There's been an ongoing discussion in the S&box discord regarding the unfairness of mapmakers being punished by being removed from playfund. Some have made the argument that material, model, sound, etc.. artists should also be getting paid from their assets being used in maps and games. I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, nobody has really proposed a solution.
Here is my suggestion:
Add a slider for percentage of your playfund to go to assets used, that has a minimum floor based on the asset's usage relative to all assets used in the package. Facepunch already has systems in place to list referenced packages. This way, creators can choose to allocate more if they're generous, but are not allowed to 0 it out entirely. Tweaking that exact floor and calculation would take trial and error, but I think it would be a more fair system.
It essentially turns into a tip system, but the floor means that asset makers don't get completely screwed. @anhdnh on Discord offered the idea that the floor could be increased base on creator's reputation on sbox.game. There should probably be a cap to this to avoid large creators eating up an unfair amount compared to newer artists, but it would be a good incentive for people to post high quality assets to the cloud browser.
Example scenario for math demonstration(FOR EXAMPLE ONLY):
Game receives $1000 from Playfund in a month
Game has only one referenced map, minimum floor is set to 10%
Map receives $100 from that game's Playfund payout
Map has 10 props referenced and 90 custom (local to project) props
Each referenced prop receives $1, or 1% of that map's Playfund
Final payout totals:
Game: $900
Map: $90
Each prop: $1
Note:
There would likely have to be a cap to the payout to referenced packages. What that exact number would be, I have no idea. It is necessary to avoid people exploiting this system and not leaving any money to the map and game makers. Something like 30% of Game's playfund goes to any referenced package, with maps having more weight compared to models, textures, sounds, etc..
If you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms/counter-points, I'd love hear them
Here is my suggestion:
Add a slider for percentage of your playfund to go to assets used, that has a minimum floor based on the asset's usage relative to all assets used in the package. Facepunch already has systems in place to list referenced packages. This way, creators can choose to allocate more if they're generous, but are not allowed to 0 it out entirely. Tweaking that exact floor and calculation would take trial and error, but I think it would be a more fair system.
It essentially turns into a tip system, but the floor means that asset makers don't get completely screwed. @anhdnh on Discord offered the idea that the floor could be increased base on creator's reputation on sbox.game. There should probably be a cap to this to avoid large creators eating up an unfair amount compared to newer artists, but it would be a good incentive for people to post high quality assets to the cloud browser.
Example scenario for math demonstration(FOR EXAMPLE ONLY):
Game receives $1000 from Playfund in a month
Game has only one referenced map, minimum floor is set to 10%
Map receives $100 from that game's Playfund payout
Map has 10 props referenced and 90 custom (local to project) props
Each referenced prop receives $1, or 1% of that map's Playfund
Final payout totals:
Game: $900
Map: $90
Each prop: $1
Note:
There would likely have to be a cap to the payout to referenced packages. What that exact number would be, I have no idea. It is necessary to avoid people exploiting this system and not leaving any money to the map and game makers. Something like 30% of Game's playfund goes to any referenced package, with maps having more weight compared to models, textures, sounds, etc..
If you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms/counter-points, I'd love hear them
