Forum ‹ PayVault ‹ PayVault for Free Users

[ASH1138]

Hi,

I am aware that payVault is only available to paid users. I found quite a number of users in the playerIO forum who are reluctant to upgrade to a paid plan unless they make money from their game. After all ,for companies, losing $25 every month for a game that does not profit does not make commercial sense.And Im sure most casual developers won't spend $25 every month on a flash game which doesnt make money ,especially when they have their own bills to pay.

BUT, in order to make money from microtransactions, first they would have to spend money on playerIO plans. Which is kinda paradoxical and defeats the purpose.

So I would like to ask a question: Why can't free users have payVaults? I mean, if playerIo makes money from MTs, both parties benefit, right?

And secondly, if developers could somehow be assured that their game WILL make money, then they would willingly jump on the bandwagon, and sign up for a paid plan immediately. The problem is, it is impossible to gauge how their game performs
in the market unless they go into the market themselves. Real money is real money. You cant test microtransactions with things such as payPal Sandboxes and beta testers. You will need a real microtransactions API, like payVault.

So I would like playerIO to have a limited trial for free users to test the marketability of their games. Or a PayVaultSandbox API if you will. Perhalps the payVault sandbox can have all the APIs that payVault has, but, instead of the money going into the user's account, it would go into playerScale's accounts instead, as a way of paying for the service. Users would be able to monitor through their admin panel how much "money" their game potentially makes. After a tryout period of say 3 months, the user would then be asked to upgrade to the paid plan, to access the features of the full payVault API. He can also upgrade anytime during the trial. Of course, if he is not making money, he can decline and revert to a free plan anyway.

Sounds reasonable?

[Benjaminsen]

It's a balance, we need to have some services that forces you to upgrade.
Likewise, if you are unsure that your game can make $25/Month out of the box, you are probably in the wrong business.

[wgfunstormcontest]

What would be neat is if payvault is available to free users, but you automatically deduct the first $25. That way free users could develop games with payvault, and you still get paid.

Once the game goes live, the $25 fee is more than reasonable, but it's annoying to have to pay it during development, which can take months, and you don't even know how the game will turn out.

[Benjaminsen]

What would be neat is if payvault is available to free users, but you automatically deduct the first $25. That way free users could develop games with payvault, and you still get paid.

Once the game goes live, the $25 fee is more than reasonable, but it's annoying to have to pay it during development, which can take months, and you don't even know how the game will turn out.

PayVault don't actually touch the money and we don't want to! PayVault handles the transaction for you, but you have the account directly with the payment providers!

Otherwise, yep this would be a way to solve this

[samsonadze]

Well,of course it would be very nice,but i suggest all to make a game on free plan,then add Multiplayer in the game,and release it,I BET it can reach 25 000 Users in 1-2 months! so after that,Since free plan cant save more than 25000 objects,then you will upgrade it to paid plan, and also, Depending on statistics, In the game,10 % of the players are spending MAX.50 $ in the game, so let's say they are paying 25 $ each of them, 10% of 25 000 is 2500$ This money you will have in 1 year if game will have 25K players. and Yeah monthly you will got Likely 300 $. So you will pay fee with no problem here's my opinion

[paala2]

I think a good option is to let the free users use payvault but the first 25$ gain to be retain by player io

[rluck]

It's a balance, we need to have some services that forces you to upgrade.
Likewise, if you are unsure that your game can make $25/Month out of the box, you are probably in the wrong business.

I'd say that both of these statements are flawed.

Take a look at the features you're offering, there's obvious reasons to upgrade beyond PayVault. And from a developers point of view who's trying to decide if working with PlayerIO is something I want to do in the long run having to make my game without PayVault until I'm making money is kind of ridiculous. That means when I get my game concept to the point it's pulling in the money to cover the $25/month I either have to re-write those aspects (absolutely not going to happen) or I write my own systems and don't give PlayerIO a cent of my transactions.

The second statement... I don't know where to begin. Every indie dev has this grand idea for a game they think everyone would love but until it's out there and people are playing it no one knows whether it will make any money. Are you suggesting that developers shouldn't use PlayerIO unless they're sure their idea is going to make at least $25?

I think PlayerIO needs to re-evaluate their pricing. I'm an indie dev who is very attracted to PlayerIO and in fact it's been a dream to work with for this contest. However, if after the contest I have to pay $25 to keep my payvault items or be forced to re-write they can forget it.

[Henrik]

The second statement... I don't know where to begin. Every indie dev has this grand idea for a game they think everyone would love but until it's out there and people are playing it no one knows whether it will make any money. Are you suggesting that developers shouldn't use PlayerIO unless they're sure their idea is going to make at least $25?

If you don't believe that your game is good enough to make that money back, and much more, what reason is there for us to believe it? Have a little faith in yourself and your ability to make a great game!