PDA

View Full Version : poll regarding developer payments



rosse119
12-06-2014, 08:34 PM
Its hard to think up a title for this, so sorry for that.

Recently i found out that in order to get paid anything you have to hit $150, i knew that however i never realised it was per game, currently we havent hit threshold since our release back in August.

Do you believe the system as it is right now should be changed?

My thought is if you hit $150 even over 4 games surely you deserve to get paid dont you?

Edit:

"I can confirm now that we have always paid and will continue to payout against the threshold per dev and NOT per game. Apologies for any and all confusion and game on." -Mr. J

Helmut
12-06-2014, 08:47 PM
Yes, everybody should get paid. It is not so easy to get 150 Dollar for one game.

Grimbarian
12-06-2014, 08:56 PM
Interesting - as I understood it, I thought it was if you as a developer hit over the set quota. Not that it had to be for each game.

Disappointing to hear that's not the case.

Hmmm...

ezraanderson
12-06-2014, 08:57 PM
never realised it was per game

Per game is news to me, can an OUYA representative confirm this here please.

rosse119
12-06-2014, 09:13 PM
I got ths confirmation on email from Jared.

Hi James,
Each game has to clear the threshold to trigger payments on them, thanks!

Now i want to be clear, i love the Ouya as you all know, we are not going to stop making games either, just in my opinion it is something that i feel should be changed and if it was any other company apart from Ouya i would feel a bit duped.

I wanted to get some views so i can go back to them and show the support for change that ive gotten.

Grimbarian
12-06-2014, 09:21 PM
Hearing the news that it is $150 per game completely changes my approach to pricing on all games I have in the pipeline.... That is for sure.

I raised eyebrows at the pricing on some OUYA games - simply I thought they were too expensive. However this news does indeed mean that our games will be more expensive than they were planned to be.

sahoskins12
12-06-2014, 09:24 PM
Per game you say? Now this does throw a spanner in the works...

rosse119
12-06-2014, 09:31 PM
Hearing the news that it is $150 per game completely changes my approach to pricing on all games I have in the pipeline.... That is for sure.

I raised eyebrows at the pricing on some OUYA games - simply I thought they were too expensive. However this news does indeed mean that our games will be more expensive than they were planned to be.

I feel exactly the same, if id have known it was per game before we would have charged more for Super Renegade Response

Kaimega
12-06-2014, 09:51 PM
I didn't realize this was such a surprise to y'all..

The 150$ is basically a royalty that OUYA gets, so yeah it would be for each game, just like if you were developing with Unreal you pay a certain royalty percentage for each game, not as a whole. This is pretty normal for almost all platforms.

OUYA inc mentioned multiple times that their primary revenue stream is from the game payment transactions, Not the hardware.

rosse119
12-06-2014, 10:16 PM
I didn't realize this was such a surprise to y'all..

The 150$ is basically a royalty that OUYA gets, so yeah it would be for each game, just like if you were developing with Unreal you pay a certain royalty percentage for each game, not as a whole. This is pretty normal for almost all platforms.

OUYA inc mentioned multiple times that their primary revenue stream is from the game payment transactions, Not the hardware.

Surely the problem for us though is that we might never get anything as developers as the install base is pretty small.

Grimbarian
12-06-2014, 10:55 PM
I didn't realize this was such a surprise to y'all..

The 150$ is basically a royalty that OUYA gets, so yeah it would be for each game, just like if you were developing with Unreal you pay a certain royalty percentage for each game, not as a whole. This is pretty normal for almost all platforms.

OUYA inc mentioned multiple times that their primary revenue stream is from the game payment transactions, Not the hardware.

As I understood it (and others by the look of responses here) - the royalty split (which no developer has an issue with) of 70/30 is perfectly reasonable.

In addition, for making sure that accounts are all legit, it was stated that you'd have to clear $150 in your OUYA payments before a developer could receive their funds. The discrepancy however is that i, among others it seems, understood that this was a one time amount that needed to be reached to allow your account to be 'verified' by OUYA. Not that it needed to be reached for each and every game released.

Hugo
12-07-2014, 12:26 AM
I feel exactly the same, if id have known it was per game before we would have charged more for Super Renegade Response

This mentality bothers me. Instead of offering a superior product, people are just going to jack up the price on their shit?

If people focus on making a game that a lot of people will enjoy, whether it's due to the genre being popular or the quality of what you're putting out, hitting that mark to be able to start collecting profit will come easily. If people crank out something that looks like a beta (which is a grand majority of the developers on the console,) then people likely won't clear that threshold.

I really wish that OUYA would create two subgroups for developers and then distribute their products accordingly in Discover: Hobbyists and Developers. That way, people can disregard a majority of the library without having to rifle through hundreds of weekend efforts from people whose solution to become monetarily viable is to just "raise the price."

rosse119
12-07-2014, 12:54 AM
This mentality bothers me. Instead of offering a superior product, people are just going to jack up the price on their shit?

If people focus on making a game that a lot of people will enjoy, whether it's due to the genre being popular or the quality of what you're putting out, hitting that mark to be able to start collecting profit will come easily. If people crank out something that looks like a beta (which is a grand majority of the developers on the console,) then people likely won't clear that threshold.

I really wish that OUYA would create two subgroups for developers and then distribute their products accordingly in Discover: Hobbyists and Developers. That way, people can disregard a majority of the library without having to rifle through hundreds of weekend efforts from people whose solution to become monetarily viable is to just "raise the price."

Our game constantly been updated, we care a lot about Ouya as does Grimbarian and just because some people dont make a living out of game dev doesnt mean we care less about what we release, SRR took over a year of development and we are constantly working to improve it.

Its not unfair to want to make a small amount from games we have put our heart and soul into.

If you were to ignore hobbyists then you are one step closer to doing what the big consoles have already done, concentrating on the most popular and shunning the rest.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-07-2014, 01:20 AM
I just wanted to say that it is interesting to see this come up yet again as I brought it up a long time ago, as well as the fact that a dev will NEVER get paid if they never hit $150.

I think the bar should be much lower, perhaps a $50 payout trigger or a maximum escrow time of say 6 months, considering the user base is quite small and you do not get interest while OUYA is holding your money. Perhaps it is just me but this just seems like yet another rehash of the same things that have been brought up and dismissed before.

Nooskewl
12-07-2014, 03:43 AM
I actually did not know it was per game either. Every other store I'm on except one (which they're changing) is per developer not per game.

Kaimega
12-07-2014, 04:30 AM
I actually did not know it was per game either. Every other store I'm on except one (which they're changing) is per developer not per game.

Ah, that is interesting... Anyone lately chat with OUYA about this?

Nooskewl
12-07-2014, 04:57 AM
I actually feel like it might be a mistake, maybe Jared supposedly spoke incorrectly. I read the marketplace agreement just now and it says $150 but the language is "when $150 is due to you" and there is no mention of per-game. I know I've been paid before getting $150 per game before. Would be nice to get clarification but I'm pretty sure it's $150 in total.

Schizophretard
12-07-2014, 08:43 AM
I voted yes but I think it would still be ridiculous to be $150 per dev. It should be set up in a way that every dev is guaranteed to eventually get their 70% even if that is only 70 cents.

rosse119
12-07-2014, 08:45 AM
I actually feel like it might be a mistake, maybe Jared supposedly spoke incorrectly. I read the marketplace agreement just now and it says $150 but the language is "when $150 is due to you" and there is no mention of per-game. I know I've been paid before getting $150 per game before. Would be nice to get clarification but I'm pretty sure it's $150 in total.

I really hope you are right. Im more then happy with it at $150 per dev.

Grimbarian
12-07-2014, 09:02 AM
Having re-read the agreement over and over again - I believe Nooskewl has to be right and that Jared just made a simple mistake.

The agreement between us as developers and OUYA that you are referring too is a marketplace agreement - not a per-product agreement - and states that it is when you (as a developer/business) reach the threshold, not your product.

rosse119
12-07-2014, 09:07 AM
Having re-read the agreement over and over again - I believe Nooskewl has to be right and that Jared just made a simple mistake.

The agreement between us as developers and OUYA that you are referring too is a marketplace agreement - not a per-product agreement - and states that it is when you (as a developer/business) reach the threshold, not your product.

Phew, would still like an Ouya rep to confirm though :)

sahoskins12
12-07-2014, 11:40 AM
Phew, would still like an Ouya rep to confirm though :)

Same here. Not a fan of them holding the cash until it hits $150 but I can live with it if it's per dev rather than per game. I'd like to know that if I had 2 games that make $100 each on the store then I'll get to see the money for it.

Foppy
12-07-2014, 11:55 AM
I really wish that OUYA would create two subgroups for developers and then distribute their products accordingly in Discover: Hobbyists and Developers.That would be a strange distinction, since the hobbyist developers are also developers. You probably mean "low quality games" and "high quality games", which is a distinction supposed to be made by the users through the rating system.

rosse119
12-07-2014, 12:21 PM
That would be a strange distinction, since the hobbyist developers are also developers. You probably mean "low quality games" and "high quality games", which is a distinction supposed to be made by the users through the rating system.

Agreed. The whole point in the console is to give all devs a chance, nobody makes something everyone likes.

In my opinion game development is a journey, you learn new things as you meet new people.

Killswitch
12-07-2014, 02:38 PM
Seeking clarification on this one, will hopefully know soon.

Nooskewl
12-07-2014, 06:20 PM
I still feel that $150 is high for small time devs like me. After your game has been around for a while, you might get paid and then there's no point having your game on the console anymore because it gets buried and makes $50 and you never see it.

To put it in perspective:

Google - Pays at $1.
Apple - Pays at $20.
Amazon - $0 (If you're in certain countries it's $100)

However OUYA pays by wire transfer which costs money to the developer. If they paid you $20 you'd end up paying $10 for the wire transfer.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-07-2014, 06:39 PM
I still feel that $150 is high for small time devs like me. After your game has been around for a while, you might get paid and then there's no point having your game on the console anymore because it gets buried and makes $50 and you never see it.

To put it in perspective:

Google - Pays at $1.
Apple - Pays at $20.
Amazon - $0 (If you're in certain countries it's $100)

However OUYA pays by wire transfer which costs money to the developer. If they paid you $20 you'd end up paying $10 for the wire transfer.

It would make a hell of a lot more sense to either offer a direct deposit or a paper check instead of wire xfer. I did not realize it was a wire xfer and if I also get charged on my end by my bank to process the xfer then I will not bother with selling on the market place, I had not bothered until bootycall, and just go the offsite donation/pay option. Either way it will be nice to here an official word on all these questions.

zeha
12-07-2014, 09:49 PM
I think if someone doesn't reach the $150 they should still pay out the available amount a few times a year. For example if it's over $150 they should pay monthly, but if it's still below $150 after half a year (or even a full year), they should just pay it anyway.

Nooskewl
12-07-2014, 09:52 PM
That seems to make sense to me. Not that I know everything about their business and all their reasons for not doing so. The only problem would be if the amount they pay is less than the fee your bank charges for the wire transfer. I'm sure there's a reason they use wire payments and not direct deposit.

Kaimega
12-07-2014, 10:40 PM
That seems to make sense to me. Not that I know everything about their business and all their reasons for not doing so. The only problem would be if the amount they pay is less than the fee your bank charges for the wire transfer. I'm sure there's a reason they use wire payments and not direct deposit.

I think it is legalities. As technically the developers aren't employees, they don't have the legal ability to do that. This is merely a guess though as I am not 100% sure as how it works in the US.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-08-2014, 02:07 AM
In any event a paper check should be an option, I mean if the dev is in the US it would cost less than a dollar to post it. Internationally there might be extra fees but that might be small in comparison to a wire transfer.

Grimbarian
12-08-2014, 09:16 PM
Well, for those that missed it in the OUYA dev hours hangout...

Jared confirmed that it is $150 PER GAME, not per account. He also stated that this was after OUYA have received their 30% split, so a dev actually has to sell around $200 worth on one product before getting any money for it.

Helmut
12-08-2014, 09:20 PM
Thats not fair.

Nooskewl
12-08-2014, 09:23 PM
I'll be reconsidering my future with OUYA. Our games aren't low quality but there's still slim changes of making $200 any time after the first month after launch. No point stuffing OUYA's coffers with money I'll never see.

Kaimega
12-08-2014, 09:25 PM
I'll be reconsidering my future with OUYA. Our games aren't low quality but there's still slim changes of making $200 any time after the first month after launch. No point stuffing OUYA's coffers with money I'll never see.

Maybe talk to OUYA personally about it? Discuss options and such?

rosse119
12-08-2014, 09:27 PM
Suddenly im starting to see no reason for developing on Ouya :(

Helmut
12-08-2014, 09:43 PM
I bought about 80 Ouya games till now. But im not happy that the most small developers dont get money for their games.

tozeleal
12-08-2014, 09:46 PM
In my case... I don't have any problem because all my games/apps will be free.

But i understand for the devs who want to make some money this is really anoying!
Imagine this case:

A dev who puts a price on the game at 1$ ... The dev needs 150 buys to get the money!

But i think ouya.inc will change this! (sorry for my horrible english... But i hope you understand my words)

Sent from my GT-S5360 using Tapatalk 2

Grimbarian
12-08-2014, 09:59 PM
I wonder how this works with bundles...

Nooskewl
12-08-2014, 10:02 PM
Bundles are just regular game sales so it would be the same. Example, our current bundle has two games for $2.99. I get $0.99 for one and $1.99 for the other for each bundle sale.

Grimbarian
12-08-2014, 10:09 PM
Thanks Nooskewl - helpful answer. :)

Eldon.McGuinness
12-08-2014, 10:23 PM
Thought people here might find this interesting since the $150 and possibility of never seeing a payment is slowing coming up, I think this was Nov of last year and it would seem there has been no change in the policy:
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/OUYA%20Support%20-%20Request%2373614%20'Developer%20payments'.png?_s ubject_uid=200653773&w=AADlFYConAQjSR3cVguvgpDgPVBpEIXiNLPWlbBUyGVxsg (https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/OUYA%20Support%20-%20Request%2373614%20'Developer%20payments'.png?_s ubject_uid=200653773&w=AADlFYConAQjSR3cVguvgpDgPVBpEIXiNLPWlbBUyGVxsg)

Schizophretard
12-08-2014, 10:52 PM
Well, for those that missed it in the OUYA dev hours hangout...

Jared confirmed that it is $150 PER GAME, not per account. He also stated that this was after OUYA have received their 30% split, so a dev actually has to sell around $200 worth on one product before getting any money for it.

That doesn't make any sense. There are developers with multiply games that might as well have just released one game called,"[insert dev name] Collection" and then gamers buy individual games as IAPs within the game just like Pinball Arcade tables. Having it set up like this makes it seem like artificially raising the prices of games and then lowering them for their new game bundles as pretty much mandatory.

This policy just has to change. It shouldn't just be an open console by being easy to get your game on it but open by being easy to get your own money off of it.

rosse119
12-08-2014, 11:10 PM
I think if this keeps up, Ouya could soon find itself going down faster then it came up. The main thing is all devs need to know this, then they can make their own decision.

ezraanderson
12-08-2014, 11:30 PM
~
What if you use the same entitlement for each game?

I was putting all OUYA development on hold until after the Chinese expansion, But this will most likely make me exit OUYA development completely.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-08-2014, 11:34 PM
~
What if you use the same entitlement for each game?

I was putting all OUYA development on hold until after the Chinese expansion, But this will most likely make me exit OUYA development completely.

I was actually thinking the same thing, but it really seems like the tracking is on a per application basis. So even if you used the same products, say unlock1, and called it to unlock all your apps it would still result in funds going to different application accounts.

Really I think, and hope others that agree will chime in, the best thing to do would be to have a maximum holding time or a regular payout time for fund. Honestly I do not see the downside to having a payout every 3-6 months, this way devs are guaranteed to see payment of their earnings in a timely manner.

rosse119
12-08-2014, 11:42 PM
What we need to do is show that we dont support this, either a survey or a statement showing that we wont continue support.

I never thought id say it, but i feel like smaller devs are been taken for a ride.

ezraanderson
12-08-2014, 11:52 PM
I never thought id say it, but i feel like smaller devs are been taken for a ride.

I don't think this was OUYA intentions, if OUYA install base was higher than hitting this threshold with a $0.99 game would be possible. But my current analytic for install base is between 3,000 to 10,000 at a 1 percent conversion you are expected to make $30 to $100 per game. YIKES

Eldon.McGuinness
12-08-2014, 11:57 PM
I tried that last year even wrote out a long petition/email and only got a few people from here to support it, but I'm all for another push. Perhaps we should get an email list together of devs that would like to see the terms changed and just what should be changed, or perhaps a petition like ipetitions.org with the desires laid out.

Who is up for taking point on it this time? I'm happy to lend a hand to whom ever the brave soul is.

Here is what I emailed to OUYA last time:

First let me say, I hope this email finds you in good holiday spirits. I recently got my hands on an OUYA and have to say I love it, other than a quirk here or there! However, as a developer I have come across a section in your developer agreement that seems a bit odd and, if I may be frank, unethical. Section 7 of the Marketplace Agreement, found here (https://devs.ouya.tv/marketplace_agreement.pdf), states, "We (OUYA) are entitled to accrue and withhold payments, without interest, until the total amounts due to you (the developer) (net of any tax withholding, as further described below) exceed the minimum payment threshold of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00)." Now this line sounds rather standard until you consider two situations, as follows:

1) If a product never generates the required $150USD in sales, then the developer would not see a dime until three months after some undisclosed time when the Agreement is terminated, according to this same section. This basically equates to OUYA withholding funds indefinitely, and paying taxes on behalf of the developer on funds he/she has yet to see.

2) If a product does generate a number of payouts, triggered each time by exceeding the $150USD mark, what happens when the last copy of a title sells (please lend me a little leeway on this since we both know the date of a last sale in the future can not be determined today)? This means that if my account sits with $149USD in it OUYA withholds issuing a payment indefinitely for the final payment or again, until three months after this "Agreement Termination" is reached.

These two issues are very disheartening to me and I have contacted support about the issue (Request#73614), to which they said, through confirmation with the head of finance, that this is indeed how the system is setup. How can it be that a company is legally allowed to with hold a developers funds indefinitely? Furthermore, if lengthy times of withholding are to be common, how is it legal, or ethical, to not, at a minimum, give the developer an interest bearing account? After all, indefinitely can be a rather lengthy time. I have attached a screen shot of the support conversation in question to this email.

I have worked with other online market places and they normally have a minimum balance OR maximum withholding time of 3 months. This at least ensures the two situations I mentioned never come to fruition. I hope that this is just a misinterpretation of the agreement that can be rectified by a change of wording.

Sincerely,
Eldon McGuinness

Nooskewl
12-09-2014, 12:06 AM
And what was the reply you got to that message?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 12:10 AM
Absolutely nothing... Other than the listed conversation with support I never heard a peep from anyone else. After rereading the email and conversations, I guess there is one way to force them to payout, simply terminated the agreement via pulling the application from the store. :/

rosse119
12-09-2014, 12:12 AM
Im happy to stand up and make stand, who else will support it with me?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 12:18 AM
Im happy to stand up and make stand, who else will support it with me?

Well I would lend a +1, but what exactly are you standing for? If it is a scheduled payout then I'm all for it. Perhaps a written list of what people would like to see should be codified, that way people know what they are giving there +1 to?

rosse119
12-09-2014, 12:21 AM
Personally i would either like a $150 per dev threshold or a 3 months maximum wait time.

What would you prefer?

ezraanderson
12-09-2014, 12:27 AM
~

This is would be the structure for me.

1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. Annual payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.

rosse119
12-09-2014, 12:29 AM
~

This is would be the structure for me.

1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. Annual payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.

Im happy to go with that. Who else is ok for this?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 12:30 AM
That is something I could sign on to. I assume the max wait is from the oldest sales date yet to be paid out to the dev?

"$150 per dev threshold or a 3 months maximum wait time" gets my +1

rosse119
12-09-2014, 12:33 AM
~

This is would be the structure for me.

1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. Annual payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.

Im happy to go with that. Who else is ok for this?

Ok so do we do a petition?

tozeleal
12-09-2014, 12:40 AM
Im happy to go with that. Who else is ok for this?

Ok so do we do a petition?

Yeah lets do it!

Sent from my GT-S5360 using Tapatalk 2

Schizophretard
12-09-2014, 12:43 AM
The wording of that doesn't state per game because of this part: until the total amounts due to you (the developer). If it is total per game then why does it say "total amounts due to you" instead of "the total amount due to you per game"? Why is amounts plural if $150 from only one game would be one amount? Where does it say anything about per game?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 12:44 AM
Well I would like to see at a maximum 4-6 month payout term, I mean a year is better than never, but just barely considering it is a non-interest bearing account and all. I really don't agree with the at will payment bit, but that is really something that could be considered separately since it is out side of the norm. As for the developer threshold instead of per game, I think the scheduled payout would fix that issue since you would get your funds on a regular time interval regardless of payout amount so it really is a moot point if the scheduled payout is adopted.

So I would think the original "$150 threshold" and a "4 month payout schedule" would be a happy medium, it could even be the 1st of Jan, May, Sept. This way payout is all in batches and only 3 times a year.

My +1 stands with the shorter payout time, I just think a year is a bit much personally.

rosse119
12-09-2014, 12:57 AM
1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. 4 month maximum payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.

Ok so are we agreed on the above terms?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 01:05 AM
I could sign on to that, but I think #3 will be a hard sell as it requires interaction.


1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. 4 month maximum payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.
Gets my +1

Let's try to bring some attention to this on Twitter (https://twitter.com/EldonMcGuinness/status/542120811604508672) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/eldon.mcguinness/posts/801521883247437?pnref=story)

rosse119
12-09-2014, 01:20 AM
I could sign on to that, but I think #3 will be a hard sell as it requires interaction.


Gets my +1

Let's try to bring some attention to this on Twitter (https://twitter.com/EldonMcGuinness/status/542120811604508672) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/eldon.mcguinness/posts/801521883247437?pnref=story)


Good plan, recieved an email from Jared saying he is going to triple check one last time.

Well lets do the first two points and go for that.

Ok ill start a twitter conversation

Schizophretard
12-09-2014, 01:22 AM
1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. 4 month maximum payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.

Ok so are we agreed on the above terms?

Again, I think number 1 is already the case. I remember when Eldon.McGuinness brought this up before OUYA reps would give different contradictory answers. It is a legal contract written by lawyers. OUYA reps aren't lawyers and can be mistaken. Anyway, this is why I think Google Translate needs to do Legalese to English translations. :)

rosse119
12-09-2014, 01:32 AM
Again, I think number 1 is already the case. I remember when Eldon.McGuinness brought this up before OUYA reps would give different contradictory answers. It is a legal contract written by lawyers. OUYA reps aren't lawyers and can be mistaken. Anyway, this is why I think Google Translate needs to do Legalese to English translations. :)

If it is im more then happy, but its all abit strange right now

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 01:41 AM
If it is im more then happy, but its all abit strange right now

So have we lost our leader already?

BTW, for all those wondering, here is the Video Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yieFAe5D9rc#t=478) (it should be queued up to the right spot) that talks about the payout being per game. Tim says it is per dev and Jared says per game.

rosse119
12-09-2014, 01:46 AM
So have we lost our leader already?

BTW, for all those wondering, here is the Video Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yieFAe5D9rc#t=478) (it should be queued up to the right spot) that talks about the payout being per game. Tim says it is per dev and Jared says per game.

Yeah i watched it, until this 100% clarified by Ouya themselves we should press on, ive done a mass tweet

By the way who in there right minds thinks things should stay the same? Look at the poll lol

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 01:49 AM
Yea I had already done one as well as I noted in my previous post, perhaps we should start the united front by simply retweeting the same info?


Hey OUYA devs, chime in and help ‪#‎FreeTheFunds‬ of ‪#‎OUYA‬ developers.
http://ouyaforum.com/showthread.php?15057-poll-regarding-developer-payments

On a related note, perhaps for the sake of simplification, we devs should simply demand a quarterly or trimester based trigger. That would alleviate the per game payout trigger issue as at most you would have to wait 3-4 months for payout on any title.

Schizophretard
12-09-2014, 02:59 AM
So have we lost our leader already?

BTW, for all those wondering, here is the Video Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yieFAe5D9rc#t=478) (it should be queued up to the right spot) that talks about the payout being per game. Tim says it is per dev and Jared says per game.

It started at the front. What time?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 03:08 AM
~7:50

Schizophretard
12-09-2014, 03:14 AM
~7:50

I'm confused by the justification about it being because of mixed pay models like a dev having free as well as paid games. Did you get that part?

Kaimega
12-09-2014, 03:15 AM
10:06 PM <Mr. J> Breaking news - OUYA payout threshold is per developer, NOT per game

You heard it here folks.

Mr. J
12-09-2014, 03:19 AM
I can confirm now that we have always paid and will continue to payout against the threshold per dev and NOT per game. Apologies for any and all confusion and game on.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 03:19 AM
Well that is good to hear, but still does not address the indefinite holding of dev funds due to not reaching $150... Here is to hoping support for changing this does not die, yet again.

Schizophretard
12-09-2014, 03:19 AM
You heard it here folks.

That revolution was televised rather quickly. It didn't need Sophie Houlden to flip out or anything. LOL!

ezraanderson
12-09-2014, 03:25 AM
~
Thanks for the clarification.

Killswitch
12-09-2014, 03:29 AM
That revolution was televised rather quickly. It didn't need Sophie Houlden to flip out or anything. LOL!

.....

Good to see things were figured out.

Schizophretard
12-09-2014, 03:32 AM
.....

Good to see things were figured out.

Yep. Nice avatar by the way.

Nooskewl
12-09-2014, 03:56 AM
I don't want to be too demanding and I also don't have all the facts about the reasons things are the way they are. But out of curiosity, who pays after a time period and not only after a dollar threshold? I've never seen that in about 20-30 distributors I've used.

I think it would be nice, sure, but off the top of my head some reasons it might not work is it requires some accounting to be done (someone has to do some work for it to happen), and since OUYA pays by wire transfer they can't be sure what that's going to cost you and they wouldn't want to DEBIT your account with a supposed CREDIT. They could send cheques but I think that is more complicated than we might think considering devs can be anywhere worldwide.

I'm glad to know that it is per developer, which I thought was the case all along. $150 isn't going to get you very far, though I did just spend $8.39 for a week of groceries so I'm happy with every dollar I make. :snowman:

Grimbarian
12-09-2014, 06:51 AM
Thanks Mr.J for coming on and clearing that up.

Would the OP or a mod/admin like to put that quote in the opening post so new people/developers are not misinformed please?

Rhellik
12-09-2014, 06:56 AM
~

This is would be the structure for me.

1. Threshold per developer not per game.
2. Annual payout if threshold is never met.
3. Be able to request a payout at the cost of the developer.

I'm all for that. And while Jared was pretty sure about it being per game, I would like a statement from their legal or accounting department as the wording in the agreement is not clear.

Edit: ok, should have read all the posts first. Didn't see Jared's post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rosse119
12-09-2014, 07:53 AM
Phew thats good, thanks for the clarification, im still happy to work towards the 4 month maximum hold time though. Anyone still happy to be involved with this?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 01:56 PM
Phew thats good, thanks for the clarification, im still happy to work towards the 4 month maximum hold time though. Anyone still happy to be involved with this?

+1

I am all for seeing a trimester (4 month) payout period, Jan 1st, May 1st, and Sept 1st sound good to me.

zeha
12-09-2014, 05:48 PM
+0.9

I don't care too much about what exact period, but it should be made regularly. If it's at least once per year, that's cool. I mean, if the amount you have earned with your games is struggling somewhere below $150, you shouldn't be that dependant on this money anyway. But still, that money is your money, and you should be able to receive it eventually.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-09-2014, 07:27 PM
+0.9

I don't care too much about what exact period, but it should be made regularly. If it's at least once per year, that's cool. I mean, if the amount you have earned with your games is struggling somewhere below $150, you shouldn't be that dependant on this money anyway. But still, that money is your money, and you should be able to receive it eventually.

I hear ya, but a whole year is a bit much to me personally. Would you like to work now and get paid a year from now, or in OUYA's case when you eventually are owed more than $150? In all likelihood OUYA gets their 30% cut immediately upon sale, yet a dev could potentially not get paid until OUYA, or the dev, terminates the agreement; that just seems very wrong... Again, I think even a year is a bit much and mainly due to the fact that time is money when it comes to money sitting in a non-interest bearing account. If the money was being held in a competitively compensated account then I would not care, but it is not, so I do.

I don't think anyone that is actually concerned in this issue is making the argument that they need the money to live, only that they should be paid in a reasonable amount of time irregardless of the amount to be paid.

Mr. J
12-10-2014, 06:30 AM
You don't have to earn $150 a year to get paid out. Once you make it over the threshold the first time, the marketplace agreement says "we will pay you Proceeds approximately 30 days after the end of the calendar month in which the applicable sale to the end user is made." So you get paid more than once or twice a year. :)

Eldon.McGuinness
12-10-2014, 07:31 AM
Thanks for the clarification Mr. J! One thing though is that it does not help a dev who might be stuck at $120 for a number of months to get their funds. I am no where near that number, but it would just be nice to know that even if I only ever made $20 in profit that I would see it in a timely manner. As it stands I would have to wait indefinitely until the $150 mark is met, or terminate the agreement by pulling my app(s) from the store to trigger a payout.

Any chance there could be a compromise on this? As I mentioned a trimester based payout system would be great and could make the payouts farther apart than 30 days and all synchronized to the same days; that would mean less paperwork for OUYA and a regular schedule. If a payout schedule is not possible then is it possible the initial $150 hurdle could be lowered or completely done away with?

Schizophretard
12-10-2014, 09:19 AM
Eldon,

I agree with you but there is a kind of glass half full way of looking at it that doesn't completely help with the timely manner part but does with the indefinitely part. Lets say you made it to $120 in sales and it has stayed there for long enough that it looks very unlikely that you will reach $150 ever because the majority of the people who would want your apps already have them. Terminating the agreement by pulling your apps from the store to trigger a payout would have no negative effects on anyone. You already got all the sales you were going to get so it doesn't benefit you at all to keep them in the store and it wouldn't negatively effect your customers because it would only be pulling it for future customers that wouldn't even exist. In other words, it is only holding funds indefinitely if you choose to leave your apps in the store when it no longer benefits you or your customers anyway. Why would anyone choose to keep a product on a store shelf when it is no longer selling and is just taking up space?

On the timely manner side of things, instead of being pessimistic,"What if I don't get enough sales?" shouldn't it be optimistic,"I am going to get those sales! I'm going to monetize my games in a way to maximize profits! I'm going to give timely updates and good service to all my customers! I'm going to strategically time my updates to maximize exposer on Recently Updated, strategically have sales at the right times, change up my tile art occasionally to grab people's attention, get featured, etc.! $150? No problem! I got this!"?

I do agree with you on principle because people deserve every penny they earn but there is a half full instead of half empty way to look at the glass. :)

Eldon.McGuinness
12-10-2014, 03:39 PM
Actually you are forgetting one thing, if one pulls their app from the store then that means individuals that already bought the application will not have a way to re-download it. Additionally, what if I later want to post an update, does this mean I now have to create a new app entry and then the user is then presented with TWO different applications with the same name?

Say a system update comes along and causes a user to reset the OUYA, with the app removed from the store they have no way to get the app again short of contacting the developer and at that point what real reason does the dev have to fulfill the request, other than customer loyalty. I'm not saying I would do that to a customer, but I want to make sure ALL the facets of this issue are looked at and the decisions made are educated. The OUYA does not have a in GUI way to backup app so the only hope of the end user would be to contact the dev outside of official OUYA channels and arrange to obtain the APK yet again, this just seems like a mess waiting to happen and a potential PR nightmare for OUYA which they do not need.

As for the glass issue, I'm neither, I just realize that both sides of the equation have issues, call me a realist. I know that having funds sitting in an account not doing work for me is just a waste of potential income--time really is money, ask any financial adviser--and yet I also realize that removing the app from the store is a rather blunt tool to be used in a situation that really just needs a scalpel. All I'm hoping to see is a little bit of fairness in the process, I will refrain from mentioning other markets here as it has already been done, but it is clear to see that OUYA has a rather depressing payout setup. I mean either schedule a regular payout OR lower the minimum threshold to make it more realistic.

On a more personal note, my app is rather niche, I know this, and that means not many people will need or buy it. However, that does not diminish its usefulness. I'm not whining here and trying to get my money as it is not going to make or break me, but I am speaking up to say if this type of practice is not changed the possibility of niche apps being released is diminished due to the fact that the author may not see a dime for a long time, unless they press the panic button and remove the app from the store and leave their customers in limbo. Why put time into something only to have someone else hold your profit for an undermined amount of time? OUYA just recently got its 1000th app, I wonder how many of those were niche apps at the time?

Kaimega
12-10-2014, 03:45 PM
Actually you are forgetting one thing, if one pulls their app from the store then that means individuals that already bought the application will not have a way to re-download it. Additionally, what if I later want to post an update, does this mean I now have to create a new app entry and then the user is then presented with TWO different applications with the same name?

Yes they will, it shows up in their purchased list.

Jeffry84
12-10-2014, 03:52 PM
Yes they will, it shows up in their purchased list.

A little OT maybe, but do the apps which are pulled from discover appear in the purchased list? If so, are you sure that they can be re-downloaded?

Kaimega
12-10-2014, 03:58 PM
A little OT maybe, but do the apps which are pulled from discover appear in the purchased list? If so, are you sure that they can be re-downloaded?

Yes. A couple of the games I liked have been pulled from Discover, and yet I can still download them from my Purchased list. 2 games for example are Globulous and Minimon3D.

Killswitch
12-10-2014, 03:58 PM
Another solution, don't pull your game/app :D

I remember the one monster sized hissy fit app removal...doesn't seem to make any sense but whatever. If I have it right, the key should keep it as one file so if they download again after a reappearance, it should not be a second file but don't quote me on that.

Eldon.McGuinness
12-10-2014, 04:00 PM
Another solution, don't pull your game/app :D

I remember the one monster sized hissy fit app removal...doesn't seem to make any sense but whatever. If I have it right, the key should keep it as one file so if they download again after a reappearance, it should not be a second file but don't quote me on that.

I think you missed the point, I'm not saying anyone WANTS to pull their app, however it is the only way to trigger a pre $150 payout. I would think the new app would have a new UUID, after all it is the app entry that has the UUID and you only keep the same one due to updating the same app entry on the OUYA site; this is speculation of course as only OUYA knows what would happen in this case.

sahoskins12
12-10-2014, 05:59 PM
I think maybe it would be fair to have something in there where after X amount of months you can request to have your funds withdrawn for a % of current funds held fee. In other words, if your sales go stale then you can still get paid but Ouya get to take a bigger cut for the additional admin fees. What do you guys feel about that?

Eldon.McGuinness
12-10-2014, 06:13 PM
No sir, I am not open to OUYA taking even more of the profit. Why would there be an admin fee if they already pay out every month once you pass the $150 threshold?

Kaimega
12-10-2014, 07:14 PM
No sir, I am not open to OUYA taking even more of the profit. Why would there be an admin fee if they already pay out every month once you pass the $150 threshold?

Because Wire transfers are costly? And the cost of the percentage would probably go to that :p. There has to be a balance to it. Having the developer reap it all and then OUYA gets nothing simply isn't how business works.

Nooskewl
12-10-2014, 07:52 PM
I'm pretty sure there's another misunderstanding going on here -- but I could be wrong. If you make $150 you get paid, but you have to make another $150 to get paid again, that's how I believe the system is (same as everywhere else.) I think some people are thinking, as Jared sort of said that if you make $150 then you get paid every month after that... I don't think that is correct. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

ezraanderson
12-10-2014, 09:33 PM
@Nooskewl,

We got clarification on this earlier.

http://ouyaforum.com/showthread.php?13613-Developer-payout-info&highlight=developer+payout

Eldon.McGuinness
12-10-2014, 09:57 PM
I'm pretty sure there's another misunderstanding going on here -- but I could be wrong. If you make $150 you get paid, but you have to make another $150 to get paid again, that's how I believe the system is (same as everywhere else.) I think some people are thinking, as Jared sort of said that if you make $150 then you get paid every month after that... I don't think that is correct. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

I understood it this way too, but since I have not been paid at all yet I can only speculate and go by what others have said.


Because Wire transfers are costly? And the cost of the percentage would probably go to that :p. There has to be a balance to it. Having the developer reap it all and then OUYA gets nothing simply isn't how business works.

EFT does not necessarily mean Wire Xfer, OUYA likely uses a ACH system and that would mitigate the cost of paying the devs. OUYA already gets 30% of the profits, I mean really more just to get paid? Additionally, the below statement seems to infer OUYA is not concerned out about frequent payouts since they pay every month AFTER the big $150. So again, why wait till $150 for a niche device, especially when there are sub-niche apps that honestly may never see it?


1. The developer needs to actually reach $215 in initial sales minus refunds. Because we get 30%, and 70% of 215 is where the $150 number comes from.
2. Once they reach that amount in sales, it takes ~60 days after the end of that month to actually get their first check. Mostly because that is when we verify all the tax and bank docs.
3. After that, the bank and payment system is all set up and the dev will get paid monthly regardless of amount.
This should clear some things up for people.

I've really said about all that I can on this topic, but my +1 still goes to either a trimester based payout schedule OR a lower minimum threshold, especially if the clarification above is wrong and it is only each time your account hits $150.

EDIT: It really is amazing that so much of this is speculation or "he said, she said", perhaps OUYA should write a FAQ on how the payment system REALLY works and perhaps make it a bit more dev friendly.

Nooskewl
12-10-2014, 10:09 PM
We got clarification on this earlier.


Thank you!



I understood it this way too, but since I have not been paid at all yet I can only speculate and go by what others have said.


I think the other thread clears it up and answers the question of why I've been paid $100 or even a bit less before.

(haven't been paid in a few months so I am not sure what's going on...)