if you'll permit me to drop my inflammatory attitude, I think this really is the root of the dissagreement.
for me personally, when I see a $0 price tag, my default assumption *is* that I'm getting a demo. getting something *more* substantial than that is special imo.
frankly, I would even go so far as to say that's the way it should be.
I cannot restate enough: making games is hard.
even really easy genres like clickers can still take considerable time and effort to do properly.
let me be clear: I'm not making the argument that this game is objectively worth $5. I'm not even saying that I'm personally satisfied with my purchase.
I have no issue with you being unwilling to pay $5 for the rest of the game.
Candidly, if I had taken my time to actually try the free demo instead of rushing straight to buying it in the heat of the argument, I'd probably be in the same boat.
no, what I took issue with then and what I still take issue with now is the accusation of scummy behavior. The implication that you were owed more than you got.
The idea that you deserved some other version of this game which was better or otherwise more complete, for the same $0 price tag.
This isn't food or water or shelter or some other basic human right.
This is an art project, that someone has put effort into because they cared.
you paid nothing, so you are owed nothing. Just because you were disappointed doesn't mean you were mislead or tricked or otherwise duped.
I should know.
I was fool enough to go so far as buying the game without even trying the free demo.