[quote] how about the ability to buy other users access to the game with your own R$
everyone’s a winner [/quote]
We’ll let you be the one to write the blog post “You can pay for your friends to play your own game now!”
[quote] how about the ability to buy other users access to the game with your own R$
everyone’s a winner [/quote]
We’ll let you be the one to write the blog post “You can pay for your friends to play your own game now!”[/quote]
It’s funny how you think this feature would be important enough to warrant a blog post either way.
[quote] [quote=“Aurarus” post=126175]how about the ability to buy other users access to the game with your own R$
everyone’s a winner [/quote]
We’ll let you be the one to write the blog post “You can pay for your friends to play your own game now!”[/quote]
It’s funny how you think this feature would be important enough to warrant a blog post either way.[/quote]
User blocking feature got a blog post.
[quote] [quote=“Echo” post=126176][quote=“Aurarus” post=126175]how about the ability to buy other users access to the game with your own R$
everyone’s a winner [/quote]
We’ll let you be the one to write the blog post “You can pay for your friends to play your own game now!”[/quote]
It’s funny how you think this feature would be important enough to warrant a blog post either way.[/quote]
User blocking feature got a blog post.[/quote]
User blocking is a feature that affects everyone on ROBLOX. This would only affect people who make games, and even then only people whose games are popular, and even then only people whose games are popular and paid access, and even then only people whose games are popular and paid access and who don’t have 250R$ to spend; which doesn’t actually leave that many people.
Site blocking was a decent feature – it deserved a blog post. But even if it didn’t deserve one, ROBLOX usually makes a blog post for any notable site update, whether it be blocking or controlled access.
Even still though, by no means was I suggesting Aurarus’ s idea would get a blog post. It was a rhetorical statement in which he would think “Well… If you put it that was, it does seem silly. I guess that wasn’t a good idea.” It was pointing out that no, that wouldn’t be a feature and there wouldn’t be a blog post because it’d be impossible to write a decent one.
What surprises me is that even though you read it the wrong way, you felt the need to give feedback on something that is ultimately ROBLOX’s decision. None of us have a say so in whether it will be implemented or not nor whether there will be a blog post – the purpose we serve here is to prove to ROBLOX how useful or not useful a feature is, and attacking a statement (which didn’t even imply what you are stating it did) like that (given it was what you thought it was) doesn’t contribute to the discussion at all.
[quote] Site blocking was a decent feature – it deserved a blog post. But even if it didn’t deserve one, ROBLOX usually makes a blog post for any notable site update, whether it be blocking or controlled access.
Even still though, by no means was I suggesting Aurarus’ s idea would get a blog post. It was a rhetorical statement in which he would think “Well… If you put it that was, it does seem silly. I guess that wasn’t a good idea.” It was pointing out that no, that wouldn’t be a feature and there wouldn’t be a blog post because it’d be impossible to write a decent one.
What surprises me is that even though you read it the wrong way, you felt the need to give feedback on something that is ultimately ROBLOX’s decision. None of us have a say so in whether it will be implemented or not nor whether there will be a blog post – the purpose we serve here is to prove to ROBLOX how useful or not useful a feature is, and attacking a statement (which didn’t even imply what you are stating it did) like that (given it was what you thought it was) doesn’t contribute to the discussion at all. [/quote]
It was a statement referencing your proposed scenario to highlight the insignificance of a feature like this. It wasn’t saying anything about whether or not there should be a blog post about it. If you want to talk rhetoric, we can talk rhetoric.
The entire point of my involvement in this thread was for me to voice my concerns that the feature would be a lot of work to implement and it wouldn’t affect that many people, whereas adding a whitelist access type (like the one already in place for personal build servers) would benefit more people and be easier for them to do.
THIS IS FANTASTIC! Or at least a very good idea for a feature. First I don’t know why anyone would think this as useless. It’s an option and that means you’re not forced to choose your list of “free to play” immediately after you make the game paid access. You don’t even have to choose anyone to add to the list unless you desire to. The point of that chunk is that if you think it’s “not important” and it’s only ever going to be an optional feature, then don’t turn it down unless it’s a completely stupid idea, because it doesn’t forcively effect you. Second, this is useful to most of us because then as mentioned, we can get non BC members or even fresh accounts access to the place if we really want them to play. Personally I’m a developer without BC currently and well, I don’t want to spend hundreds of robux just to help test a game frequently for a friend. I’d love them to have the robux, but i need those to upload sounds and stuff for my own dev use too. If arguing that this is a useless idea, then that is kind of like saying PBS servers having the option to choose who’s admin or just a visitor is stupid, let’s give all the tools to all the players! chaos and grieving ensues. I’m a fan of having total control of your player’s accesses to your own game in order to control your individual game’s community inside the servers.
Why does a game have to be popular to need this feature? This isn’t only to give friends free access to your game, it is also for games in early testing stages. Just because you don’t see many paid access games, doesn’t mean that paid access isn’t still being used.
1 Like
I should be able to distribute my content how I wish.
so yes. this would be a perfect way to achieve that
shouldnt stop there though. models and such should operate the same way
After 8 years, this concept still hasnt been implemented and I think that this would be an amazing concept for developers.
What if you wanted a paid beta for your game, but already had alpha testers? You would force them to purchase the fee in order to keep their role. With the property to add certain users to bypass the fee, it would aid certain developers in testing and allowing friends to play their game.
I dont really understand a negative to this, since it would be an optional property.
I fully support this.
3 Likes