ID:747182
 
1. Has anyone implemented Paypal IPN in DM?

2. Is this allowed?
From an 'Is this allowed' point of view;

Accepting donations, subscriptions or micro-transactions is fine, so long as your game isn't re-using anyone else's legal material - so no icons from Game Maker/RPG Maker/video games, no anime references or names, no licensed works etc.
Yeah, game would most definitely be entirely original. I was just wondering if using Paypal IPN (basically totally bypassing any built in money system) was allowed.
You're free to bypass BYOND's built-in subscription system and you're free to charge whatever you want for your own software. It's probably better in the long run since Paypal's tax is much lower than BYOND's and you have many more options in terms of what you charge for. You aren't stuck with a single "all or nothing" subscription flag.
Thanks! Btw, what is "BYOND's tax" ??
In response to FIREking
Last I heard the rate was $1 + 10% per subscription.
In response to LordAndrew
That isn't bad unless you ccharge mini-subs such as $3. In the case of $3 subs, BYOND would get $1.30
Compared to Paypal's $0.30 + 2.9% it is very bad.
In response to SuperAntx
SuperAntx wrote:
Compared to Paypal's $0.30 + 2.9% it is very bad.

It is quite a high percent rate but you are giving back to BYOND helping it survive just a little longer.
Does/can byond do a monthly subscription type thing?

Just curious.

I've offered to donate thousands of dollars for feature requests, but never got a reply.
No monthly subscriptions for memberships .. Sadly
In response to A.T.H.K
A.T.H.K wrote:
SuperAntx wrote:
Compared to Paypal's $0.30 + 2.9% it is very bad.

It is quite a high percent rate but you are giving back to BYOND helping it survive just a little longer.

If Tom wanted Byond to live a little bit longer he'd work on it.

In response to Corax Software
Corax Software wrote:
A.T.H.K wrote:
SuperAntx wrote:
Compared to Paypal's $0.30 + 2.9% it is very bad.

It is quite a high percent rate but you are giving back to BYOND helping it survive just a little longer.

If Tom wanted Byond to live a little bit longer he'd work on it.


Not sure what you are insinuating there work on it as advertising or the actual software itself?
In response to A.T.H.K
A.T.H.K wrote:
Corax Software wrote:
A.T.H.K wrote:
SuperAntx wrote:
Compared to Paypal's $0.30 + 2.9% it is very bad.

It is quite a high percent rate but you are giving back to BYOND helping it survive just a little longer.

If Tom wanted Byond to live a little bit longer he'd work on it.


Not sure what you are insinuating there work on it as advertising or the actual software itself?

Oh it was just at the time I read this I was thinking about that image with Tom saying he was sick of Top Ramen and all the downsizing. Didn't know there was a tax on subscriptions as well. Almost keeled over.

In response to A.T.H.K
A.T.H.K wrote:
It is quite a high percent rate but you are giving back to BYOND helping it survive just a little longer.

The price is too high. If BYOND wanted to survive it would be doing its best to make itself more appealing to developers.

Right now if you made a BYOND game you're very constrained in what you can do with it. It's true the game creation software is free, but that's only a half truth. Some of the most useful features are tied to the website, features like account authentication and subscriptions. You'll have to pay to get your game published then fork over a sizable percentage of your limited subscription options if you want to make any money off it. Sure, you could bypass all that, but if you're going that far why even make a BYOND game at all? BYOND games are ill-equipped to live outside of the BYOND ecosystem. You can't export a BYOND game to Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, HTLM5, etc.

Without BYOND's paid features you're all on your own with limited distribution options. Not only that, the game itself will most likely suffer as a result of being made with BYOND. It will be slower than if you made the same exact game with something else and the BYOND source is closed so you wont be able to make any optimizations which benefit your specific game.
If that is true why are you still here? :)

But I do agree with you no argument there and I don't think the flash client will change much as it is quite primitive...
There is going to be a tradeoff when using BYOND, but the subscription stuff isn't really a part of it, since you can always use your own system (it's not like this would be any easier if you wrote your game in C++). We don't force you to use BYOND keys (although we will probably make that a requirement for the Flash usage).

Not that it really matters, but BYOND brings in almost no money, and it sort of makes sense because we aren't really selling anything outside of what amounts to more-or-less a donation to help us out in exchange for a few minor perks. To really be successful, we need to go the way of the app-store model and bandwagon onto successful games. That's why we've been focusing on this standalone installer system which gives games a more professional non-BYOND feel in exchange for a more realistic app-store cut (25%) of subscriptions. If a few games can take off through standalone clients and flash portals, they can make a lot of money for themselves and for us, which will keep the project going.

Ultimately, it is up to the dev whether they want to use these tools and associated "taxes". I just want people to understand that when the product is free, there has to be some way of bringing in money. And Google Ads + donations for a project of this magnitude is just not cutting it.
Whilst there's no rule about avoiding the 'tax' BYOND puts on subscriptions, I dare say that I'd personally just stick with it, as low-cost subscriptions aren't exactly career-moneymakers in the first place, and if I'm making money from something developed using freely available software, there's a certain moral imperative to give something back; Tom has to run the web-server and pay Lummox at the very least, and - whilst this is more of a humorous concern - feeding himself on something a bit nicer than Top Ramen would be nice too.
I sure hope he's not only eating Top Ramen.
That's just not healthy.
In response to Complex Robot
Complex Robot wrote:
I sure hope he's not only eating Top Ramen.
That's just not healthy.

Eating only Ramen is what I do, I think Tom has a little bit of variety.
Page: 1 2