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?