less a table, and less commitment on one transaction. I already own Stern on optical disc and game wafer format for the One and Switch, which I found for $15 each for 15 tables, one of those being a new purchase.

But if Williams and Bally want a bigger, more constant stream of income, instead of day-one highs and then the money-drug crash of money withdrawl, if you make yourselves and Bally and Williams so much a month constantly, maybe it's worth their while if you can promise them a "job-like income stream" for no work except allowing you to use their tables, instead of "a wad of cash".

If I were a game maker, I'd personally consider the ad route on major consoles for all the reasons stated. I believe in a steady income while people try to win Xbox Points and/or raffle tickets for prizes. The more they play the more you earn.

You just have to ask yourself, do you want your games actually played and make more money when playing them more, or money for adding your game just ticked off in a collection? If you believe in the replayability of your tables, then the ad option makes more sense. If you want to wow them on day one, and then hope word of mouth doesn't kill sales on day 2, go with the pay license. But more people would play a free game because it's free than people would stay away because it's got ads. And if you hate ads, there's the pay license for those who want to go that route. The question is do you believe in the replayability of your tables?

 

[Naildriver74]

I’ve got the rope

 

[Rudy Yagov]

No offense, but you're kind of wasting your time with these super long posts. Nobody is going to be on board with advertisements, no matter how many ways you try to make it sound like a good idea.

 

[Citizen]

No offense, but you're kind of wasting your time with these super long posts. Nobody is going to be on board with advertisements, no matter how many ways you try to make it sound like a good idea.

This. Mainly because you're pitching a predatory sales model on a site full of consumers. Ad integration in games may make sense for a business (it clearly does, mobile gaming proves that much), but it's still almost universally reviled by consumers, and many people consider it to be ruining gaming. I really don't think any consumer should be advocating that companies find new and innovative ways to wring us out of money with the ultimatum of having ads shoved down our throats if we don't pay up. If a game can't succeed without ads, it deserves to fail.

Personally I don't approve of ads in games in any capacity. It still pisses me off to this day that paying $20 (a good deal for an app) for the "Gold" version of Zaccaria Pinball still doesn't 100% rid it of ad trash.

 

[dmil666]

I absolutely hate advertisements in general and in video games even more. This is why I prefer spending few bucks for a game rather than being pestered by an ad.

Ditto.

 

[FarSight_Matt]

Sorry, there's no good argument for advertisements unless you go to work in a suit.

 

[shogun00]

No offense, but you're kind of wasting your time with these super long posts. Nobody is going to be on board with advertisements, no matter how many ways you try to make it sound like a good idea.

This indeed!

For the record, Sony tried having ads in a few of their games (Wipeout HD Fusion comes to mind) back in the PS3 days. The amount of backlash Sony got from it made Sony reverse the decision and forbid all games (including FTP) from having them on their platform.

 

[Gorgar]

I know some of EA Sports NHL games gave you the choice to watch ads to earn coins that you can spend on cards in their weird trading card mode.

 

[vfpcoder]

Doesn't FarSight already obliquely support the ad model on some platforms with their “trial” model?

On the iOS platform if you play a trial version of a table you might be exposed to an ad.

 

[shogun00]

Doesn't FarSight already obliquely support the ad model on some platforms with their “trial” model?

On the iOS platform if you play a trial version of a table you might be exposed to an ad.

For mobile yes, but consoles are a different story.

 

[Nomorestalker]

Sorry, there's no good argument for advertisements unless you go to work in a suit.

Although the wait for new content is brutal Matt is right it's a non starter. I'll always pay for the content rather than hear about blue apron and stamps for twenty minutes.

 

[tripletopper]

Well, I thought that would be an alternative, either watch ads and get it for free, or pay for the content at a normal price, with no more ads ever again. At the old prices I'd wait for a sale, but the prices have come down enough where I can afford 5-10 tables for $10. Yes I agree Paying for Games PLUS Having Ads is frustrating. It's kind of like the cable TV model. Broadcast TV has lots of ads, but it's free. Premium Cable costs $10/month for one service, but it's OUTSIDE ad free, meaning HBO can have ads for stuff on HBO to fill in gaps. Cable TV is kind of a hodgepodge. Pay a general access fee that's cents per channel per month, and watch ads at a lesser rate than broadcast TV.

The smart move is to either pick one, the other, or give the user the choice of ad-free paid license or advergaming. They could say once you pay for the game, you'll never get an ad ever for those titles again.

That was me complaining when I saw 10 tables for $30 and or 2 tables for $10. Now that Gottlieb tables are 5-10 for $10, I say Never mind. But what's wrong with giving the choice of either ad-free gaming with a license or saving money by the ad-based demos, and a promise not to pollute with ads if you do purchase the full license, but those who don't pay could enjoy it and Farsight gets paid, either way.

But I agree if they BOTH charge for access AND show ads, I'd feel ripped off if I pay for a license and not being explicitly told ads appear even if you purchase the license. Someone said the Switch Zaccaria tables have ads, even if you pay for the license? And they don't tell you about the ads? If that's the case, I never loved Zaccaria tables enough where it's worth both paying for AND putting up with ads. I never even seen them until I saw them on Switch. Must be more of a European brand, because I, living in Ohio, has never seen them in real life.

Oh by the way, when we first subscrtbed to cable in the 80s, the cable company said there are some ads, but not as many as broadcast TV. This was before Basic Cable's first big hit, Nickelodeon's Double Dare.

 

[tizzomr]

I think games are the worst place for advertisements. They shatter immersion and encourage people to stop playing.

Amen to that!

 

[tripletopper]

I believe there are 2 issues.

1. Is the ratio of content per ads. Broadcast TV has about 20 minutes of ads per hour or a 2:1 content to ad ratio. Cable, with a slight payment to a cable/satellite comanp has about 15-18 minutes of commercials per hour. or about 1 2.5-3:1 ratio. people put up with ads on TV. Of course if you're not willing to know the story the instant it's broadcast, you can skip commercials by time shifting it. Of course broadcasters tryto find ways to make you watch live, like a call-in talk show dedicated to the last show you just watched (Fear the Talking Dead), or let you somewhat control the broadcast like letting you choose a WWE's wresting opponent or same other aspect by texting in your vote. I think they stopped doing it becuase there were too many contingencies to write for, and some people have accused the vote as being as real and spontaneous as the wrestling matches are, meaning not at all, the vote was fixed.

Historically the free games website that succeed have been ones that had a 11:1 content to ad ratio. Meaning you play for 4.5-5 minutes and you get ONE 30 second commercial, not 6 of them back to back. Half the reason why this is is because the first exposure pays more than subsequent exposures. If you limit the inventory, you get more cents raised per head. Most efficient advertising is less than 1 cent per head. Twitch a website about WATCHING people play games, lets the users take in ads when they want. They get at least 5 bits (worth $.01 per bit) to distribute to the streamers. And for every 5 bits they give to streamers, Twitch makes 2 cents. They get 2 cents for each individual who sees an ad. Also, if you don't like being hawked to, you can buy 100 bits for $1.40 plus tax. Twitch streamers and twitch share the profits in the same ratio, regardless whether they are purchased bits, or ad bits. And flexability makes it popular. The people who like it, but don't like ads for whatever reason, get to pay the streamers and Twitch. Liekwise free-loaders, mostly willing participants who are too poor but want to contribute to both streamers and twitch do so by wathcing ads. Both people who are willing to pay for good entertainment with money, and those who want to pay for entertainment with their eyeball time are happy. Probably half the twitch users here don't know about the ad bit system.

And when you're presented with Farsight Tables, the information about them come for free. In my scenario, you have 3 choices.

1) Play the games for free and watch one 30 second ad every 5 minutes (read caveat 2).
2) Pay the currently $1-2 per table, and play all you want and never see an ad on those tables for as long as current systems work, which could be in theory forever.
3) Choose not to partake in the entertainment.

You can even mix 1 and 2. Start out at one, if you read something about pinball simulators not being accurate, or are not familiar with the individual pinball layout. Play the game for free a couple times. Before, Farsight "threatens" to cut you off once you reach a certain score, and begs for money to continue. Some people freeload by ending their game at exactly the cutoff score. And Farsight gets no benefit from aborted games.

Apparently Farsight is okay with people endlessly playing the demo up to the cutoff point, but are not open to an advertiser paying for the game. Personally, I think the persuasion of the sales pitch in mid ball flight is more obstructive than an ad at either the ball drain or end of credit. I don't know how many people play to the cutoff point and stop, and play a certain table rarely enough where they don't want to buy a license, but if you put an ad at the end of their game, or a really good ball, they don't mind the ad. Then when they are sick of ads, or find it worth their time to spend their money, they can put up the $1-2 per table.

I understand most of the people on this website place are big enough pinball geeks (said in the most loving way as a pinball geek on Social Security who can't afford $30 a series of 10 tables, but $10 per 5-10 tables is okay.) where they'd play them so frequently, that it makes more sense to buy a license for $1-3 a table. But you got to think about the more casual fan. If people who like pinball enough where they play it among other things thinks it's worth playing in full, but not buying, then the way Farsight makes money off them is showing ads. The die hards want the 100% authentic experience, and will pay to skip ads. But most people don't just give their money to just anyone, they only buy what they want. Sometimes paying $1-2 a table is worth skipping ads. Sometimes watching 1 30 second ad every 5 minutes is worth saving the $10 for 5-10 tables. Different customers have different wants, and needs. The website about video pinball caters to people who would love (and in high proportion, pay) for pinball. That is probably the specific unifying demographic category of the web users on this site.

The second issue is timing. I think freezing the game in mid ball flight, begging for money is FAR more annoying than letting them play through and showing an ad AT A BALL DRAIN OR END OF CREDIT. That is the least disruptive time to show an ad. And the most effective. You, as a player, don't want to remember the speed and direction of the ball in mid flight during a commercial. Neither does the advertiser. Contrary to TV, where the commercial break cliff-hanger is common, the best time to show a commercial in a game is during a natural break, when you either beat a level, or mourn the loss of a virtual life. Most streamers stop and commentate and either celebrate or take out their anger after a key high or low. If you think of them like TV cliff-hanger ads, I'd be upset at them too in games. But natural breaks are the best place for ads for both players, developers, and advertisers.

Most people who console game only don't know this. They think of ads as cliff-hanger TV ads, which DOES suck in games. Free Flash games site show the model for ad-based free games. Sega Forever only failed becuase of the nature of controllers on cell phones, not the "choose to buy the game or play free as adware" model. Sega Forever failed because the games felt bad, even if they were totally cost- AND ad-free.

Some people don't give credit card numbers to game stores in fear of security. This is a way to support the people without exposing one cubic Angstrom of yourself to hackers.

You don't have to pick one or the other. You attract more people if you offer both options. You can't charge for licenses twice, but you can show multiple ads.