I like the idea, but some people don't even have the money to sponsor even if they'd want to (me being one of them).
forum
Poll 6: Sponsored Feature Requests
posted
Total Posts
59
Do you agree with the feature sponsoring system?
Total votes: 93
Polling ended
I would totally chip in a few bucks for variable (non .5x / 2x) slider speeds ;D
I have been thinking about donating a little bit more outside-of-subscription once the semester is out and my finances are sorted...
This would be a great way for supporters to see where their money is going more visibly.
This would be a great way for supporters to see where their money is going more visibly.
I would totally put $25 on slider speeds and $10 on combo colour reordering.
If we can sponsor bugs, I'd sink $10 into i46.
Donating code is also something I'd be interested in.
Edit: It also occurred to me that you should be offered a refund (or credits) if a feature you invest in truly dies. As in, no one else supports it and it's forgotten.
If we can sponsor bugs, I'd sink $10 into i46.
Donating code is also something I'd be interested in.
Edit: It also occurred to me that you should be offered a refund (or credits) if a feature you invest in truly dies. As in, no one else supports it and it's forgotten.
I'd pay 100 to reorder Kiai timing parts!
But yeah, I would support this.
But yeah, I would support this.
Topic Starter
Yep, although the way I see it is that as soon as a feature gets sponsored I would consider it and kill or praise it on the spot. There could be an auto-refund after 4 weeks system, though.MetalMario201 wrote:
Edit: It also occurred to me that you should be offered a refund (or credits) if a feature you invest in truly dies. As in, no one else supports it and it's forgotten.
I see that one person has already voted against this without any explanation. Please avoid doing this if possible.
There's still going to be that middle class of requests that aren't outright infeasible, so don't get denied, but also see little attention.
We'd have to see if the priority boost from one supporter is enough to give the feature attention from others.
We'd have to see if the priority boost from one supporter is enough to give the feature attention from others.
Topic Starter
Well there shouldn't be a huge list of sponsored features if this works how I see it working.
As an alternative, I did consider swapping to a getsatisfaction account for feature requests but feel that I don't want to rely on an external entity for this, and also give supporters a bit of an extra advantage in the process.
As an alternative, I did consider swapping to a getsatisfaction account for feature requests but feel that I don't want to rely on an external entity for this, and also give supporters a bit of an extra advantage in the process.
This idea is a great idea. There are some great feature suggestions on the forums, and some, if not most of them usually never see the light of day.
With this, I would be glad to chuck a few $$ towards a great idea.
With this, I would be glad to chuck a few $$ towards a great idea.
i guess this sounds fair for the people who has money to spend, and unfair for the people who don't.
don't have much to say, this sounds like a good idea
don't have much to say, this sounds like a good idea
Hm, guess I'll spend some for custom-slider speeds and customizable LayeredHitSounds value per Timing Section...~
Though I do hope the costs of these donations aren't too large?
Though I do hope the costs of these donations aren't too large?
Topic Starter
It will be relative to how much you pledge, ie. $1 = 2 credits. Subscription gives you x months worth of credits. Just an example and may be tweaked.
No no no no no.
I disagree with money.
I would much prefer a StackOverflow approach. (If you haven't used it as a programmer, I highly suggest you try it out for a week.)
That is, everyone who contributes well enough gets "credits" (reputation points). Users can freely up-vote or down-vote questions (in our case, they'd be feature requests and bug reports).
Still allow normal users to comment (and be given reputation for their comments by rep-givers).
I disagree with money.
I would much prefer a StackOverflow approach. (If you haven't used it as a programmer, I highly suggest you try it out for a week.)
That is, everyone who contributes well enough gets "credits" (reputation points). Users can freely up-vote or down-vote questions (in our case, they'd be feature requests and bug reports).
Still allow normal users to comment (and be given reputation for their comments by rep-givers).
Topic Starter
But I'm trying to make a model here where I can actually spend more time working on said features. Removing money from the equation would make this relatively worthless in my eyes (I'd rather just work on the features I want to as a priority).
Forgive me for not reading the front part of the thread if this has been said.
I checked option 2, but will check option 1 had it been something like "Each user can only sponsor a limit of x dollars per idea and cannot spend more until the idea has been checked through."
Without going into details, I don't want some of us to lose control over their finances (some people love games so much they'll spend money to just get a TINY advantage - see MapleStory) or cry foul over "certain" individuals being able to get their idea higher up the queue because they have the moolar to do it. It'll be bad if a mundane idea is pushed so high up the queue through sponsorship and which swamps over excellent ideas, although I accept that usually that isn't the case.
I checked option 2, but will check option 1 had it been something like "Each user can only sponsor a limit of x dollars per idea and cannot spend more until the idea has been checked through."
Without going into details, I don't want some of us to lose control over their finances (some people love games so much they'll spend money to just get a TINY advantage - see MapleStory) or cry foul over "certain" individuals being able to get their idea higher up the queue because they have the moolar to do it. It'll be bad if a mundane idea is pushed so high up the queue through sponsorship and which swamps over excellent ideas, although I accept that usually that isn't the case.
Topic Starter
Setting some upper limits may not be a bad idea, but that said; I don't think it would need to be implemented until actually required. No point in adding unnecessary restrictions before observing a problem.
Also, I see the wishlist of features being fairly consistent across the community; maybe with different priorities based on hiw you use the game.
I doubt the poor folk would often disagree with sponsorship of a feature.
I doubt the poor folk would often disagree with sponsorship of a feature.
What will happen to the ideas that are good, but without any money involved?
Topic Starter
The obvious - they won't get a priority boost, unless others decide it is a good idea and sponsor it. Remember that a "good idea" is usually "good" in the eyes of the person who thought of it. People will support good ideas should they be truly impressive. (Of course I still have the final say in what gets implementedRemco32 wrote:
What will happen to the ideas that are good, but without any money involved?
).Still, if this gets used a lot, then a person with a great feature request will get flooded with payed one, and might have to wait a real long time to get his feature implemented . And I think there won't be many people willing to pay for some else his feature request.
This is where you're wrong. Many of the most significant features are agreed upon by large segments of the community.Remco32 wrote:
And I think there won't be many people willing to pay for some else his feature request.
And if they like it, they'll support it.
I like the sound of this idea~
That's like saying that nobody should star anyone else's maps because it gives their map more competition. Getting your feature request added first isn't some kind of competition, lol.Remco32 wrote:
Still, if this gets used a lot, then a person with a great feature request will get flooded with payed one, and might have to wait a real long time to get his feature implemented . And I think there won't be many people willing to pay for some else his feature request.
Stars don't cost money.
"Great" ideas are usually agreed upon by peppy and given higher priority anyway, so this system would be mainly useful for the dozens of other features that keep popping up. :S
I like the idea and will definitely 'donate' money if i can miss it to improve osu! in any way possible. money. time. effort. no matter what.
If we're going the money route, be sure when I make a donation to give someone else a supporter tag that strager gets the kudo$u. =]
If someone on the future request post a success request, the Credits can give some to poster ??
Because when someone thing that post is a good post, that will use a lot of money for support.
And I think if the succesed post can Gave Back some Credits to the one WHO is support that idea that will be like to auction and get a great motion to be a supporter.
That is my idea.
Because when someone thing that post is a good post, that will use a lot of money for support.
And I think if the succesed post can Gave Back some Credits to the one WHO is support that idea that will be like to auction and get a great motion to be a supporter.
That is my idea.
oh fuck
next paycheck going into SB masks D=
next paycheck going into SB masks D=
To be honest, I'm somewhat against this. Supporting something with money doesn't necessarily make it a good feature, and if this system was implemented the features at the forefront wouldn't necessarily be the best features. Additionally, some people don't want to spend their money on supporting features, and this system would be biased in favor of those features where the supporters are willing and able to do so.
I think it could be accomplished better by using a star priority system similar to the one used for beatmaps, but then you'd get the problem of one person calling a bunch of his friends over to star a feature. That won't be as much of a problem, though, because once the feature is reviewed it might not be implemented anyway, and the people within the community supporting the feature request would likely outweigh the one person's friends supporting it.
In other words, yes, it would definitely help, but I think there might be a better way to do it. It's probably just me though.
I think it could be accomplished better by using a star priority system similar to the one used for beatmaps, but then you'd get the problem of one person calling a bunch of his friends over to star a feature. That won't be as much of a problem, though, because once the feature is reviewed it might not be implemented anyway, and the people within the community supporting the feature request would likely outweigh the one person's friends supporting it.
In other words, yes, it would definitely help, but I think there might be a better way to do it. It's probably just me though.
I have a question about the "credits"... Is it possible that everyone can get credits without having to subscribe? I mean, paying for them, but with the subscription aside.
Besides getting credits through money, how about awarding people a small number of credits when they have contribution in osu? Like map ranked?
Thus far the feedback from the Chinese side (the initial ones that I know of anyway) seems to be that this leans slightly on the side of commercialism. "Money makes the world go round" was one of the comments, so yea >.>;;;
There was a suggestion pushed to me though.
"What if the users can obtain credits besides just money? For example, every ranked map gives them y credits (definitely lesser than from directly supporting)?"
My initial thought was "doesn't that already destroy the concept of 'sponsorship'?" but I thought it'll be good if someone can build on the idea. I feel it's going in the right way but it just needs some kind of polishing somewhere...
There was a suggestion pushed to me though.
"What if the users can obtain credits besides just money? For example, every ranked map gives them y credits (definitely lesser than from directly supporting)?"
My initial thought was "doesn't that already destroy the concept of 'sponsorship'?" but I thought it'll be good if someone can build on the idea. I feel it's going in the right way but it just needs some kind of polishing somewhere...
Topic Starter
For those saying this is "commercialism", just consider the fact that feature requests without this system will not get attention. We are talking about requests in that range of "stuff that might work well but only be used by x users (where x < 100) and therefore peppy will not implement because there are higher priorities". (to be honest i don't expect much from chinese users by way of monetary support, anyway).Pasonia wrote:
Thus far the feedback from the Chinese side (the initial ones that I know of anyway) seems to be that this leans slightly on the side of commercialism. "Money makes the world go round" was one of the comments, so yea >.>;;;
ie. this may be the difference between features getting considered or not. rewarding people for mapped maps would be a different concept - not the one I am discussing here, which is giving those who donate/support osu! more weighting. Anyone can rank maps - they don't help me (they just add to bandwidth costs).Pasonia wrote:
"What if the users can obtain credits besides just money? For example, every ranked map gives them y credits (definitely lesser than from directly supporting)?"
ignore the word "credits" - that was just an example. anyone can sponsor a feature by clicking a "sponsor this feature" link. osu! supporters will get a small bonus towards sponsoring features as a way of saying "thanks".Reperawin wrote:
I have a question about the "credits"... Is it possible that everyone can get credits without having to subscribe? I mean, paying for them, but with the subscription aside.
Again, this system would be used for the dozens of smaller, very-low-priority feature requests that peppy would otherwise not waste his time implementing.
i like this idea. it will make osu better and help peppy.
Topic Starter
Actually, I'd say this is quite accurate. The people who "have more money" are those out of the "teen" or "child" groupings, which I would definitely trust more in knowing what a good feature was from a bad one.MarioBros777 wrote:
Basically, those who have more money will judge how osu! is made better. Please prove me wrong.
I'm fine with it.
Just don't make them stars.
Just don't make them stars.
CheeseWarlock wrote:
I'm fine with it.
Just don't make them stars.
I thought about this for a while and decided I am in favor of the idea.
When folks go on and request features, we're basically asking for new stuff to get coded, and I realized I'm okay with the fact that money is paying for these sponsored requests because one rightly should be financially compensated if it is completed.
If a feature request is denied I would hope my credits could be transferred to a different feature request in the future (but those feature points become "locked in" if the feature is added).
When folks go on and request features, we're basically asking for new stuff to get coded, and I realized I'm okay with the fact that money is paying for these sponsored requests because one rightly should be financially compensated if it is completed.
If a feature request is denied I would hope my credits could be transferred to a different feature request in the future (but those feature points become "locked in" if the feature is added).
I don't understand what all the worry is over. People aren't going to throw money at a feature unless they genuinely think it's quality. This isn't just some selfish, freebie want (such as starring a map). It is literally an investment.
I don't want to look at this from the "boohoo I'm not willing to give back to something I'm taking from and it's unfair to treat those who do with higher regard" perspective, but it's hard not to.
I don't want to look at this from the "boohoo I'm not willing to give back to something I'm taking from and it's unfair to treat those who do with higher regard" perspective, but it's hard not to.
I'm half-hearted about this, I still think that allowing people to sponsor something is commercialising the game and making the players with a great deal of money to spend 'those in control' and the rest of the community will go almost unheard.
The idea with supporters being able to spend credits in my opinion is a rgeat idea, if you support osu, you should be able to have an EQUAL say in where development goes, such as a set amount of credits that can be used to promote something, thus still making osu driven towards the whole community as a whole rather than NEEDING money to be spent on something.
People wouldnt be afraid to use credits to fund something they think would be nice and agree with others, money would only be spent by determined individuals rather than everyone
Probably started repeating myself there, but yeah...
The idea with supporters being able to spend credits in my opinion is a rgeat idea, if you support osu, you should be able to have an EQUAL say in where development goes, such as a set amount of credits that can be used to promote something, thus still making osu driven towards the whole community as a whole rather than NEEDING money to be spent on something.
People wouldnt be afraid to use credits to fund something they think would be nice and agree with others, money would only be spent by determined individuals rather than everyone
Probably started repeating myself there, but yeah...
One thing i want to add tho...
Make sure the site and game and everything won't run on the income of this... I've been on a site that failed now because they were running on donations and such and went way over budget with plans, This is what i never wanna see to happen with osu!
And also
To blandly say, people with more money are older and better to judge is imo the wrong way to think.
Make sure the site and game and everything won't run on the income of this... I've been on a site that failed now because they were running on donations and such and went way over budget with plans, This is what i never wanna see to happen with osu!
And also
I highly disagree with this because teenagers could prioritize the wrong thing and use all of his/her money on osu! and spam everything.peppy wrote:
Actually, I'd say this is quite accurate. The people who "have more money" are those out of the "teen" or "child" groupings, which I would definitely trust more in knowing what a good feature was from a bad one.
To blandly say, people with more money are older and better to judge is imo the wrong way to think.
that is what he said lol
I might be overcautious, but this definitely sets off my danger alarms. I don't see this raising the quality of feature requests that much, but at the same time I don't see it lowering it either and I understand that that's only half the point. The main thing is that it really feels like commercialism and while I'm not necessarily seeing a "slippery slope" thing here, at the same time I feel like a lot of other people will (especially new people checking out this osu! thing) and that it will turn them off of osu! I already know a few people who stopped playing osu! over the subscription thing, even though it's really mild and pretty necessary; I have a feeling this will be a lot worse... if they find out about it, that is (they might not if they don't join the community). I also feel it might really have a poisonous effect on the community in the form of envy, but I'm not sure.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't have a certain feeling that this is a bad idea, there are too many warning bells going off in my head for me to not say anything, if you understand what I'm trying to say.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't have a certain feeling that this is a bad idea, there are too many warning bells going off in my head for me to not say anything, if you understand what I'm trying to say.
Topic Starter
Most "new people" checking out osu! will not visit the Feature Requests board instantly to post new requests, in my eyes. This would also, like subscription, not be forced nor advertised.Yoshi348 wrote:
...at the same time I feel like a lot of other people will (especially new people checking out this osu! thing) and that it will turn them off of osu!
Why would you even do this? I don't even see the logic behind it. To be honest, if someone stops playing a free game because they find out... it is actually free because some people choose to help keep it running (?) then I don't actually want them here in the first place due to their brains not seeming to be switched on.Yoshi348 wrote:
I already know a few people who stopped playing osu! over the subscription thing
I really don't.Yoshi348 wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't have a certain feeling that this is a bad idea, there are too many warning bells going off in my head for me to not say anything, if you understand what I'm trying to say.
Consider that osu! has been up to $3,000 in negative at the worst point in time which comes from my pocket, and I never even mentioned this until right now, I don't think you should have a concern for any kind of financial collapse. Leave the worrying to me unless I start telling you to worrynoxie wrote:
Make sure the site and game and everything won't run on the income of this... I've been on a site that failed now because they were running on donations and such and went way over budget with plans, This is what i never wanna see to happen with osu!
.A pattern like this would be obvious to stop before it got out of hand. That said, kids with access to amounts of money that would cause such a problem should not have access in the first place. ie. their parents should probably be showing more care.noxie wrote:
I highly disagree with this because teenagers could prioritize the wrong thing and use all of his/her money on osu! and spam everything.
See this is not the angle I'm coming from. If you missed awp's last post:Guy-kun wrote:
I'm half-hearted about this, I still think that allowing people to sponsor something is commercialising the game and making the players with a great deal of money to spend 'those in control' and the rest of the community will go almost unheard.
People will sponsor other people's features. There may even be a condition invoked that limits how much you can sponsor your own features, or something similar.awp wrote:
I don't understand what all the worry is over. People aren't going to throw money at a feature unless they genuinely think it's quality. This isn't just some selfish, freebie want (such as starring a map). It is literally an investment.
And remember this: I deny over 50% of features as being useless. If I don't see a feature benefitting the game and the community at a whole, it will not get consideration. This is merely an effort to prioritise the features which WILL be affecting and benefitting everyone that plays osu!.
(No I am not trying to get you guys that are against this to change your mind, just presenting my rationale for putting forward the idea)
---
Also you can say all your want about commercialism, but if osu! is going to go any further than what it is now (which is definitely something I have interest in -- it would be stupid not to with a time investment of approaching 10,000hours on my part) having more funds available is clearly a benefit. Relying on donations is something I would never dream of, but it all helps in the scheme of things.
I don't see why this would do any harm at all. If people waste money on crap that doesn't need to be added or should have low priority, then it's their own fault, it won't harm how osu! progresses.
If this does happen I would probably sponsor some requests that I really want, or maybe even need. (If say it's an addition to the editor) And I wouldn't care much the price as I know it won't be wasted, it will be used help keep the game running and free, as it is now.
If this does happen I would probably sponsor some requests that I really want, or maybe even need. (If say it's an addition to the editor) And I wouldn't care much the price as I know it won't be wasted, it will be used help keep the game running and free, as it is now.
I see this as an unnecessary extra step which would only serve to introduce bias.peppy wrote:
And remember this: I deny over 50% of features as being useless. If I don't see a feature benefitting the game and the community at a whole, it will not get consideration. This is merely an effort to prioritise the features which WILL be affecting and benefitting everyone that plays osu!.
When real money is involved, people will think twice before sponsoring crap. A suspected useless feature might just turn out to be hugely popular, and it deserves the opportunity to be heard.
Of course, denial would be fair if the burden of implementation is too harsh and it only receives little support.
Topic Starter
Think of it more as "denial before it gets popular". No matter how much support there is, some features which I am strongly against (you probably know a few, but there aren't that many) will not be implemented. And I mean not unless someone murdered me and stole my identity and code.MetalMario201 wrote:
When real money is involved, people will think twice before sponsoring crap. A suspected useless feature might just turn out to be hugely popular, and it deserves the opportunity to be heard.
Of course, denial would be fair if the burden of implementation is too harsh and it only receives little support.
That could be arrange- I mean, that would never happen.peppy wrote:
not unless someone murdered me and stole my identity and code.
I Really Really like this idea gives me something else to chuck money at other than supporter tags
@peppy after reading most of your replies, you've won me over... No harm in a way of sponsoring features and it'll only bring a cash incentive to get them done faster
*agrees*
*agrees*
After reading these answers i'm for 110% supporting this!peppy wrote:
Consider that osu! has been up to $3,000 in negative at the worst point in time which comes from my pocket, and I never even mentioned this until right now, I don't think you should have a concern for any kind of financial collapse. Leave the worrying to me unless I start telling you to worrynoxie wrote:
Make sure the site and game and everything won't run on the income of this... I've been on a site that failed now because they were running on donations and such and went way over budget with plans, This is what i never wanna see to happen with osu!A pattern like this would be obvious to stop before it got out of hand. That said, kids with access to amounts of money that would cause such a problem should not have access in the first place. ie. their parents should probably be showing more care.noxie wrote:
I highly disagree with this because teenagers could prioritize the wrong thing and use all of his/her money on osu! and spam everything.
So peppy? did any conclusion come out of this?
Can we expect to see this anytime soon?
I have couple features from my list that I honestly can't live without and would love to put my money into~
Can we expect to see this anytime soon?
I have couple features from my list that I honestly can't live without and would love to put my money into~
yeah, great idea
Wow, it's been four years since this?
My thoughts exactly.Azure_Kite wrote:
Wow, it's been four years since this?