So let’s say I want to give some of my friends in real life the ability to join a paid access game. They probably aren’t going to buy robux to join it because this will be their first Roblox game they play, they want to see if Roblox is worth it first. Instead, they would tell me their account name, and I could add their name to a list.
tl;dr
I want to be able to type in (like a VIP server) names that will be able to join the paid access game without having bought it.
Sure there could be a max, like 50 people just like VIP servers.
@Devan and Kevin:Your inability to handle whining of a number of users isn’t grounds for passing off useful features. Regardless of if this feature is implemented or not, you get spammed just for having a popular game – the spam addex by users asking for free access ia negligible.
Who gets into our own games is something that we as the developers of said games should have complete control over. If we want to ban someone, we shouldn’t have to kick them – they shouldn’t be allowed to join in the first place. If we want a whitelist, only users on the whitelist should have access to the place. If we want to allow a few users into a paid access game, we shouls have control over that too.
See, I have a paid access game too, and during the testing phase of the game I had a bunch of kids helping me test the game to a working state. Upon release many of these kids weren’t able to play immediately because they were NBC and didn’t have enough ROBUX to afford access.
So instead I actually had to pay substantial sums to their accounts in order for them to have enough to play the game as a reward for helping test. If we had a feature like not only would it save us money, but it would feel like a more professional way to award access to a game.
[quote] @Devan and Kevin:Your inability to handle whining of a number of users isn’t grounds for passing off useful features. Regardless of if this feature is implemented or not, you get spammed just for having a popular game – the spam addex by users asking for free access ia negligible.
Who gets into our own games is something that we as the developers of said games should have complete control over. If we want to ban someone, we shouldn’t have to kick them – they shouldn’t be allowed to join in the first place. If we want a whitelist, only users on the whitelist should have access to the place. If we want to allow a few users into a paid access game, we shouls have control over that too. [/quote]
It’s not an inability to handle it, I was just giving my opinion on the feature. I don’t want it, because I don’t think it’s worth it. It’s not that hard to get around paid access, and I don’t think ROBLOX needs to start introducing features just so people can favour their friends that will cause strife for other developers.
However, the whitelist and blacklist feature you’re talking about just set a game to be private or to ban players from access via the website sounds like something actually useful. They already have that for private build servers and doing it for normal servers doesn’t seem like it would be that hard. Being able to limit access to a specific list of people or group sounds useful to me, allowing your friends to bypass paid access just doesn’t.
Devan, of course it may not be useful to you; however, not every developer has a good chunk of moneyn (some devs aren’t even BC), and even if someone has money lying around, NBC members require 10x funds because of the 90% tax on their gamepasses. If you have a 35R game, one NBCer at 350R might not sound bad, but what if the dev isnt BC and doesnt have 350R? What if he wants to give beta access to multiple NBC people?
Not only that, but there’s:
A) We shouldn’t have to pay for a person to enter our own game in the first place
B ) We should have complete access control over our game anyway
[quote] Devan, of course it may not be useful to you; however, not every developer has a good chunk of moneyn (some devs aren’t even BC), and even if someone has money lying around, NBC members require 10x funds because of the 90% tax on their gamepasses. If you have a 35R game, one NBCer at 350R might not sound bad, but what if the dev isnt BC and doesnt have 350R? What if he wants to give beta access to multiple NBC people?
Not only that, but there’s:
A) We shouldn’t have to pay for a person to enter our own game in the first place
B ) We should have complete access control over our game anyway [/quote]
It’s not that I don’t understand why people would want this feature, I just don’t think it would actually be a very useful feature. If you can’t understand that, that’s a personal problem. Just because you’ve deluded yourself into thinking there’s no downside to a feature like this doesn’t make my opinion less valid. I don’t know why you’re here arguing with me. All I said is that I don’t want the feature. You’re not going to convince me into wanting it.
A whitelist for private games and a blacklist for public and private games both sound like valuable features for development to me, paid access bypass doesn’t. That’s my opinion.
I know I’m not going to convince you, but that doesn’t stop the debate from being valuable.
To understand why we think the idea is good/bad is valuable to anyone reading this.
I think it’s valuable because I would like to keep my game in paid access, while giving certain people free access (ie people I know in real life who I want to show the game to without needing to show them it in real life)
If you don’t think that’s a useful feature, fine by me. You would think it would be a useful feature if you were in the same situation. Sure you can call off this idea because you don’t find it useful. But that doesn’t stop me from knowing this idea is the better way.
[quote] I know I’m not going to convince you, but that doesn’t stop the debate from being valuable.
To understand why we think the idea is good/bad is valuable to anyone reading this.
I think it’s valuable because I would like to keep my game in paid access, while giving certain people free access (ie people I know in real life who I want to show the game to without needing to show them it in real life)
If you don’t think that’s a useful feature, fine by me. You would think it would be a useful feature if you were in the same situation. Sure you can call off this idea because you don’t find it useful. But that doesn’t stop me from knowing this idea is the better way. [/quote]
I understand why you think it’s a good idea, but I feel like if I were in the same situation I would be content with spending some of the money I made by making my game paid access in the first place to give my friends money to access the game (even if it’s a 30% or 90% tax.)
You make 70% of whatever you’re charging every time someone buys access, at the most it would cost you 300% or 900% to give your friend money to make access. That means that if only 13 people buy access, then you already have enough money to give your friend access. If the game is even worth having on paid access, then you’ll probably have way more than 13 purchases; therefore, you should have more than enough to give your friend access.
If less than 13 people have bought access to your game (especially at the minimum of 25 robux), you might as well make it free, because nobody wants to play it anyway.
They way paid access works I don’t think it’d be as simple as having a white-list without major work. When people buy access, Roblox treats it like the bought the game, the game is added to their inventory. So the easiest solution would appear to be the ability to give users your game. This would mean in the future that they wouldn’t be able to buy the game, but this just means you need to be careful who you give your game to if you want to make a profit in the future.
[quote] I know I’m not going to convince you, but that doesn’t stop the debate from being valuable.
To understand why we think the idea is good/bad is valuable to anyone reading this.
I think it’s valuable because I would like to keep my game in paid access, while giving certain people free access (ie people I know in real life who I want to show the game to without needing to show them it in real life)
If you don’t think that’s a useful feature, fine by me. You would think it would be a useful feature if you were in the same situation. Sure you can call off this idea because you don’t find it useful. But that doesn’t stop me from knowing this idea is the better way. [/quote]
I understand why you think it’s a good idea, but I feel like if I were in the same situation I would be content with spending some of the money I made by making my game paid access in the first place to give my friends money to access the game (even if it’s a 30% or 90% tax.)
[/quote]
One problem:
My friends don’t have BC, I said that from the start of this.
That’s the whole reason I started this thread, to give access to my friends who don’t have BC.
[quote] I know I’m
My friends don’t have BC, I said that from the start of this.
That’s the whole reason I started this thread, to give access to my friends who don’t have BC. [/quote]
I know that. Read my post again.
You can still give robux to people who don’t have BC via gamepasses and gear sales. It’s just a 90% tax. That’s what I meant by 900%. I did the math for the scenario in which you’re transfering robux to someone without BC. My math was a little off, but it’s still only ~14 sales (give or take one sale depending on the price due to rounding).
It sounds way more stupid to tell your friend in real life this:
“Hey, make a place for 250R$, I will buy it from you so you have enough money to buy my place, which is only 25R$. Yeah there’s a 90% tax, but don’t worry about it.”
Instead of “The game costs robux to get in, but I put your name on a list that gets in for free, here’s the game link: (link)”
Why is it so hard to say that having a list of people who get in for free is the better way?
Economically it is more efficient, and it’s also logically more efficient.
What more could it be?