AllowThirdPartySales

[pauljkl]

Great, now I have to tell @Nightgaladeld to turn this on for Las Vegas so I can sell my gamepasses

[Reinitialized]

Also, why do we have all these settings spread across instances. Although potentially for another thread, shouldn’t these settings be placed in another service called “PlaceSettings” or something like that?

[Guest112452]

Sigh… third party sales was the only way for me to get more takes on my model, now I have to ask my users to enable that property so I can at least get some support…

[einsteinK]

@Reinitialized

Also, why do we have all these settings spread across instances. Although potentially for another thread, shouldn’t these settings be placed in another service called “PlaceSettings” or something like that?

Or MarketplaceService… or maybe the site under Configure?
But with it being in-game, it gives me hope that later on we can do :AllowAsset(id)

[Reinitialized]

@einsteinK the point of that comment is because we have alot of flag based settings for certain features in game now. Wouldn’t be easier for ROBLOX and it’s devs to have a central location for checking these settings in studio?

[ConvexHero]

@einsteinK

Does AllowThirdPartySales change anything about “selling” free assets?I don’t see why you should block a free model from being sold.

Currently it doesn’t. Perhaps this will change before the feature is fully enabled. In this case the benefit is allowing model developers to increase the spread/fame of their creations.

The only potential issue I can see would be with InsertService, which allows models to be inserted into a place if owned by Roblox or the place creator. This could become an issue if a place owner is tricked into taking the model. This seems like a very elaborate sequence of events.

@Reinitialized

Also, a lot of these third party scripts depend on in game sales. This would damage their ability to get known, and about of their profits for legitimate purposes

Do you have a link to some of these scripts? I’m trying to come up with a solution for this problem.

[EchoReaper]

@ConvexHero Don’t know if you saw this or not:

@EchoReaper

Just to clarify so I understand the problem before giving suggestions, why exactly is this a problem in the first place? You say it’s not really needed in FE games, but the non-FE games are no different from FE games in this regard because either way you need exploits to advertise your products in someone else’s game. Is there some hidden issue I’m not seeing?

I’d like to get a good idea of what this property is supposed to prevent before suggesting anything.

[ConvexHero]

@EchoReaper

I’d like to get a good idea of what this property is supposed to prevent before suggesting anything.

The original issue was an exploiter who replace the asset id’s for a popular, non-fe, game’s shop.

This could also occur in FE games if there is an exploit that could bypass FE. It could also happen if the scripts in a FE place are not examined – eg, a “virus” script.

Likewise, it could happen if the scripts allow modification of the asset id’s. For example, fetching them from an external source.

[EchoReaper]

In that case, AllowThirdPartySales is probably not the best solution because one thing they want to sell that’s not made by them and bam the whole feature is rendered useless. It also doesn’t help people like paul and Night because they have to turn this on since paul is the one who owns the assets sold in Night’s place. AllowThirdPartySales should just be permanently set to false and particular assets not owned by the place owner can be whitelisted on the game’s page.

To make it as user-friendly as possible, script creators should be able to put a line at the top of their scripts around the lines of “requestPermissionToSell(assetId)” and if someone inserted a script with that in it, it would prompt them with the asset name, asset creator, and other stuff and ask them if they wanted to add it to the whitelist. People are probably not going to go out of their way to add donation assets to the whitelist, but if prompted with a “Yes/No” GUI they would be more willing to whitelist it.

I know the second bit is a little complicated, and I’m not even sure if it’s able to be done, so I don’t expect it in the initial release, but I am hoping whitelisting certain assets through the game (not place)'s configuration page or through an in-studio window (like the game explorer) makes it to launch, because the feature is so weak in its current state in the sense that just one asset you want to sell in the game could render the entire feature useless.

[Reinitialized]

@ConvexHero Maybe create a whitelist for assets via the website, and have that be put into effect in-game? However, if this it put into place, there should also be a way to completely bypass it if the Place Owner decides to.

As for the third-party models, as long as Free Models aren’t effected, they should be fine for the most part. Sure, they had ticket/robux donations, but I think they can resolve that via a system update.

[Guest112452]

Could this just be enabled by default?? If owners are dealing with exploiters prompting purchases or whatever they could just turn it off? This is really upsetting for a ton of model makers that are trying to get more sales. (I promptpurchase when the user chooses too, not spamming them)

[Usering]

@Exudo

This is really upsetting for a ton of model makers that are trying to get more sales. (I promptpurchase when the user chooses too, not spamming them)

Can agree. Back when it was popular, my admin commands script bought in like 5k R$ a day just from people donating; if I ever wanted to do this again, it would be a lot less because of this.

[Guest112452]

@Usering

Can agree. Back when it was popular, my admin commands script bought in like 5k R$ a day just from people donating; if I ever wanted to do this again, it would be a lot less because of this.

I don’t care much for the donations, more of takes for my model.

[Usering]

@Exudo

I don’t care much for the donations, more of takes for my model.

Yeah that too, this property should at least let free purchases through.

[Guest112452]

@Usering

Yeah that too, this property should at least let free purchases through.

This. Yes please.

[Master3395]

I don’t like this idea.

It stops my new admin gui’s “purchase” way.
Here’s the cons.

1. The user has to enable third party to be able to first unlock the admin.
2. Then the users can’t donate, because they have to enable third party first.
3. The other users who joins the game can’t take the admin unless the owner of the game enables third party.

And proabebly more, but can’t come up with more right now.

Now to questions.

1. Is there any other purchase way that isn’t affected by this, were i can sell acess to my admin without the owner to enable things that is dissabled by default?
2. Is there any ways users can donate without the owner having to enable this feature?

[ConvexHero]

I’m looking into good implementations of this. It would need to be some form of scriptable whitelist, with some restrictions on how it can be modified.

How are the admin scripts implemented? Are there only local scripts, or is there a server script that could configure a whitelist?

[EchoReaper]

@ConvexHero

How are the admin scripts implemented? Are there only local scripts, or is there a server script that could configure a whitelist?

Every admin script I know of has a server script.

[Master3395]

I do belive what @EchoReaper is saying is right, most admin scripts has a server script, or a module put in SSS

[NWSpacek]

Can we please make 3rd party sales allowed by default? Where are the systemic issues happening that make it necessary to disallow 3rd party sales for everyone except a select few? Sure, some rogue admin script maker like khols could create a dumb update that spams everyone with purchase requests, but if it does then people take notice and then no longer use it.