In a game studio there is generally not an owner, there is several people who all do different things to make the games happen. Of course someone has to be the “owner” when you’re dealing with permissions but the users don’t need to be told that one person owns the studio. There should be a way to rename the owner rank and a way to put multiple people in it.
9 Likes
[quote] Something like this?
http://www.roblox.com/groups/group.aspx?gid=1099253 [/quote]
Pretty sure that’s exactly what he’s requesting. That was an unsupported bug now that was patched already though. You can’t move multiple people into the owner rank anymore.
1 Like
Agree
You’re new so it’s fine, but this forum software has a “Thank you” button if you just want to thank/support/agree with a post but don’t want to discuss anything:
Unfortunately, having multiple owners can be a problem for Customer Service. If something happens to the leaders and they disagree or have a fight and bring the issue to Customer Service, which side do they take? Do they have to act as arbiters?
Better to have a single, ultimate owner who can make decisions for the entire group.
2 Likes
I missed it at first too, but Ethan addressed this in the OP:
This would just make it appear as if the group was owned by multiple people – not change any underlying functionality.
[quote] Unfortunately, having multiple owners can be a problem for Customer Service. If something happens to the leaders and they disagree or have a fight and bring the issue to Customer Service, which side do they take? Do they have to act as arbiters?
Better to have a single, ultimate owner who can make decisions for the entire group. [/quote]
Ethan appears to be suggesting that there still be a single owner from an administration perspective, but that this isn’t made obvious by visibly giving one person a higher rank than the others.
[quote] Unfortunately, having multiple owners can be a problem for Customer Service. If something happens to the leaders and they disagree or have a fight and bring the issue to Customer Service, which side do they take? Do they have to act as arbiters?
Better to have a single, ultimate owner who can make decisions for the entire group. [/quote]
Ethan appears to be suggesting that there still be a single owner from an administration perspective, but that this isn’t made obvious by visibly giving one person a higher rank than the others.[/quote]
Exactly. The owner would still be the legal owner with all their special owner powers, it would just be hidden from the other users because it isn’t relevant to them. The goal being that everyone who works on the game gets due credit and no one is over-credited as the “owner”.
I think having “shared” ownership like OP says and not “multiple owners” would be best as you can still have one person leading but sharing power/title.
Me, DysfunctionalBrick and ShareYourProfanity could really need this feature.
For groups dedicated to small game development studios, you usually don’t want seperate roles for your team, as currently we had to buy Builders Club for an alternative account to put that as the owner, to avoid differences in treatment of the team developers.
I do see CodeWriter’s point, and that it might very well be possible for a bunch of groups, though it annoys me that we needed to do this, and even pay for Builders Club for an alternative account. 
1 Like
Me and @Kmansong2 are creating a group for a future game currently, and could use this – at least visually, if not from an administration perspective.
I’m sure badimo could use this too, as another example. I’m sure the group owner gets much more attention than the ‘other one’.
1 Like
I second this, I would love to see this become a feature. It would allow both of us to obtain credit for the group. That way we’re seen as equals and partners in development. I think a lot of top group games (Jailbreak is a huge one) could benefit from this as well.
2 Likes