playMaker

Author Topic: Playmaker 2.0 concerns  (Read 2311 times)

Lane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
  • Mender of the past
    • View Profile
    • Cleverous
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2020, 10:46:33 AM »
Rampant piracy of your asset

Oh, that. Do you have any figure on this? Doesn't Unity send you some data about it?
Do they have a policy to block illicit developers from publishing with pirated assets?


Unity doesn't, and can't, provide figures on piracy of your asset, nor do they make any attempt to deal with it outside of their platform. They're simply a distribution platform for Publishers to utilize and their policy is to adhere to law by complying with DMCA takedown notices, essentially. You can read their full EULA on the website if you're curious. They're actually quite disconnected from the community which is something we on the advisory board urged them to change.

However there are derived statistics on piracy within the publisher groups. There are many websites hosting content for free, as well as free torrents and websites that actually sell assets at a lower price after they rip them from the UAS. In terms of my own personal statistics, I had more downloads on a pirate site than I had reflected in my publisher portal, so more people actually pirated the asset than bought it - by a significant margin.

Other developers, even recently, have compared source code of new products published on the store only to find that there are significant portions of the source code that in that product actively being sold to users. The same thing occurs even more frequently with 3d models that are reskinned and sold on the store. Synty Studios and others deal with this regularly.

GitHub, even years after I deprecated the asset mentioned above, still has copies of it floating around in public repositories. I don't even bother issuing takedown notices for them anymore.

Anyway, that's just some side information for you and not really relevant to the thread. I suppose the only relevant point is that various sales models become relevant for a variety of reasons in different contexts.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 10:48:29 AM by Lane »

Reactorcore

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2020, 11:35:14 AM »
Instead of forced subscription - why not opt for an optional one?

Take a look at how some people are earning on patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/rkg
https://www.patreon.com/horion


Another important point to raise is that playmaker - and unity - are complex tools that take a lot of time to learn. In that time some people may find the need to pay a subscription as a friction too strong to get in and stay with it - especially if they're low-income and are having a rough time at the start just grasping it all.

The reason unity is so succesful is that it took away this stress to allow people to actually get the tool - fully functional, enough to build a competent game from start to finish - earn money or attract someone else that does have money. Unity then communicate clearly they need support and gave an inlet for people that can do it, to do it.

I even like the older model unity had, where the base system was free, but a few extra tools required purchase or subscription that were optional or justified, such as extra shaders and profiling tools (which you could avoid needing if you just built your app properly to begin with). I could definitely come in as a zero and have a chance to rise to success.

I find it narrow to consider piracy an issue when if those people don't have very little money to begin with - they can't afford or be a customer anyway, so its not like you're actually losing money. Its a fallacy to think that you're losing money when someone can't even pay it to begin with. With the above way, you can turn pirates into loyal customers / supporters, instead of keep on seeing them as evil criminals trying to take you down.

Qbanyto

  • Junior Playmaker
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Vista Larga, Paso corto
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2020, 12:11:27 PM »
Would you guys have some kind of discount for current members?

Qbanyto

  • Junior Playmaker
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Vista Larga, Paso corto
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2020, 03:15:44 PM »
Also will you continue support for PM1? And how soon is PM2 to coming out?  Maybe I missed it in earlier messages but he’s there some kind of timeline or roadmap?

djaydino

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5473
    • View Profile
    • jinxtergames
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2020, 12:39:37 AM »
Hi.
There is no date announced yet, also no Alpha version yet.

Also if PM2 would not be backward compatible then PM1 would get bug support for at least a year.

But again these are all speculations.

Broken Stylus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2020, 12:49:47 AM »
Unity doesn't, and can't, provide figures on piracy of your asset

That is curious. I would have expected them to be in the best position to know if assets that are part of a build have a legal counterpart in their own database of developers who have acquired this and that asset. With all the data Unity collects, from devs to users, it's really odd that they cannot cross the data. Wouldn't there a file associated to the build? One that clearly lists all the assets used in the build, with such file then being somehow readable within the application after the build. Without relying on Analytics, Unity still collects a minimum of data from apps, right?
I also suppose a lot of pirated assets might not end in commercial products at all


, nor do they make any attempt to deal with it outside of their platform. They're simply a distribution platform for Publishers to utilize and their policy is to adhere to law by complying with DMCA takedown notices, essentially. You can read their full EULA on the website if you're curious. They're actually quite disconnected from the community which is something we on the advisory board urged them to change.

However there are derived statistics on piracy within the publisher groups. There are many websites hosting content for free, as well as free torrents and websites that actually sell assets at a lower price after they rip them from the UAS. In terms of my own personal statistics, I had more downloads on a pirate site than I had reflected in my publisher portal, so more people actually pirated the asset than bought it - by a significant margin.

Other developers, even recently, have compared source code of new products published on the store only to find that there are significant portions of the source code that in that product actively being sold to users. The same thing occurs even more frequently with 3d models that are reskinned and sold on the store. Synty Studios and others deal with this regularly.

GitHub, even years after I deprecated the asset mentioned above, still has copies of it floating around in public repositories. I don't even bother issuing takedown notices for them anymore.

Anyway, that's just some side information for you and not really relevant to the thread. I suppose the only relevant point is that various sales models become relevant for a variety of reasons in different contexts.
[/quote]

Lane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
  • Mender of the past
    • View Profile
    • Cleverous
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2020, 06:59:43 AM »
Unity doesn't, and can't, provide figures on piracy of your asset

That is curious. I would have expected them to be in the best position to know if assets that are part of a build have a legal counterpart in their own database of developers who have acquired this and that asset. With all the data Unity collects, from devs to users, it's really odd that they cannot cross the data. Wouldn't there a file associated to the build? One that clearly lists all the assets used in the build, with such file then being somehow readable within the application after the build. Without relying on Analytics, Unity still collects a minimum of data from apps, right?
I also suppose a lot of pirated assets might not end in commercial products at all

You're right, they're absolutely in the best position to handle this and sure, it's entirely possible that they collect analytics on this. However even if that data is part of their opt-in data collection policy, they do not share that data with anyone. Assets published on the store have absolutely no license control except in rare cases like with PiXYZ or Mixamo. As long as the file is available, the Editor lets you import the content. This makes piracy trivial which is why it's so common for Asset Store Products.

Qbanyto

  • Junior Playmaker
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Vista Larga, Paso corto
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2020, 07:28:52 AM »
I honestly Wouldn’t be too worried if PM1 Would stick around or not. Im sure it will. Has years of support and development. I mean URP and HDRP still have issues. Which is why many ppl tend to stick with the standard.

Lars Steenhoff

  • Beta Group
  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2020, 09:31:49 AM »
Subscription = no
Pay to upgrade = yes
Upgrade free = yes

TotalHavoc

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2020, 10:31:47 AM »
Subscription = yes if needed and able to be done
Pay to upgrade = no
Upgrade free = nooooo

fixed!  :D

player007

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2020, 06:34:16 AM »
i would be for the subscription if it were minimal and had a support to paid users needs that were more constructive..

as someone new and learning i overjoyed when i did the first few things in playmaker and see the potential in it..

I need a proper support system for being a newb and all as sure even others would. i would pay for a direct helpful support system.

rizwanash

  • Junior Playmaker
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2020, 05:08:23 AM »
No Subscription Please ... :S

Marc Saubion

  • Beta Group
  • Junior Playmaker
  • *
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2020, 06:03:01 AM »
I'm against subscription.

They do works for some business models like Netflix but, in my experience, not for professional softwares.

The problem is, once we subscribe, we lose leverage and the software editor lose interest in giving us powerful features. Instead, once the pro market is saturated, they try to grow their userbase by making it more accessible with features targeting hobbyists. So features we, professionals, don't need.

What I've also noticed is that the companies going for that business model have some sort of a monopoly and want to get rent on it instead of making a better product or simply don't see any way to make it evolve further.

The bottom line is, subscription is always bad news for pros.


That said, it doesn't mean it shouldn't exists. I understand hobbyists or occasional users who can't afford the full perpetual licence so for them, it make sense to have the subscription option. But that's what it should, be, an option.


My ideal business model is paying for a perpetual licence and then for upgrades. Even if it means paying more because in that scenario, the software company have to give me something useful if they want more money.

DEVKS

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • ac market
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #43 on: October 02, 2020, 06:50:31 PM »
Hi.
There is no date announced yet, also no Alpha version yet.

Also if PM2 would not be backward compatible then PM1 would get bug support for at least a year.

But again these are all speculations.
I also waiting for Alpha version.

Broken Stylus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2020, 07:21:12 AM »
My ideal business model is paying for a perpetual licence and then for upgrades. Even if it means paying more because in that scenario, the software company have to give me something useful if they want more money.

I like it too. PROPERTY is something I'm actually attached to.