I believe you mean .99? They aren't releasing any info but there is obviously a finished build since the testers already have app and games on the app store using the new features. We are all patiently holding our breath and hoping for improved customer service.
@ SSS, I appreciate your feedback, but my confusion is surrounding the advantages of allowing some members to generate revenue for merely being testers. If they have a build that only includes IAP then why not push it out to the rest of us that have been waiting since Oct, and follow up with the additional features in another update? If they have a test build then why allow them the ability to publish games on the actual market that are created with test or beta software? I am quite familiar with testing and software implementation and I have never heard of anyone pushing something out of a test environment that wasn't ready for consumers as it would obviously tarnish the company and the developer's reputation. If I would have known that some members have advantages over others in terms of their ability to compete on the app store with pre release builds I would have definitely took that into to consideration before investing my $500 into a company that does not level the playing field for all premium account owners. I went Pro in Oct thinking that IAP would be released very soon, which was based on the old roadmap. That didn't happen, and now I see some people can create apps with it while the rest of us are left without even a release date. That's very poor customer service...
Maybe I have failed to make my point, Gamesalad offers a software to developers that directly effect their ability to make a successful business model. I am not referencing the community or how beta releases are handled in the gaming industry, neither of these effect my ability to generate revenue. What is a poor business practice is that some members have an advantage over others regardless of our account status. I welcome the debate on why/how this benefits me as a premium account holder, and the volunteer status of these developers is a non issue as it's more of a sign that Gamesalad lacks the resources to properly test with internal resources. Simply put, I know there are fanboys in the community that will support your position based on the politics of this forum. Many would rather support your position in hopes of becoming a tester and getting advanced opportunities and the others who already have this privilege will obviously defend it also. I am speaking as a customer who feels that the advantage given to a specific group of members is unfair and not mentioned in any of the information I read prior to paying for membership. I am advocating the elimination of this all together, I don't need to react politically in hopes of gaining advantage over competitors because I want the advantage removed and the playing field leveled. Example: If you were paid to moderate on a post by post basis and a test build was released to a select group of moderators that allowed them an advantage over you to get paid how would you feel? Would you be motivated to continue competing when you knew the others had a HUGE advantage? Oh I forgot, you also paid for a premium moderator interface in order to do your job more effectively. See where I am coming from? Not only have they released games with these new features, they also have supporting templates etc already for sale that gives them even more of advantage. I would say that having pre access and building you app with test software is a huge advantage, but one I understand for services rendered. Having the ability to release it ahead of the actual release is not something I will never support, however.
I like the idea of a big group of the most advanced GS users test it prior release. I got tired of not trusting the new releases due the amount of bugs, take your time and bring something strong as a rock.
I agree Ghost, for testing not for releasing on the app store way ahead of others. We are talking about two issues: Should members test and be given pre access to the builds? Sure, this benefits all of us. Should these members be allowed to generate sales with pre release builds before others have access? No! It really mutes the "volunteer" status given to their contribution, they are not pure volunteers they are business people using an edge to get ahead of the community.
@SSS … never thought I would have a bone-of-contention to pick with you!
I am glad GS released Battle Legend Infinity! I expect that in-house apps will be created on much more advanced engines!
I know that in following a road-map one can expect detours. (I examine the GS Creator app to find-out what is coming real soon! ) :-S
But, beta-testers are usually under NDA … I am! … intrinsically the non-disclosure-agreement forbids disclosing information of what is in the test-build. Releasing to the public an application, made in a test-build, that demonstrates the features/functionality of the test-build does disclose information and is a serious violation of the agreement. (Used to be, even stating you were doing a beta-test, was violating the NDA…)
I have to agree with @EinsteinsApps … this is supposed to be a level community … and we are all beta-testers for GS — we work in a beta-build … and, often discover bugs that passed obliviously through the official beta-test. Ultimately, GS should not give perks to just a few select beta-testers, if they aren't available to all.
GS should reward the sous-chefs and the line-cooks, they deserve it! … But, they should not be rewarded for beta-testing.
I think Einstein does have a valid point, especially as the whole software is still considered as Beta, even once the release has passed Sous Chef testing and is made public. Past efforts have shown that there'll still be a ton of bugs, or ways to break things that havent been anticipated or found by the testing, and things will still need fixing and tweaking once the larger user base have had time to really put the update through the grinder... so I dont think the closed door testing is a fair reply to his questions... as we'll still all have to test the software anyway.
As a paying customer, Einstein just wants the playing field to be level between users who are all basically business competitors.... and hes right that some users are getting a potential headstart when it comes to monetising and using new features.
I understand EinsteinApps point, but at the same time.. How we will know that the new release is solid if the testers are not allowed to put the apps in the app store? Putting the apps in the app store and allow thousands of people to try them is one of the most important parts of the testing process.
@ Ghost - How does any company release polished products when they go live? They have internal testers like Gamesalad's Dev Team create projects in a test environment. When I was a lead on an SAP integration project, we tested conclusively in a test environment and our jobs were on the line if we pushed out an incomplete product that wasn't very thoroughly tested. I know that GS relies on us to help them make a more solid product, but I do not agree that by doing this some are given an advantage since we are paying customers. They don't allow volunteers that have not paid, so we really have think about that when putting this in perspective.
I also would like to commend the community on its open and helpful nature, this has been the reason Gamesalad has retained me as a customer, and this alone. Albeit some like to capitalize on advance knowledge and make a buck on it which makes the water very blurry in situations like this. After reading the forums for months I would also like to point that those who would voice the loudest concerns over these advantages already have them, thus somewhat controlling their perspective.
@GhostShipApps I understand EinsteinApps point, but at the same time.. How we will know that the new release is solid if the testers are not allowed to put the apps in the app store? Putting the apps in the app store and allow thousands of people to try them is one of the most important parts of the testing process.
no, no sales to the public are NOT tests!
We know if an app is solid before we sell it! --Preview in Creator --Preview in GS Viewer if those seem fine … --do an Ad-Hoc build to do an actual play/run of the app on a device… while thoroughly vetting the new features (if we don't own all the devices, we do Ad-Hoc builds for colleagues who do have them)
None of us wants thousands of people complaining to Apple and demanding a refund!
SlickZeroHouston, TexasMember, Sous ChefPosts: 2,870
This is how GameSalad has been handling most builds since the beginning. The Sous and Line Cooks get the pre-release to do testing with because they have been chosen as viable users of the software, the best type to do testing. And they are respected members of the community. And now anyone can apply for the Alpha testing.
Almost every new feature has gone through this process, and I don't see why this one has to be any different, personally. There was a couple releases that didn't go through the Sous and line cooks recently, and everybody was posting concerns about not letting them test the builds before release because there were several major bugs that got published in the new releases. Now that they are going through the Sous and Line cooks again, the argument seems to be swaying for not letting them do so now.
Personally, I just think this is because of this particular feature that is being discussed. Lots of people have been waiting for IAP, and now it's coming, but it really should be tested first. If they just released it without thorough testing, and bugs were found, then people would just be complaining about yet another GameSalad bug. Nobody felt cheated when the testers had access to "image flipping" before anyone else, and I don't see the difference here. Just my personal opinion.
Thanks for your input! However testing versus releasing finished products that allow some to make money off of features before others negates the "volunteer" status SSS and GS have assigned to them and really is two different things. It's like saying because you tested we will give you weeks to put out products before even giving your competition the ability to begin utilizing these features. I have enormous respect for the members of this forum, and my goal is not to undermine that respect but this is about fairness in my opinion. Imagine how easily this could be manipulated to give testers even more time if they drag their feet on the testing process while preparing to make significant profit by having such lead on the rest of us. I am not saying this is happening, but you have to remember that our friendships here do not generate revenue which is why we are having this debate to begin with.
SlickZeroHouston, TexasMember, Sous ChefPosts: 2,870
I understand, I do. To me personally, a new feature is a new feature regardless of it's function, and should be tested before public release. Just because it has the potential to generate revenue, I don't think it should be treated differently than any other feature that is slated for release. Every new feature that gets released has the potential to generate revenue, because it give us the ability to add new function to a game that wasn't there before. Again, I don't see why this particular feature should be treated any different. I don't think them having it 2 weeks ahead of everyone else gives them an unfair advantage, but that's just my opinion. I think It benefits all of us, because with all the testers, they can get these builds out to us in a more timely manner because they can find bugs faster, and get them fixed quicker than if it was just an internal testing team left to find all of the potential problems.
If anything, they took a chance by having it in a App Store release, because if a problem were to arise that they didn't find during creation, I guarantee a user would, and they would look like amatuers for releasing a game with buggy functions. Especially a function that was intended to specifically make the developer more money, and nothing else.
Tables are in review as well, and I'm wondering if anyone feels that is an unfair advantage with the testers, because that is a feature that can actually help make a game better, or even make a game possible that wasn't before. IAP is just a monetary feature that I can see in no way makes a game better. Again, just my personal opinion on the subject of IAP.
SSS@ I think you made my argument for me? You basically said if testers don't provide feedback it really doesn't prevent the QA team from doing the job of polishing your product, which is what I was trying to get you to admit. Others may not be as familiar with test processes and thus has led them to believe this has a huge impact on the product, this is a minor advantage not a game breaking one. Users have less than 10% of the knowledge a QA team possesses, so logically the for me the reward is far greater than the sacrifice especially when applied to customers ability to compete with others. I have been in so many alpha and beta test environments in multiple game studious and the testers are always treated with the same strategy, allow them to test and see their reaction to what has already been approved by QA before final submission. I can provide further information on software development cycles etc. That is why I have a grievance with this issue, it is because I know that when you are merely a volunteer it doesn't provide the same motivation as granting an advantage to the testers ability to make $ and get ahead.
How can the GS team insure that in the future we will not be left out in the cold with not even a solid release date, when a polished update has already been given to "testers" which allows them to generate revenue and even make money off of the community with templates and how to's for what they had advanced access too?
In fairness, the GS team has always taken the volunteer user feedback seriously. People tend to use software in many different ways. I remember early last year I found a very obvious bug because I happened to use the software a different (yet still legitimate) way to the in-house testers.
As to questions of unfairness... I can't speak to that. I'm still on .9.82 as the later versions introduced bugs through features I had no interest in (android, and more recently IAP).
I think, though, and with respect, you're blowing this out of proportion a tad. We're talking a few days here, not months or half a year. You'd perhaps have a stronger point if that were the case, in my own opinion.
I see your point of view, however I think it is driven by a lack of true understanding of the testing process. QA teams are in charge of testing and are paid for their very vast knowledge of the subject matter, volunteers are merely a stress test and a one last chance for someone to potentially catch something overlooked, which almost never happens in my experience. Volunteers are not privy to internal team meetings, and thus have minimal impact in most situations I have experianced.
The tables are also something that gives them a huge advantage as we have no idea how they will be presented etc. But you can go to one of the testers personal websites and purchase a template that streamlines the development process with additional $ once the update goes live, sounds fair doesn't it?
We also have no idea how long they have had this update, besides the "Announce Game" thread were a tester posted his new IAP feature.
@SSS … the marrow of the bone is iAP … GS knew it worked as of January 5th … a feature, so long awaited … merited availability to all on January 6th. (I know we are running short of numbers till 1.0, but could have been 0.9.89.5)
everyone here knows that Battle Legend Infinity is GS's in-house project … none of us are demanding that the resources that went into that gorgeous game are made available to us!
I feel that GS release of BLI provided sufficient testing for reliability. We have tested app releases with less-tested features ...
Thanks for your post! I completely see your point of view, but this was one of the features previously promised and led to my investment in GS. Also They have had the update for probably a month at this point since one tester posted a video on his site displaying it on January 6, which I am sure took him a couple weeks to design and create the 3 projects he is selling in the videos. I have studied the market ad nauseam and can tell you without any hesitation that without the ability to use IAP and create freemium modeled games, you can't expect to earn returns on investments. I believe this is why games recently released without these features and show tremendous polish have not been as successful as the developer had hoped for.
I have always thought that some members having weeks to familiarise themselves with new features was pretty unfair and that all paying customers should have access to the builds if only to prepare for release and get used to the tools. Being on a level playing field with fellow developers is what makes for a strong and lasting community.
Anyone that doesn't see this is pretty naive and certainly not in touch with ios and android development.
@ SSS As a community manager you have done your job well addressing our concerns to the best of your ability, my goal was to generate enough comments to give you content for forwarding our grievances to people that make the final decision. We have heavily invested in a beta product and 99% of the forum community has come together to support not only other customers but also a product still not in final form. Gamesalad doesn't get attacked directly by the outside dev community as much as we do so this probably makes me a little more sensitive to this topic.
I have defended GS countless times on countless forums and even at school, where I am a senior in a Bachelor Game Design Degree Program. All I ask is that paid customers are treated fairly and given the same opportunities to make a living. I don't believe I took your statement out of context but rather got you to reveal the fact that testers do as you said, give an added level of defense for what is the responsibility of the QA team not the customer. If you felt that way I do apologize, but the majority of the community is not clear on how a development cycle works which allows them to draw conclusions based on lack of information.
We believe in the product so I can assure you that anyone here paid customer or not would be willing to assist in testing, granting an advantage however negates this especially when the same testers are already offering to sell knowledge they acquired through the process you outlined.
I'm not a very savvy business person. I do things that are fun first, and worry about the business side later.
But at the same time, I cannot agree that IAP is the magic bullet to success that you (and in fairness, a large proportion of others here) think it is.
Which is why it doesn't excite me at all.
I made a reasonable return on investment with Air Supply last year. People liked the game (very kind of them!), and it was $.99 with no IAP. By the same token, Spooky Hoofs made $7k in about two weeks. I think that's a reasonable return on investment (I've no idea how much it's made since then) and again, that was a regular $.99 game, with no IAP.
Going further back we have FireMapleGames titles, of which Grisly Manor is the standout success with over $200k made (I think!). Having played the follow up, 'The Lost City', I think I can say with some certainty (and hopefully without jinxing it!) that it'll be just as successful.
Again, both those apps are 'paid' apps, with no IAP at all.
I've had complete failures as well of course. I think a lack of understanding of the market led to this, for which I blame no-one but myself. I doubt a freemium model would have saved any of them. But hey, I liked them!
You know, I like to encourage people, especially kids, to make games on these forums. It's a creative endeavour that should spark the imagination, especially amongst the young!
Having said that, I've almost spat tea onto my screen looking at some of the games people are trying to make that wouldn't sell at all and then adding 'Can't wait for IAP!!!'.
I've not seen your apps. Perhaps you have some great titles that would really benefit from a freemium model. I don't know.
But I'm personally of the opinion that, if it's not going to sell at $.99, then it won't work as a freemium title either.
Just my own thoughts, and I've managed to hijack the thread! Sorry!
Thanks for being honest! And I 100% agree obviously, I hesitated because I did not want to risk fracturing the community, since the majority of the testers have been pretty good about helping others. If they didn't make money off of it I wouldn't have a problem honestly.
It might bring you in a few xtra bucks, but it won't make you rich off of a bad idea. The only good thing is to make a lite version of a game and allow people buy the full version,but your game has to be excellent for this to work. When I introduced lite versions of my games a. Few years ago, my paid sales dropped. I think that if you introduce a free game and allow people to unlock the full game, in most cases you will get less sales than releasing paid.
You are definitely someone the majority if not all of us look up for your contributions. However almost all major mobile studious have shifted to free IAP models and led to a huge decline in tier 1 sales. According to some analysis I have seen by research firms most customers go straight to the free category since it is now so robust. Games like Monstrous and Dungeon of the Damned would have had huge releases had they been able to compete on a freemium model.
I challenge someone to show me a game published with Gamesalad in last 2 months that had good sales as I have been watching like a hawk on multiple app stat sites. The market has officially evolved and we have not been able to keep up, which added to my frustration as I had real high hopes for GS and their ability to be the trailblazer in the object oriented programing category.
I would also bet that Penguin Glide saw some pickup in sales since incorporating IAP in his game.
There is no question that there are different types of people that make up our community, from hobbyists to pure business driven customers and some that are a mix of both, I am speaking for those who hope to one day make a full time gig from this. There are a few that do already, and they are already "testers" and have advanced access to make sure they are not left out of the competitive loop.
"There is no question that there are different types of people that make up our community, from hobbyists to pure business driven customers and some that are a mix of both, I am speaking for those who hope to one day make a full time gig from this. There are a few that do already, and they are already "testers" and have advanced access to make sure they are not left out of the competitive loop."
I do this full time. And I have consciously left *myself* out of the competitive loop! :D
Steve10
Member Posts: 4
Comments
CAlvin
I appreciate your feedback, but my confusion is surrounding the advantages of allowing some members to generate revenue for merely being testers. If they have a build that only includes IAP then why not push it out to the rest of us that have been waiting since Oct, and follow up with the additional features in another update?
If they have a test build then why allow them the ability to publish games on the actual market that are created with test or beta software? I am quite familiar with testing and software implementation and I have never heard of anyone pushing something out of a test environment that wasn't ready for consumers as it would obviously tarnish the company and the developer's reputation.
If I would have known that some members have advantages over others in terms of their ability to compete on the app store with pre release builds I would have definitely took that into to consideration before investing my $500 into a company that does not level the playing field for all premium account owners. I went Pro in Oct thinking that IAP would be released very soon, which was based on the old roadmap. That didn't happen, and now I see some people can create apps with it while the rest of us are left without even a release date. That's very poor customer service...
I welcome the debate on why/how this benefits me as a premium account holder, and the volunteer status of these developers is a non issue as it's more of a sign that Gamesalad lacks the resources to properly test with internal resources.
Simply put, I know there are fanboys in the community that will support your position based on the politics of this forum. Many would rather support your position in hopes of becoming a tester and getting advanced opportunities and the others who already have this privilege will obviously defend it also. I am speaking as a customer who feels that the advantage given to a specific group of members is unfair and not mentioned in any of the information I read prior to paying for membership. I am advocating the elimination of this all together, I don't need to react politically in hopes of gaining advantage over competitors because I want the advantage removed and the playing field leveled.
Example: If you were paid to moderate on a post by post basis and a test build was released to a select group of moderators that allowed them an advantage over you to get paid how would you feel? Would you be motivated to continue competing when you knew the others had a HUGE advantage? Oh I forgot, you also paid for a premium moderator interface in order to do your job more effectively. See where I am coming from?
Not only have they released games with these new features, they also have supporting templates etc already for sale that gives them even more of advantage. I would say that having pre access and building you app with test software is a huge advantage, but one I understand for services rendered. Having the ability to release it ahead of the actual release is not something I will never support, however.
We are talking about two issues:
Should members test and be given pre access to the builds? Sure, this benefits all of us.
Should these members be allowed to generate sales with pre release builds before others have access? No!
It really mutes the "volunteer" status given to their contribution, they are not pure volunteers they are business people using an edge to get ahead of the community.
I am glad GS released Battle Legend Infinity! I expect that in-house apps will be created on much more advanced engines!
I know that in following a road-map one can expect detours. (I examine the GS Creator app to find-out what is coming real soon! ) :-S
But, beta-testers are usually under NDA … I am! … intrinsically the non-disclosure-agreement forbids disclosing information of what is in the test-build.
Releasing to the public an application, made in a test-build, that demonstrates the features/functionality of the test-build does disclose information and is a serious violation of the agreement. (Used to be, even stating you were doing a beta-test, was violating the NDA…)
I have to agree with @EinsteinsApps … this is supposed to be a level community … and we are all beta-testers for GS — we work in a beta-build … and, often discover bugs that passed obliviously through the official beta-test. Ultimately, GS should not give perks to just a few select beta-testers, if they aren't available to all.
GS should reward the sous-chefs and the line-cooks, they deserve it! … But, they should not be rewarded for beta-testing.
@};- MH
I think Einstein does have a valid point, especially as the whole software is still considered as Beta, even once the release has passed Sous Chef testing and is made public. Past efforts have shown that there'll still be a ton of bugs, or ways to break things that havent been anticipated or found by the testing, and things will still need fixing and tweaking once the larger user base have had time to really put the update through the grinder... so I dont think the closed door testing is a fair reply to his questions... as we'll still all have to test the software anyway.
As a paying customer, Einstein just wants the playing field to be level between users who are all basically business competitors.... and hes right that some users are getting a potential headstart when it comes to monetising and using new features.
How we will know that the new release is solid if the testers are not allowed to put the apps in the app store?
Putting the apps in the app store and allow thousands of people to try them is one of the most important parts of the testing process.
We obviously posted the same thoughts at the same time! WOW! … we were at that time and space totally in sync!
@};- MH
I also would like to commend the community on its open and helpful nature, this has been the reason Gamesalad has retained me as a customer, and this alone. Albeit some like to capitalize on advance knowledge and make a buck on it which makes the water very blurry in situations like this. After reading the forums for months I would also like to point that those who would voice the loudest concerns over these advantages already have them, thus somewhat controlling their perspective.
I meant that those who are currently testers would be the loudest to oppose this as unfair if they did not have that access.
We know if an app is solid before we sell it!
--Preview in Creator
--Preview in GS Viewer
if those seem fine …
--do an Ad-Hoc build
to do an actual play/run of the app on a device… while thoroughly vetting the new features
(if we don't own all the devices, we do Ad-Hoc builds for colleagues who do have them)
None of us wants thousands of people complaining to Apple and demanding a refund!
@SSS … still I gnaw on the bone!
@};- MH
Almost every new feature has gone through this process, and I don't see why this one has to be any different, personally. There was a couple releases that didn't go through the Sous and line cooks recently, and everybody was posting concerns about not letting them test the builds before release because there were several major bugs that got published in the new releases. Now that they are going through the Sous and Line cooks again, the argument seems to be swaying for not letting them do so now.
Personally, I just think this is because of this particular feature that is being discussed. Lots of people have been waiting for IAP, and now it's coming, but it really should be tested first. If they just released it without thorough testing, and bugs were found, then people would just be complaining about yet another GameSalad bug. Nobody felt cheated when the testers had access to "image flipping" before anyone else, and I don't see the difference here. Just my personal opinion.
Thanks for your input! However testing versus releasing finished products that allow some to make money off of features before others negates the "volunteer" status SSS and GS have assigned to them and really is two different things. It's like saying because you tested we will give you weeks to put out products before even giving your competition the ability to begin utilizing these features.
I have enormous respect for the members of this forum, and my goal is not to undermine that respect but this is about fairness in my opinion. Imagine how easily this could be manipulated to give testers even more time if they drag their feet on the testing process while preparing to make significant profit by having such lead on the rest of us. I am not saying this is happening, but you have to remember that our friendships here do not generate revenue which is why we are having this debate to begin with.
If anything, they took a chance by having it in a App Store release, because if a problem were to arise that they didn't find during creation, I guarantee a user would, and they would look like amatuers for releasing a game with buggy functions. Especially a function that was intended to specifically make the developer more money, and nothing else.
Tables are in review as well, and I'm wondering if anyone feels that is an unfair advantage with the testers, because that is a feature that can actually help make a game better, or even make a game possible that wasn't before. IAP is just a monetary feature that I can see in no way makes a game better. Again, just my personal opinion on the subject of IAP.
I think you made my argument for me? You basically said if testers don't provide feedback it really doesn't prevent the QA team from doing the job of polishing your product, which is what I was trying to get you to admit. Others may not be as familiar with test processes and thus has led them to believe this has a huge impact on the product, this is a minor advantage not a game breaking one. Users have less than 10% of the knowledge a QA team possesses, so logically the for me the reward is far greater than the sacrifice especially when applied to customers ability to compete with others.
I have been in so many alpha and beta test environments in multiple game studious and the testers are always treated with the same strategy, allow them to test and see their reaction to what has already been approved by QA before final submission. I can provide further information on software development cycles etc. That is why I have a grievance with this issue, it is because I know that when you are merely a volunteer it doesn't provide the same motivation as granting an advantage to the testers ability to make $ and get ahead.
How can the GS team insure that in the future we will not be left out in the cold with not even a solid release date, when a polished update has already been given to "testers" which allows them to generate revenue and even make money off of the community with templates and how to's for what they had advanced access too?
It's all relative, surely?
In fairness, the GS team has always taken the volunteer user feedback seriously. People tend to use software in many different ways. I remember early last year I found a very obvious bug because I happened to use the software a different (yet still legitimate) way to the in-house testers.
As to questions of unfairness... I can't speak to that. I'm still on .9.82 as the later versions introduced bugs through features I had no interest in (android, and more recently IAP).
I think, though, and with respect, you're blowing this out of proportion a tad. We're talking a few days here, not months or half a year. You'd perhaps have a stronger point if that were the case, in my own opinion.
Cheers,
QS
:DDr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
I see your point of view, however I think it is driven by a lack of true understanding of the testing process. QA teams are in charge of testing and are paid for their very vast knowledge of the subject matter, volunteers are merely a stress test and a one last chance for someone to potentially catch something overlooked, which almost never happens in my experience. Volunteers are not privy to internal team meetings, and thus have minimal impact in most situations I have experianced.
The tables are also something that gives them a huge advantage as we have no idea how they will be presented etc. But you can go to one of the testers personal websites and purchase a template that streamlines the development process with additional $ once the update goes live, sounds fair doesn't it?
We also have no idea how long they have had this update, besides the "Announce Game" thread were a tester posted his new IAP feature.
a feature, so long awaited … merited availability to all on January 6th.
(I know we are running short of numbers till 1.0, but could have been 0.9.89.5)
everyone here knows that Battle Legend Infinity is GS's in-house project … none of us are demanding that the resources that went into that gorgeous game are made available to us!
I feel that GS release of BLI provided sufficient testing for reliability. We have tested app releases with less-tested features ...
@EinsteinApps +1 … IMO … that was well put!
@};- MH
@quantumsheep… I opened GS 0.5.0 just yesterday … but then you know how weird I am!
Thanks for your post! I completely see your point of view, but this was one of the features previously promised and led to my investment in GS. Also They have had the update for probably a month at this point since one tester posted a video on his site displaying it on January 6, which I am sure took him a couple weeks to design and create the 3 projects he is selling in the videos.
I have studied the market ad nauseam and can tell you without any hesitation that without the ability to use IAP and create freemium modeled games, you can't expect to earn returns on investments. I believe this is why games recently released without these features and show tremendous polish have not been as successful as the developer had hoped for.
Anyone that doesn't see this is pretty naive and certainly not in touch with ios and android development.
As a community manager you have done your job well addressing our concerns to the best of your ability, my goal was to generate enough comments to give you content for forwarding our grievances to people that make the final decision. We have heavily invested in a beta product and 99% of the forum community has come together to support not only other customers but also a product still not in final form. Gamesalad doesn't get attacked directly by the outside dev community as much as we do so this probably makes me a little more sensitive to this topic.
I have defended GS countless times on countless forums and even at school, where I am a senior in a Bachelor Game Design Degree Program. All I ask is that paid customers are treated fairly and given the same opportunities to make a living. I don't believe I took your statement out of context but rather got you to reveal the fact that testers do as you said, give an added level of defense for what is the responsibility of the QA team not the customer. If you felt that way I do apologize, but the majority of the community is not clear on how a development cycle works which allows them to draw conclusions based on lack of information.
We believe in the product so I can assure you that anyone here paid customer or not would be willing to assist in testing, granting an advantage however negates this especially when the same testers are already offering to sell knowledge they acquired through the process you outlined.
I'm not a very savvy business person. I do things that are fun first, and worry about the business side later.
But at the same time, I cannot agree that IAP is the magic bullet to success that you (and in fairness, a large proportion of others here) think it is.
Which is why it doesn't excite me at all.
I made a reasonable return on investment with Air Supply last year. People liked the game (very kind of them!), and it was $.99 with no IAP. By the same token, Spooky Hoofs made $7k in about two weeks. I think that's a reasonable return on investment (I've no idea how much it's made since then) and again, that was a regular $.99 game, with no IAP.
Going further back we have FireMapleGames titles, of which Grisly Manor is the standout success with over $200k made (I think!). Having played the follow up, 'The Lost City', I think I can say with some certainty (and hopefully without jinxing it!) that it'll be just as successful.
Again, both those apps are 'paid' apps, with no IAP at all.
I've had complete failures as well of course. I think a lack of understanding of the market led to this, for which I blame no-one but myself. I doubt a freemium model would have saved any of them. But hey, I liked them!
You know, I like to encourage people, especially kids, to make games on these forums. It's a creative endeavour that should spark the imagination, especially amongst the young!
Having said that, I've almost spat tea onto my screen looking at some of the games people are trying to make that wouldn't sell at all and then adding 'Can't wait for IAP!!!'.
I've not seen your apps. Perhaps you have some great titles that would really benefit from a freemium model. I don't know.
But I'm personally of the opinion that, if it's not going to sell at $.99, then it won't work as a freemium title either.
Just my own thoughts, and I've managed to hijack the thread! Sorry!
QS
:DDr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
Thanks for being honest! And I 100% agree obviously, I hesitated because I did not want to risk fracturing the community, since the majority of the testers have been pretty good about helping others. If they didn't make money off of it I wouldn't have a problem honestly.
It might bring you in a few xtra bucks, but it won't make you rich off of a bad idea. The only good thing is to make a lite version of a game and allow people buy the full version,but your game has to be excellent for this to work. When I introduced lite versions of my games a. Few years ago, my paid sales dropped. I think that if you introduce a free game and allow people to unlock the full game, in most cases you will get less sales than releasing paid.
Send and Receive Data using your own Server Tutorial! | Vote for A Long Way Home on Steam Greenlight! | Ten Years Left
iKnow, right?
Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
You are definitely someone the majority if not all of us look up for your contributions. However almost all major mobile studious have shifted to free IAP models and led to a huge decline in tier 1 sales. According to some analysis I have seen by research firms most customers go straight to the free category since it is now so robust. Games like Monstrous and Dungeon of the Damned would have had huge releases had they been able to compete on a freemium model.
I challenge someone to show me a game published with Gamesalad in last 2 months that had good sales as I have been watching like a hawk on multiple app stat sites. The market has officially evolved and we have not been able to keep up, which added to my frustration as I had real high hopes for GS and their ability to be the trailblazer in the object oriented programing category.
I would also bet that Penguin Glide saw some pickup in sales since incorporating IAP in his game.
There is no question that there are different types of people that make up our community, from hobbyists to pure business driven customers and some that are a mix of both, I am speaking for those who hope to one day make a full time gig from this. There are a few that do already, and they are already "testers" and have advanced access to make sure they are not left out of the competitive loop.
I do this full time. And I have consciously left *myself* out of the competitive loop!
:DDr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io