Sponsor a Feature

[Vellos]

Question for devs:

Has the idea of giving players an option to do feature-tied donations ever been floated/denied?

I know that, for myself, none of the donation goodies are worth much to me and, as much as I love BM, the free-to-play model has kind of poisoned me against paying for what I get for free.

However, I would shell out in about 60 seconds at sums similar to what I pay for games I buy on Steam if I thought doing so would meaningfully hasten the implementation of already-accepted features, or convince Tom that certain features he has rejected or seems inclined to reject would actually improve a lot of players' playing experience.

Obviously I don't know how the mechanics on this would work. Devs are volunteers so their time can't be coerced. But I just wanted to start the discussion and see what peoples' thoughts on it were.

[De-Legro]

Opens up a whole can of worms about delivery time once you start accepting money for things like this. You also need to consider that this might lead to implementation of pet projects, but not necessarily the projects that will deliver the best out come in the long term. How many people would have donated to the ongoing Doctrine rework? Yet that project is essential for improving stability and enabling the Dev team to more rapidly make changes in the future.

[Anaris]

I have no problem with the idea of players sponsoring features that have already been approved and are on the slate, just to help choose the order of the features that will be implemented.

[Vellos]

Opens up a whole can of worms about delivery time once you start accepting money for things like this. You also need to consider that this might lead to implementation of pet projects, but not necessarily the projects that will deliver the best out come in the long term. How many people would have donated to the ongoing Doctrine rework? Yet that project is essential for improving stability and enabling the Dev team to more rapidly make changes in the future.

If I thought making a donation would have directly sped it up, I would have. The issue is that players have no direct connection between donations they make and improvements to the game.

[Vita`]

I think this would work best if the dev member who implemented the feature received a portion of the donated funds. Then devs would be incentivized to get to it before other non-sponsored features and when the sponsored feature was live Tom could release some percent of the sponsored money to that dev.

[Vellos]

I think this would work best if the dev member who implemented the feature received a portion of the donated funds. Then devs would be incentivized to get to it before other non-sponsored features and when the sponsored feature was live Tom could release some percent of the sponsored money to that dev.

My thought also, but I don't know how that could be set up or what the right tax/legal framework is for paying someone to program something.

[De-Legro]

My thought also, but I don't know how that could be set up or what the right tax/legal framework is for paying someone to program something.

That is largely going to depend on the country Here in Australia I could declare the work a financial hobby, since it is unlikely to generate a significant income and it would be tax free, my wife does this with here T-Shirt designs. Biggest problem I see is that we are dealing with taxes and legal systems from several countries. For the amounts we are talking, I think mostly you would just declare them as gifts.

[D`Este]

So, what about this:
- the current donation feature is removed
- a new system is placed in which you can donate for specific projects like:

• server
• graphic overhaul
• relligion feature x
• etc

The collected funds are either used pay for said project (if something/someone has to be hired) or pay the dev in question who works on it. How the funds are precisely distributed as not interesting projects have to be done as well, is a different question.

[Tom]

I hope you all realize what an extremely touchy subject you are on here. If not, do some research and come back. Check, for starters, the reports of various organisations around the world who have both volunteers and paid employees. Then check on the impact of rewards on productivity - hint: it's not what business monkey tell you it is.

There's quite a massive mental difference between getting a bit of thanks or getting specific pay for specific work.

[Vellos]

I hope you all realize what an extremely touchy subject you are on here. If not, do some research and come back. Check, for starters, the reports of various organisations around the world who have both volunteers and paid employees. Then check on the impact of rewards on productivity - hint: it's not what business monkey tell you it is.

There's quite a massive mental difference between getting a bit of thanks or getting specific pay for specific work.

This is very true. There have been some very interesting studies as well in late-fees vs. various forms of shaming.

I would think a bounty system would work best to defray these things. Players make donations (or pledge donations) to pr-approved projects. Devs can work on those projects if they want or not; once those projects are completed, the money is disbursed (maybe to the Devs, maybe not).

Properly structured incentives DO increase productivity. Eat-what-you-kill firms are generally more productive than lockstep firms, and bonus potential does have significant effects on worker output. However, you're right that poorly structured incentives (or monetary incentives that undermine existing social incentives) can have perverse effects.

Basically, I think there is a non-trivial amount of players who would like to donate non-trivial amounts of money (compared to current donations) if doing so could actually give them a sense of having a real say in game development, a sense of a stake in the game. This could have adverse effects, granted (entitlement can be bad). But it also has good effects.

Th mechanisms we've brainstormed might not be ideal. But the issue raised is: we have potential donors who aren't being tapped because our donation mechanism is inefficient. I mean, hell, I don't donate to my alma mater because they don't accepted tied donations of less than $5,000: small gifts thy require to be general purpose donations, and I don't like paying for the things they want to pay for. Same with my church: I donate generally out of obligation, but I'm way more generous and happy about my giving if it's to a specific purpose.

I guess that's what I'm getting at: having a specific purpose for donations does matter for donations.

[De-Legro]

Not quite what you were asking for but

http://signup.bribe.io/

[Vellos]

Not quite what you were asking for but

http://signup.bribe.io/

That looks fantastic.