Jump to content
  • Advertisement
khawk

Rev-sharing platform: see Crowdsourcer.io

Recommended Posts

If you're planning on using rev-sharing to create a game or want to join in on one that's already doing so, check out Crowdsourcer.io. The platform formalises the rev-share model by logging the contribution of each member in a project and then when your game is up for sale, distributes the profit to everyone based on how much they've contributed.

diag_base.png

By working this way you can better avoid conflicts, monitor and review the quality of contributions, formalise your payment structure and have access to tools to help build your game all in one place. Like this, you can build your game quicker, with less compromise on scope, whilst getting all the help you need without any financial investment whatsoever.

Additionally, Crowdsourcer.io provides selling tools and a marketplace to help make your game available in more places. You can direct your customers to a secure platform to buy your products without competing with the big players or sacrificing an astronomical cut of the sales.

You can contact the creator of the platform here on GameDev.net  and on Discord: Mackey18#7862. He's actively helping market and advise projects on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, xaviersythe said:

Sounds very sketchy. No thanks.

Hey Xaviersythe,

I'm the creator of the site. I'm sorry you think it sounds sketchy. Is there any particular concerns you've got or a specific element of the platform that doesn't add up?

Building the site has been a massive labour of love, and it's something I made so people have a better chance of making a game (or whatever) without having to spend money, quit their day job etc. etc. I appreciate this model is a little different to how people currently work (though it's not a mile off the open source methodology) but I genuinely believe the model can work and benefit developers.

Cheers,

Mike

Edited by MikeDiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xaviersythe said:

Sounds very sketchy. No thanks.

You also realize the gamedev's administration put the advertisement up, right?  I'm fairly certain they would check something out before promoting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, CrazyCdn said:

You also realize the gamedev's administration put the advertisement up, right?  I'm fairly certain they would check something out before promoting it.

Yea, I've been in discussion with Kevin for a while now. He's a very generous person and I was grateful for his empathy and understanding towards a new platform like this one.

Edited by MikeDiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 11:18 AM, CrazyCdn said:

You also realize the gamedev's administration put the advertisement up, right?  I'm fairly certain they would check something out before promoting it.

You realise the current gamedev administration think the current buggy, mobile-focused, ad-ridden forum engine is the best thing since sliced bread?

 

Yeah, this thing rings as off-colour to me, as well. Right behind the fact I cannot find any information about how payout and revenue collection is orchestrated (e.g. what publishing platforms are supposedly built-in? What payment systems are supported? What is the site's own share of revenue?), but on top of that, this section from the "About" page rings all my alarm bells:

Quote

To tackle the biggest problems of the startup world

The chart to the right depicts the most cited reasons for failures in startups. The highlighted problems - in colour - Crowdsourcer.io directly tackles. Crowdsourcer.io works by swapping out financial investment for time and talent investment. By taking the focus away from huge wads of cash, you encourage sustainable business practices, low burn rates and allow more people to start businesses. 

  • Running out of cash: with this new model, you'll always be able to create products for free using manpower alone.
  • Not the right team: many startup founders don't have the right skills to build a Minimum Viable Product, but with Crowdsourcer.io teams are only ever built around valuable expertise.
  • Outcompeted: markets are saturated and many businesses struggle to be seen on the Internet of Things. Crowdsourcer.io aims to provide a marketplace and selling tools so you don't have to compete with the big players.
  • Cost issues: by focussing on time investment there are no costs for developing your product, and by avoiding the Silicon Valley mentality, burn rates are next to nil.

Free. No costs. Manpower alone. Alarm bells a-ringin'...

And either they will provide their own yet-another-bespoke-marketplace which will itself have to compete with all the others, or your products through this platform are going to have to be put on an existing marketplace (in some unspecified way), and compete with everyone already on that marketplace.

All of it rings as though someone read an open-source manifesto a couple years ago, thumbed through an Economics 100 coursebook last summer, then put this together as a 4th-year university project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Wyrframe said:

Yeah, this thing rings as off-colour to me, as well.

2

Hi Wyrframe,

Thanks for the feedback on the site. I was wondering if you could elaborate on why it feels off-colour? It's something I'm directly trying to tackle as so many people's gut reactions are that it's shady. Perhaps people thought the same about Kickstarter or Indiegogo at the outset of crowdfunding, but then again, perhaps not, and if not, I want to get down to the crux of why the first impression of Crowdsourcer.io is one of distrust - so perhaps you could go into it a little.

Quote

Right behind the fact I cannot find any information about how payout and revenue collection is orchestrated (e.g. what publishing platforms are supposedly built-in? What payment systems are supported? What is the site's own share of revenue?)

The main reason for this is that the payment processing side of things is not live yet and even when it is live it's going to be a gradual rollout of more and more features. At the moment, I'm not entirely sure exactly what features will make phase 1 in July. What I've built so far are widgets (like Paypal 'Add to cart' and 'Buy now' buttons) so you can sell through your own website, product and inventory management, sales through Crowdsourcer.io itself, the payout system (how people get paid), account linking (Stripe only currently) to receive money and a couple more bits and bobs. What I'm certain will make it in for July is also the ability to run 'Payroll' which allows people in a project to pay out any money collected externally - though the technicalities of this could well change. Lastly, logging, creating and tracking expenses is something I'd like to get in, but can't be certain of finishing it in time.

Quote

Free. No costs. Manpower alone. Alarm bells a-ringin'...

What exactly rings alarm bells here? Going back to my earlier point, this could be really helpful for me when writing further copy for the platform and understanding what peoples' gut reaction is when looking at the site. Does Open core/open source ring alarm bells for you? What about crowdsourcing in general? And if not, what's different to cause a disparity between those and this, other than the fact that they've been in use for a while now?

Quote

All of it rings as though someone read an open-source manifesto a couple years ago, thumbed through an Economics 100 coursebook last summer, then put this together as a 4th-year university project. 

 

I wish I had only spent as much time as that thinking about the site. But alas, it's years in the software industry (as a project manager) watching the exploitation of technicals, a degree in finance and lengthy research into finance in new ventures (of interest to me, in particular, is VC backed ventures). Had it been just a flick through of a coursebook for students, perhaps it would matter to me less what people thought of the site.

 

Thanks, and again, I'd be grateful for your thoughts.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MikeDiz said:

The main reason for this is that the payment processing side of things is not live yet and even when it is live

5 minutes ago, MikeDiz said:

sales through Crowdsourcer.io itself, the payout system (how people get paid), account linking (Stripe only currently) to receive money and a couple more bits and bobs.

9 minutes ago, MikeDiz said:

What I'm certain will make it in for July is also the ability to run 'Payroll' which allows people in a project to pay out any money collected externally - [...] Lastly, logging, creating and tracking expenses is something I'd like to get in, but can't be certain of finishing it in time.

I'm not as concerned with the fact these features aren't implemented yet, as I am with the fact you have laid out no outline, roadmap, or plan for how they will work, nor how the system will provide checks and balances between project controllers and project contributors. How would you feel applying for a job or contract position at a company who freely admitted during interviews, "We don't know what a payroll system is, how it works, or what our legal responsibilities within it will be, but I'm sure we'll figure it out before it becomes important to you. Can you start tomorrow?"

 

9 minutes ago, MikeDiz said:

What exactly rings alarm bells here?

10 minutes ago, MikeDiz said:

VC backed ventures

1 hour ago, Wyrframe said:

markets are saturated and many businesses struggle to be seen on the Internet of Things. Crowdsourcer.io aims to provide a marketplace and selling tools so you don't have to compete with the big players.

11 minutes ago, MikeDiz said:

Free. No costs. Manpower alone.

Your messaging is pulling me in two directions at once.

  • "Free, no cost, produce a product using manpower alone" screams "no barriers to starting a project and getting people to put their own time and money into it, instead of you".
  • "Less competition to deal with" is an impossible promise (that's not how markets work), but you still make it as though it's a given.
  • Meanwhile, some of your other messaging and your comments here are trying to make us think it's about making project controllers accountable to their contributors (whether fiscal or material), and yet also about open source ideals (contribution is its own reward).

And as the last alarm bell, your own business model (how does the system support itself, and how does it reward its own maintainers) is completely undiscussed. Even just a simple summary, like Patreon's "5% take plus payment processing fees", would be a good starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Wyrframe said:

I'm not as concerned with the fact these features aren't implemented yet, as I am with the fact you have laid out no outline, roadmap, or plan for how they will work.[...] your own business model (how does the system support itself, and how does it reward its own maintainers) is completely undiscussed.

 

First off, thanks for the reply. It means a great deal and I'm relieved to see you've come up with genuine and specific criticisms that I can actually address and remedy. I can see how the above is a real problem and it was largely, originally because I honestly didn't know the specifics myself - but now that I do know, it's ridiculous for me to hope/assume people will commit to the platform without this information. For the record, I'm currently aiming to take 15-20% (inc. all costs) of sales that occur through the platform and 5% of payments into the platform from external sources (again, inc. all costs.).

Quote

Your messaging is pulling me in two directions at once.

  • "Free, no cost, produce a product using manpower alone" screams "no barriers to starting a project and getting people to put their own time and money into it, instead of you".
  • "Less competition to deal with" is an impossible promise (that's not how markets work), but you still make it as though it's a given.
  • Meanwhile, some of your other messaging and your comments here are trying to make us think it's about making project controllers accountable to their contributors (whether fiscal or material), and yet also about open source ideals (contribution is its own reward).
 

As for these, it's incredibly astute of you to pick up on this and again the confusion caused by all these messages is an oversight on my part.

The first bullet point regarding getting people to put their own time and money in instead of you is one that's present in all open source and crowdsourced and even crowdfunded projects. The solution has always been to offer something back to the public in return for this. With this model, what's given back is a pseudo equity/proportionate share of the profits in a business, which is a lot more than all other models out there. As for barriers to entry, I believe it creates a meritocratic process for creating new products. You as a contributor are essentially an investor (of time. I want to emphasise that it's not an investment of money as you suggested) and if you don't think a project is good enough, as an expert in the field, you move on. In an ideal world that's the perfect barrier to entry, not personal wealth, not network & connections, but the quality and execution of an idea. Having experienced individuals appraise an idea is substantially better than going to a VC with a wealth of cash, cash that you convince them to give to you after showing graphs of exponential growth, complete market capitalisation and zero cash flows. Of course, in some cases, this can work for a project, but as a way of building meaningful and sustainable businesses in the tech/software sector, I'm yet to see this work out as well.

The idea behind "Less competition to deal with" is all about not having to compete directly with the big players in a market, and this I do believe (again) to be true, though I concur that it's not applicable in all situations (e.g. iOS apps where you're forced to deal with the App Store). I'm not implying that Crowdsourcer.io is going to reduce market saturation - not by a long shot - and I can see how I need to put forward this point markedly better. A quick example of the kind of marketplace that achieves this beautifully is Itch.io, though it's not without its own problems.

"Meanwhile, some of your other messaging and your comments here are trying to make us think it's about making project controllers accountable to their contributors (whether fiscal or material), and yet also about open source ideals (contribution is its own reward)." - Again this is a problem with how I'm pitching the idea and it's something I need to resolve if it's causing confusion. The platform does both these things. It champions venture creation by technicals rather than idea/money people and does so in such a way that 'project controllers' (as you put it) can't just sit back and reap the rewards (well they could but they wouldn't get much profit from it). Similarly, contributors are contributing their time having appraised a project - perhaps initially to increase their skills or as a hobby - with the hope that the project becomes financially profitable at which point they earn a fair and equitable share of the profits. The balance between controllers and contributors is kept in check by voting rights, project management rights and other mechanics that contributors have access to as they progress. No one individual or group of individuals should have an overruling power and the projects themselves, ideally, should be autonomous. Again, I'm not saying we're there yet, but that's the end goal: a mutually beneficial way of collaborating together for the financial benefit of all in the project.

 

I've saved many of your quotes in my development boards and I'll work to ensure that all that you've said is factored into clearer and more digestible information. Since starting this venture I've become to believe that one of the hardest parts is explaining ideas succinctly - and this conversation is proving it!

Thanks once again for the time you've put into crafting these responses, it's appreciated a lot.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!