[devtucker]

I had engaged in a small discussion with @SlashnHax and @Party on another thread located here about the subject. Where I voiced the idea how a flat rate seems fair to the consumer, however almost negligible to the developer in terms of financial satisfaction.

With the way the current system works, assuming a script is set up to cost $0.04/hr it would have to be ran for a total of 30 hours before the developer was issued $1.00 and that is after RuneMates split, which is undeniably low. However the amount of people using the script here doesn't matter so much as the amount of time users spend using it, which is absolutely, completely, 100% fair to the consumers. However not so much to the developers who spend their time working on Quality scripts that can make it into the premium section.

The system is currently set up so that one person could use the Script for 30 hours, or 500 people could use the script for roughly 3.5 minutes and the amount of profit received by the developer wouldn't change, even though a large amount of people used the script. I do not feel that this is fair to the developer, also not to mention the amount of time creating a script takes, I feel like if a consumer is to use their product, the developer should receive a little bit up front, even if it's a very small amount.

After I made a comment, @Savior came into the thread backing it. So..

Here's what I'm suggesting:

Scripts that make it to the premium section of the bot store should be allowed to require a deposit. I believe a good range for a deposit would be anywhere from $0.50 to $1.00 this /deposit/ would guarantee the developer a little bit of revenue from the script regardless of the amount of time the consumer kept using it. The hourly price of the script would be deducted from their requirement.

This means if a script was set up for $0.04/hour with a $1.00 deposit then the consumer would be able to use the script for 25 hours before they're required to pay again, as the initial $1.00 would go towards their hourly charges.

A deposit should not be required on scripts, and by keeping the deposit to a very low amount it's fair to everyone. The developer see's the results of more users trying out their script and the consumer spends very, very little money on the script.

This would also give the developers reasons to keep the scripts updated and of high quality, because after the initial deposit there's still room to grow. People aren't going to put a deposit down on a script that has stopped working, and they're certainly not going to keep using it.

Hopefully this is considered, as I believe it would give premium script developers a little more incentive to push out.

It changes that 500 people using the script for 3.5 minutes as $1.00 profit for the developer and $0.20 profit for Runemate to $400 for the developer and $100 for rune-mate, regardless of the amount of time spent using the script.

In all honestly, it's extremely fair to everyone.

@Arbiter

 

[slashnhax]

So many bot corrections xD

 

[devtucker]

So many bot corrections xD

I know right.. I just can't agree with calling a script a bot. I feel like the bot is the platform.

 

[savior]

I know right.. I just can't agree with calling a script a bot. I feel like the bot is the platform.

The platform is called client.

 

[derk]

I don't have anything against the idea, but I don't understand how receiving the small payment of 1 dollar makes much of a difference compared to the hourly rate from a developers perspective. We get either the 1 dollar, and then it takes a while before we get paid again (assuming customers return), or they're billed all along the way. It would even be unfair to people that want to try the bot for 10 minutes and decide whether to go with it or not, and they would have to spend a larger amount of money. If anything, that creates a curb that people sometimes don't want to go over.

 

[party]

I don't have anything against the idea, but I don't understand how receiving the small payment of 1 dollar makes much of a difference compared to the hourly rate from a developers perspective. We get either the 1 dollar, and then it takes a while before we get paid again (assuming customers return), or they're billed all along the way. It would even be unfair to people that want to try the bot for 10 minutes and decide whether to go with it or not, and they would have to spend a larger amount of money. If anything, that creates a curb that people sometimes don't want to go over.

He's essentially saying that the dollar requirement means that the author is guaranteed that dollar, even if the bot is only used for a few hours.

To be honest it's an unnecessarily wonky process, best solutions are either swapping to one-off payments or sticking with the current system.

 

[derk]

He's essentially saying that the dollar requirement means that the author is guaranteed that dollar, even if the bot is only used for a few hours.

To be honest it's an unnecessarily wonky process, best solutions are either swapping to one-off payments or sticking with the current system.

I agree. With hourly rate being my favorite.

It doesn't make sense to charge 1 dollar, it's insignificant to us, and might only cause people not to be willing to pay it and thus less income for us.

 

[slashnhax]

On-topic though, I believe that such an implementation like this has been discussed before.
I feel like we should take into consideration other implementations and then weigh up the pros/cons.
The ones I can think of so far are:

1. Flat fee unlimited: You pay a flat fee, and you have can run the bot with no limits within that payment period. E.g. You pay $10 for the bot, you can run as many instances of the bot as you like, for as many hours as you like.
   Pros:
   . Bot Authors get the money up front.
   Cons:
   . Easily abused. Buy a $10 bot, run the method into the ground, find another bot, rinse and repeat.
   . Higher price of access for casual users, e.g. people who only want to get a 99 on one account.
2. Flat fee per instance: You pay a flat fee multiplied by the max amount of instances you want to run, and you can run the bot on up to that many instances with no hour limits, for that payment period. E.g. You pay $10 for 2 instances of a $5 bot.
   Pros:
   . Bot Authors get the money up front.
   . Less easily abused, they now have to pay more to run concurrent accounts.
   . Cheaper access for casual users.
   Cons:
   . Still somewhat abusable, buy 5 instances, run them 24/7 with account rotations.
   
3. Hourly fee: You pay a fee for each hour of use, taken from your credit. E.g. You run 5 accounts for 10 hours on a $0.05/hr bot, you pay $2.50.
   Pros:
   . Users pay for what they use, making it much less abusable and more accessible for casual users.
   . Incentive for Bot Authors to maintain and promote their bot.
   Cons:
   . Bot Authors get paid as the bot gets used.
   
4. Preloaded hours: You pay for hours of the bot in advance. Pretty much the hourly fee, but possibly with discounts for larger hour packages.
   Pros:
   . Bot authors get paid in increments as people buy the hours.
   Cons:
   . People may want refunds for hours they don't use. This is easily dealt with though, by removing bots that fall below the standards, and enforcing non-refundable purchases.
5. One time access fee, plus hourly fee: You pay to have access to the bot, which comes with an amount of hours to use. After these hours are used up, you pay for hours as you use them.
   Pros:
   . Bot authors get paid a portion up front, then more as their bot is used.
   Cons:
   . People may want refunds. This is easily dealt with though, by removing bots that fall below the standards, and enforcing non-refundable purchases.

 

[party]

I agree. With hourly rate being my favorite.

It doesn't make sense to charge 1 dollar, it's insignificant to us, and might only cause people not to be willing to pay it and thus less income for us.

Honestly, I prefer one-off payments. It's way less hassle and it's more familiar to the majority of people, and I'm pretty confident it's better money for the Author and site. Nothing crazy like EpicBot prices, obviously, I mean the purpose of this site isn't to generate as much cash as possible.

 

[slashnhax]

In my honest opinion, and being someone who has had multiple premium bots in the past, there's nothing wrong with the current implementation.
 

Honestly, I prefer one-off payments. It's way less hassle and it's more familiar to the majority of people, and I'm pretty confident it's better money for the Author and site. Nothing crazy like EpicBot prices, obviously, I mean the purpose of this site isn't to generate as much cash as possible.

The only issue I have with one-off payments is how easy they are to abuse.

 

[party]

In my honest opinion, and being someone who has had multiple premium bots in the past, there's nothing wrong with the current implementation.
 

The only issue I have with one-off payments is how easy they are to abuse.

Per instance, as per your second suggestion.

 

[slashnhax]

Per instance, as per your second suggestion.

Yeah. Pay per instance is the logical middle ground, the relation between usage and cost isn't as tight as hourly fee, but it's definitely a lot simpler than hourly and less abusable than one-off payments.

 

[party]

Yeah. Pay per instance is the logical middle ground, the relation between usage and cost isn't as tight as hourly fee, but it's definitely a lot simpler than hourly and less abusable than one-off payments.

The major advantage to PPI is that you get to lower the cost for regular botters, but scale appropriately for farmers, and do it in a way which avoids the confusion and difficulty that can be associated with PPH and pre-loaded hours.

 

[devtucker]

I don't have anything against the idea, but I don't understand how receiving the small payment of 1 dollar makes much of a difference compared to the hourly rate from a developers perspective. We get either the 1 dollar, and then it takes a while before we get paid again (assuming customers return), or they're billed all along the way. It would even be unfair to people that want to try the bot for 10 minutes and decide whether to go with it or not, and they would have to spend a larger amount of money. If anything, that creates a curb that people sometimes don't want to go over.

I feel like you didn't read the entire thread. See:

"It changes that 500 people using the script bot for 3.5 minutes as $1.00 profit for the developer and $0.20 profit for Runemate to $400 for the developer and $100 for rune-mate, regardless of the amount of time spent using the script bot."

There's a very large difference in the amount a developer can earn.

1. Flat fee unlimited: You pay a flat fee, and you have can run the bot with no limits within that payment period. E.g. You pay $10 for the bot, you can run as many instances of the bot as you like, for as many hours as you like.
   Pros:
   Bot Authors get the money up front.
   Cons:
   Easily abused. Buy a $10 bot, run the method into the ground, find another bot, rinse and repeat.
   Higher price of access for casual users, e.g. people who only want to get a 99 on one account.

This system won't go very far, and isn't fair to the consumer. Even as a developer sometimes I don't feel like creating my own bot. So on other platforms I would buy one, paying $8-$15 for it, just to find out it didn't work very well, or at all. The price for a flat fee is just too high for the casual consumer and way too low for the gold farmer.

1. Flat fee per instance: You pay a flat fee multiplied by the max amount of instances you want to run, and you can run the bot on up to that many instances with no hour limits, for that payment period. E.g. You pay $10 for 2 instances of a $5 bot.
   Pros:
   Bot Authors get the money up front.
   Less easily abused, they now have to pay more to run concurrent accounts.
   Cheaper access for casual users.
   Cons:
   Still somewhat abusable, buy 5 instances, run them 24/7 with account rotations.

Same as above.

1. Hourly fee: You pay a fee for each hour of use, taken from your credit. E.g. You run 5 accounts for 10 hours on a $0.05/hr bot, you pay $2.50.
   Pros:
   Users pay for what they use, making it much less abusable and more accessible for casual users.
   Incentive for Bot Authors to maintain and promote their bot.
   Cons:
   Bot Authors get paid as the bot gets used.

I feel like this is extremely fair to the consumer, however almost feels like a finger in the face to developers. If RuneMate was the size of some of it's competitors this would be great and there wouldn't be a problem, but we have to take into consideration that our community is fairly small in comparison to others. This isn't a bad thing, but it lowers the drive for premium script development with a earnings system such as this in place.

1. Preloaded hours: You pay for hours of the bot in advance. Pretty much the hourly fee, but possibly with discounts for larger hour packages.
   Pros:
   Bot authors get paid in increments as people buy the hours.
   Cons:
   People may want refunds for hours they don't use. This is easily dealt with though, by removing bots that fall below the standards, and enforcing non-refundable purchases.
2. One time access fee, plus hourly fee: You pay to have access to the bot, which comes with an amount of hours to use. After these hours are used up, you pay for hours as you use them.
   Pros:
   Bot authors get paid a portion up front, then more as their bot is used.
   Cons:
   People may want refunds. This is easily dealt with though, by removing bots that fall below the standards, and enforcing non-refundable purchases.

Preloaded hours is an alright idea, but not one that I would like. I'm not saying that as a developer, but as a consumer. I just wouldn't want to [ay for hours up front every time I wanted to use the bot. You never know when you're going to get banned.

With the one-time access fee + hourly rate, users understand that they're paying a small fee.. (And I mean small, nothing over a dollar should be accepted in my opinion) for access to the bot that includes some time that they can use it for free. After their "free time" is up they are charged hourly.

I can't see any problems with this, as if I pay $1 for a bot that doesn't work very will I won't be that upset about it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be like spending $10/15. The better part is I get enough time to test it out. If it's not working properly or I find a problem I can report it. Chances are, the premium developer will fix it. Then I have more time to use the bot.

The amount of hours a user should be granted upon purchase of the bot should be the (One time free / Hourly price)

Thoughts?

 

[party]

This system won't go very far, and isn't fair to the consumer. Even as a developer sometimes I don't feel like creating my own bot. So on other platforms I would buy one, paying $8-$15 for it, just to find out it didn't work very well, or at all. The price for a flat fee is just too high for the casual consumer and way too low for the gold farmer.

You're dismissing the pros of the other options and trying to solely home into the one idea - it's not a bad idea, it's just not the best one and it's by the far the most difficult to pitch to the end-user.

Pay-per-instance, as I've previously mentioned, is the fairest by means of scale. One user gets 2 instances (permanently) with a one-off payment, and larger parties pay according to the scale of their operation.

Scale disregarded, how is that not fair to the consumer? The Executives have a pretty rigorous set of standards that define what can be a Premium bot, it's not like we're letting semi-functional scripts onto the Premium botstore.

Even disregarding quality, nobody mentioned anything about price (beyond a concept example) - like I mentioned previously, it's not like anybody is going to try and charge people $10 an instance for a flax picker.

 

[slashnhax]

I feel like you didn't read the entire thread. See:

"It changes that 500 people using the script bot for 3.5 minutes as $1.00 profit for the developer and $0.20 profit for Runemate to $400 for the developer and $100 for rune-mate, regardless of the amount of time spent using the script bot."

There's a very large difference in the amount a developer can earn.



This system won't go very far, and isn't fair to the consumer. Even as a developer sometimes I don't feel like creating my own bot. So on other platforms I would buy one, paying $8-$15 for it, just to find out it didn't work very well, or at all. The price for a flat fee is just too high for the casual consumer and way too low for the gold farmer.



Same as above.




I feel like this is extremely fair to the consumer, however almost feels like a finger in the face to developers. If RuneMate was the size of some of it's competitors this would be great and there wouldn't be a problem, but we have to take into consideration that our community is fairly small in comparison to others. This isn't a bad thing, but it lowers the drive for premium script development with a earnings system such as this in place.



Preloaded hours is an alright idea, but not one that I would like. I'm not saying that as a developer, but as a consumer. I just wouldn't want to [ay for hours up front every time I wanted to use the bot. You never know when you're going to get banned.

With the one-time access fee + hourly rate, users understand that they're paying a small fee.. (And I mean small, nothing over a dollar should be accepted in my opinion) for access to the bot that includes some time that they can use it for free. After their "free time" is up they are charged hourly.

I can't see any problems with this, as if I pay $1 for a bot that doesn't work very will I won't be that upset about it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be like spending $10/15. The better part is I get enough time to test it out. If it's not working properly or I find a problem I can report it. Chances are, the premium developer will fix it. Then I have more time to use the bot.

The amount of hours a user should be granted upon purchase of the bot should be the (One time free / Hourly price)

Thoughts?

The issue with pay-per-instance and low-quality bots shouldn't be an issue if the bots undergo good quality control, and bots that fall below that get removed.

 

[party]

The issue with pay-per-instance and low-quality bots shouldn't be an issue if the bots undergo good quality control, and bots that fall below that get removed.

Which would be the case, knowing Arbiter haha.

 

[aidden]

I feel like you didn't read the entire thread. See:

"It changes that 500 people using the script bot for 3.5 minutes as $1.00 profit for the developer and $0.20 profit for Runemate to $400 for the developer and $100 for rune-mate, regardless of the amount of time spent using the script bot."

There's a very large difference in the amount a developer can earn.



This system won't go very far, and isn't fair to the consumer. Even as a developer sometimes I don't feel like creating my own bot. So on other platforms I would buy one, paying $8-$15 for it, just to find out it didn't work very well, or at all. The price for a flat fee is just too high for the casual consumer and way too low for the gold farmer.



Same as above.




I feel like this is extremely fair to the consumer, however almost feels like a finger in the face to developers. If RuneMate was the size of some of it's competitors this would be great and there wouldn't be a problem, but we have to take into consideration that our community is fairly small in comparison to others. This isn't a bad thing, but it lowers the drive for premium script development with a earnings system such as this in place.



Preloaded hours is an alright idea, but not one that I would like. I'm not saying that as a developer, but as a consumer. I just wouldn't want to [ay for hours up front every time I wanted to use the bot. You never know when you're going to get banned.

With the one-time access fee + hourly rate, users understand that they're paying a small fee.. (And I mean small, nothing over a dollar should be accepted in my opinion) for access to the bot that includes some time that they can use it for free. After their "free time" is up they are charged hourly.

I can't see any problems with this, as if I pay $1 for a bot that doesn't work very will I won't be that upset about it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be like spending $10/15. The better part is I get enough time to test it out. If it's not working properly or I find a problem I can report it. Chances are, the premium developer will fix it. Then I have more time to use the bot.

The amount of hours a user should be granted upon purchase of the bot should be the (One time free / Hourly price)

Thoughts?

Im in favor of the one-time access fee + hourly rate, however i don't agree with the number of hours a user would get out of the one time fee. If it gets you (fee/hourly) hours then the developer is technically still earning the same amount, just getting some of it up front. I think that the fee should include a maximum of 3 hours to allow the user to test the bot and make sure it does as they need and is working. Otherwise I don't see much point in the fee because it's basically just an advance payment. This way the author is actually making a bit more of a profit.

 

[devtucker]

Im in favor of the one-time access fee + hourly rate, however i don't agree with the number of hours a user would get out of the one time fee. If it gets you (fee/hourly) hours then the developer is technically still earning the same amount, just getting some of it up front. I think that the fee should include a maximum of 3 hours to allow the user to test the bot and make sure it does as they need and is working. Otherwise I don't see much point in the fee because it's basically just an advance payment. This way the author is actually making a bit more of a profit.

The difference is that with premium scripts being so cheap per hour, the chance of someone using the script for 30 hours (The amount of time it would require to earn $1 at $0.04/hr) is minimum. The guarentees that you atleast get a small amount regardless as to if they use it for 5 hours or 30.

Over-all you will be profiting more, as the average user will not spend 30+ hours using your script. However, if they do use it for more than 30 hours, you didn't gain anything extra, however if they're the casual botter, or just wanting to try it out, and uses it for 2-3 hours, you've gained quite a bit.
 

You're dismissing the pros of the other options and trying to solely home into the one idea - it's not a bad idea, it's just not the best one and it's by the far the most difficult to pitch to the end-user.

To say I'm dismissing the pros of other options is false. I'm caught between PPI and the one I suggested. PPI would be nice, and it wouldn't effect me very much, but I feel like it would turn into *cough* another platform and we will see low-quality scripts for $10-$20.

Granted, if they're kept clean PPI would by far be the best option.

 

[noblefrenzy]

No just keep it as it is you will be losing people if something like that happens