07-31-2015 04:20 PM
04-23-2016 06:08 PM
motorsep said:
$100 fee doesn't sit well with me, if it's per each submission o.O
04-23-2016 06:09 PM
04-23-2016 06:12 PM
04-23-2016 06:27 PM
motorsep said:
@bo3b Per year I think could work when market matures. Otherwise, with unknown number of platform users and total lack of analytics tools for devs, you might end up at loss unless you release several titles per year.
04-23-2016 06:28 PM
04-23-2016 09:41 PM
In my case as i said for one of my apps i received a reply stating the fellas liked it conceptually and they’d encourage me to keep working on it but then when i asked if they had any specific suggestions for what they would like to have changed/added i didn’t get any reply on that.
So i think it would be really good (and needed) if your review team then at least gave such feedback for those apps where they think there’s potential there. I know to me for that app that would be incredibly useful to me and i'd love to work more on it but hard to justify/extremely risky for me spending way more time and money on it when i don't know what are the things you'd actually like to have added/changed to be able to release it then.
On the grander topic, it is of course up to the platform holder to decide as what they see themselves and their platform and store.
Whether they see it as open free market platform where anyone is free and welcome to release anything (as long as it doesn’t crash the system/contain viruses/mess with the system in other way or portray extreme views or similar), even that can have several levels, see the difference between self publishing on something like youtube, facebook, itch.io, steam, the google play store or the apple app store, several levels/differences in how freely one can publish things on those.
Or, sure, the platform holder can see it’s store front as very tightly controlled curated platform where they go way further than just a “generally runs without major offending elements” check and rather see themselves as more in depth quality control/ gate keeper as in “we don’t think this should be on our platform for whatever reason”.
Oculus is of course in their rights to choose to go rather for this second more tightly controlled option,
but the parts that reviews in general (no matter if approved or rejected) take very long to even get to any judgement receving state and even way more that the gear vr actually has some custom requirements, then makes that platform a lot less appealing to me as developer, since turning it into a total gamble whether what one works on will actually even just get a chance at returning dev costs.
I'd prefer a more open walled garden at least, first, because i in general prefer my stuff to get a fair change and if the market likes it, cool, if not, well, it doesn’t sell well, but at least then i feel like it had a chance if it was shown just like the other things on the store, rather than being rejected up front by someone i don’t know for reasons i don’t get told or it makes it onto the store in theory but is never shown to any potential audience which actually happens on some stores.
Besides that, as i briefly mentioned, making a more in depth good gear VR experience actually takes some custom work. Even if not hugely involved, making good use of the touchpad controls is some work for example.
It is also some work which then is not 1:1 reusable for any other current VR distribution way/platform really.
For example Google Cardboard instead only has one touch input expectable, whereas rift and vive on PC have more involved and different control inputs available so require other control options to be implemented.
So creating custom content for the gear VR making good use of its custom features is actually some extra work.
Not good if one can then not make any use of that app in that form other than handing it out for free on sideload VR if it got rejected by the gear store team.
Now if the Gear VR team at least changed some things to offer the option to self self signed things somewhere else, then things would look different, but as it is right now where one can basically only sell gear vr content on the platform store, yeah, this review/platform handling way is very risky for developers.
I find it very good that the oculus fellas replied to the thread and explained their stance, just wanted to state a few points from developer view why sadly that stance rather makes me more worried putting more time into gear VR dev.
I also find it not very consistent since for other types of content than apps, for example videos, Facebook seems to be encouraging anyone to put anything up there.
And while it’s your, the oculus fellas decissions to make of course, me personally i think it’s not the ideal one seeing how the gear VR is to many users and developers a first or second step to get into VR, and for devs if that is already blocked in many cases, difficult to invest more into it then.
Where i’d push more as platform holder to enforce some control would just be regarding making people not nauseous unless that is implied expectency for that kind of app for some users (for example a rollercoaster) or to keep a reasonable and sustainable price range for content going as much as possible (enforcing that free to play does not dominate so dev is longtime sustainable for the developer base and at the same time also enforcing that content is not way overpriced, to be sustainable on both ends prices should largely be $1-a reasonable sum for this type of content)
Overall, me personally i’ll now rather focus on doing thngs for rift and vive rather than gear VR due to how the handling is right now for the gear VR, which i’m sad about a bit since with different ruleset and handling i think it could be a great entry point for many devs to get started with more involved VR dev.
In my case, it also means i can't dabble with doing VR things as much as i'd like right away besides for client work in general since doing things for rift and vive is financially more involved on many ends so i have to save up more from client work etc to finance those higher costs/more involved dev cycles until i find better financing options.
Regarding some other points mentioned in the thread:
“Microsoft's technique that was instrumental in making them the dominant platform was to charge $1100/year, but provide incredible support.”
On Xbox (360) maybe, but that was also in another time for consoles than floats as well now due to more devs having other expectations from more open app stores and steam etc, on pc the technique for making MS the dominant platform in first place regarding available software/games was that there was no approval system at all and anyone could develop and release for the platform while common functionality ensured to some degree via directx etc helped that lots of people could run it.
I think it’s an important distinction to make, since similar for the Apple App Store, what helped make it become a dominant platform for apps was that it was the first mobile platform where anyone could publish things with less restrictions than usual on many other mobile platforms at the time while having a real chance to be successful initially.
Meanwhile of course, due to having zero as minimum price for apps instead of at least $1 and “free” to get apps being at least as much featured in the app stores if not more as/than up front costing ones, that over a bit longer duration has lead to a spiral of dumping prices until now where unless one has good connections, lots of marketing power and/or lottery winning type of luck, in most cases only free to play apps are longtime sustainably lucrative there.
Also side issues like most apps there not being shown to any users ever anymore unless already having many downloads/reviews which leads to other questionable ways of marketing being enforced on many devs/publishers..
So yeah, other issues there meanwhile..and meanwhile they are hurting those platform holders and users, too, not just the devs, like for example the apple watch, new apple tv, iPad pro or android tablets get way less really good custom apps made for them, since lots of devs just see no way to have longterm dev and support for apps sustainable there financially (anymore).
Regarding feee or no fee for devs per review or per year:
My personal stance on that is that i think it would be nonsense to have a nominal fee per title review unless it is only charged if one actually passed the review or at least when getting rejected would get a list of things to address to get approved. Else it would feel doubly bad if one waits 2-5 weeks for getting reviewed, then gets rejected without option for changing things to get approved since no feedback and then on top has to pay for that experience?
That would be quite problematic and cause quite some uproar.
On the other side, if there was let’s say a $100 general fee for devs per year (not per title) and in return one could know anyone can release anything with at least the walled garden open to apple developer rules degree and would always get feedback what to change in an app in case it got rejected, and all apps released also really get shown on the store in same amount, yeah, i’d be fine with paying that and i imagine many others, too.
04-23-2016 10:12 PM
04-23-2016 10:16 PM
04-23-2016 10:18 PM
cybereality said:
@VicariousAlex I should clarify that low quality is only one of many reasons an app could be rejected. Apps that are uncomfortable or make people sick may not make it. Content is another big factor, for example porn, extreme violence, or offensive material may also be rejected. Of course malware would not be accepted. Apps with IP infringement. Probably other stuff as well.
04-24-2016 06:38 AM