Silk's idea is flawed in so many ways it's unreal. I can easily program a system that doesn't need me to use a BYOND key. Then I can host using a shell and continue to take subscriptions via paypal.
As far as Tom moving to a Member Only Hub because people don't get anything out of a membership. To me now we get even less.
However, I do support a BYOND app store. I think that would be awesome. I would pay for a BYOND DMI Maker app that lets me make pixel art on my Droid/iphone and then lets me export it to my account. An app store has a lot of potential in itself.
Tom wrote:
What I am thinking of doing for the Flash version is limiting the use of guest accounts so that games will at least require BYOND keys (which we'll make more accessible as per item #2 in the software list there). By controlling the registration system, at least we can somewhat enforce the usage of subscriptions, because a game would be more reliant on the hub. So if a developer is willing to create his own account authentication and subscription system he's free to keep the entirety of his earnings? | |
SuperAntx wrote:
So if a developer is willing to create his own account authentication and subscription system he's free to keep the entirety of his earnings? Well, that's how it is now. I mean, developers have never been tied to our subscription system, and with guest keys they aren't even tied to our account system. We did it this way because we want to ensure that BYOND games will be fully operational should the hub go down or cease to exist. However, with the Flash system, since games will at least initially run on our site, we may put in some restrictions to the guest system to at least require usage of our accounts (which most people use anyway just out of convenience). That would also allow us to control subscriptions if we wanted to. But I'm getting way ahead of things here. Let's see how we do with these initial changes first. | |
Looks interesting. Getting used to the new forum layout will take some time, but I'll get by.
The one thing that I'm curious about, and I apologise if it's been asked already, but is the text format stuff all still there and working? | |
Tom wrote:
However, with the Flash system, since games will at least initially run on our site, we may put in some restrictions to the guest system to at least require usage of our accounts (which most people use anyway just out of convenience). That would also allow us to control subscriptions if we wanted to. I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. How would guests be tied to BYOND accounts? Are you just going to require people to be logged in on the site before logging into a Flash client? You mentioned the possibility of raising BYOND's fee on game subscriptions up to 30%, a price comparative to the App Store or Steam. Can you really make the claim BYOND has the same ability to promote and sell games as well as those services do? NEStalgia's success came largely from outside exposure, had Silk made his own account authentication he could saved upwards of a thousand dollars in addition to having his own nifty in-game registration. My own game Decadence had most of its subscriptions come from friends who just wanted to help me out. I'm sure it's the same story for many other developers who haven't had the same level of success as Silk. We can't charge for DLC, we can't charge for tokens, we can't charge in-game, we can't automatically split revenue between developers, we can't have automatic cash-outs; we can't do many things. If one were to look at it from the perspective of a businessman it would only seem logical to cut BYOND out entirely and set up an independent authentication/subscription system. This is not unlike what Falacy has done (no doubt originally to charge for copyrighted material) and it has benefited him greatly. These restrictions and roundabout fees just seem really weaselly to me when compared to other game creation tools which have a flat, upfront cost. I find myself agreeing with Silk in that BYOND must nut up or shut up in regards to charging for its use. | |
SuperAntx wrote:
We can't charge for tokens Who Remembers ByonDimes? | |
I agree much with SuperAntx regarding the idea that it'll cost all games making money 30% fee whether we like it or not. I've stated my opposition to this in the forum about how Paypal directly only takes 3.6% but I'll say it here too: 30% is a _huge cut_ which is one of the reasons why I _didn't bother switching to Apple_ out of principle and moral code.
SuperAntx is also right in saying that BYOND right now doesn't compare to Steam or Apple, charging a similar price is a sure way of me disappearing. Even if it did get millions of users on at once, I'd refused to pay you a 30%, you won't need to remove my hubs because I'd have already done it. Sorry, but I hope you don't go down that line in future, a license fee maybe, but 30% of all our sales, no way. | |
Ss4gogeta0 wrote:
SuperAntx wrote: And the losses that system made BYOND. | |
Stephen001 wrote:
Ss4gogeta0 wrote: .< I know... I only brought it up to show that they could... of course with disastrous results... I cant remember if I had a Byond Dime ever in my Life... I might have had 1... | |
Yeah the App Store comparison is definitely off base. The App Store can charge big money because it is essentially the only way to get those games out there - it's a distribution service. BYOND's ecosystem is great for fledgling games, but anyone wanting any reasonable level of exposure (or profit) can't expect to get it from the BYOND user base. SuperAntx's run down is spot on, as BYOND is no App Store.
The correct comparison would be game engine licensing (such as Unreal). From what I've seen, the upper end of that spectrum is about 30%. In those situations, however, developers have complete freedom to distribute their game as they'd like to: they're not living on the Unreal website, and people who sign up for user accounts aren't faced with web ads and also asked to purchase "Unreal Memberships". Furthermore, no one has to download and install Unreal to play games that have been developed with it. So yeah, the problem isn't necessarily with the 30% number, it's with all of the other baggage that comes along with it. If someone is forking over 30% of their subscription revenue, then BYOND shouldn't be attempting to monetize that game's player base in other ways (be it via site traffic or Membership sales). Also, if you can't bring yourself to force developers to give you 30%, then the vast majority of them will work around you. Why pay 30% when you can pay nothing? | |
SuperAntx wrote:
These restrictions and roundabout fees just seem really weaselly to me when compared to other game creation tools which have a flat, upfront cost. I find myself agreeing with Silk in that BYOND must nut up or shut up in regards to charging for its use. Hey, I agree with you. But other game systems charge on the order of hundreds to thousands of dollars to license their engines. We will never do that. Since we have such small upfront charges, we either have to make our money through volume or through outside means. Let's use the Flash client as an example. Currently developers are making games knowing that BYOND only targets windows gamers. Hence, when the Flash stuff works, it is a perk. Now we could charge for this perk by requiring, say, Membership to play the Flash games, or perhaps forcing the developer to by a pricy license to deploy them. I think that for the majority of developers, this would be very bad. Alternatively, we could use the Flash as a way of enforcing our own login/subscription setup and take a cut accordingly. The point is that this is a perk, and as such developers really have no right to be upset with how we choose to use it because right now it doesn't even exist. And that's the same thing with the hub.. some people are getting in a tiff about these proposed changes but BYOND didn't always have a hub, and if it doesn't start making some money, it won't have one in the future. What developers need to realize is that cutting us into their profits is in their long-term best interest, because BYOND needs this money to survive. Maybe it sounds like we're being greedy but I assure you that isn't the case-- we really make next to nothing off this project and it is in legitimate danger of going under unless we start turning things around. So that's what we're trying to do. I would rather it not come in the form of "restrictions and roundabout fees" but this is what we've set ourselves up for having been a free tool for so long. Again, let's see how this Membership stuff goes. If it works out, we may be able to continue to give away future perks at low cost, which is what I'd prefer to do. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
The correct comparison would be game engine licensing (such as Unreal). From what I've seen, the upper end of that spectrum is about 30%. In those situations, however, developers have complete freedom to distribute their game as they'd like to: they're not living on the Unreal website, and people who sign up for user accounts aren't faced with web ads and also asked to purchase "Unreal Memberships". Furthermore, no one has to download and install Unreal to play games that have been developed with it. Yes, this is a valid argument, but as mentioned in the novel I wrote above (as well as our own discussions), we're trying to make that experience much more seamless. One of the big problems is that we have multiple competing business models. That's why I'm hoping we can make enough of Membership-- which is really the easiest and most straightforward model-- to not have to deal with the others. | |
Does it make sense for the flash client to be available to members only? Seems like a great up-sale opportunity.
| |
PopLava wrote:
Does it make sense for the flash client to be available to members only? Seems like a great up-sale opportunity. Don't think I haven't considered it. I would prefer not to go that route but we'll see how desperate we are at that point. At the very minimum, we'd have a way for developers to license it though. I am hoping we can make enough from Memberships to not have to put future restrictions or business models in place. | |
Tiberath wrote:
The one thing that I'm curious about, and I apologise if it's been asked already, but is the text format stuff all still there and working? You mean the ability to grab info from the website in text-format? That works at least for the hub, but shouldn't be a problem to put in other places. | |
It's sorta funny but if you tell me that I get the flash client along with the new increase in memberships, I'd be like, sweet. I'm getting something for my money. By giving it to me for free, then I view it as; "I'm only getting the hub for my money" and they want even more for it.
Providing NEW functionality is a perfect time to charge for enhanced functionality. You have your base toolset for free. Everything else is extra. Maybe I'm missing something here. Is it possible that we have non-paying members who stand a chance of making succesful flash games that draw attention? I guess the strategy could be that more poor quality flash games will result in more traffic and revenue vs fewer high quality games. In which case, that makes sense to give it away for free. | |
I agree with PopLava 110% here. As reluctant as you may be on making BYOND a pay-to-use development tool, you guys need money. This is a perfect opportunity to make that money off of an extra development tool. As PopLava said, as of now, all people get for their money are a few little features(with the hud being the Holy Grail of it all).
| |
Tom wrote:
What developers need to realize is that cutting us into their profits is in their long-term best interest, because BYOND needs this money to survive. Honestly, again, this mindset is where you're shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to making BYOND financially successful. There might be 4 or 5 people around here who are invested enough in this system that they even consider their long term interests in the context of BYOND. Apart from that no one truly cares whether or not you succeed. They certainly don't care enough to give you money when they could otherwise keep it. You don't need to beg for alms from people who are benefiting from your product - you need to sell that product to them. You can't run a business based on a donation model and have any measure of success. Without forcing your cut of subscription revenue and without providing a very clear set of Membership benefits that people really want, you'll be stuck collecting donations until you eventually run out of money/patience. | |
Licensing a cash-shop API supported through BYOND and then taking a small cut from transactions (alternatively no licensing fees with larger cuts from transactions) is something to look into. There's a reason why games are moving from subscription-based models to cash-shop models: People are more willing to part with $5 per hat/clothing items/weapons for 5 new hats/clothing items/weapons than spending $15 on a monthly subscription fee that would have included the ability to obtain all those things and more with enough hard work. I think it's that instant gratification thing from the ADD generation.
| |
ohh and the payment plan seems decent... you do need to make money after all...