View Single Post
10-21-20, 10:18 AM   #12
StormFX
A Flamescale Wyrmkin
 
StormFX's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by jliddev View Post
As a developer of one of those 3rd party apps this is something we've been looking into helping with as a group. There is a model we're building just need the buy in from authors to really dig in
Do you have an more information on this? Eg, a discussion of some sort or something?

Originally Posted by kkot View Post
Rewards programmes are exploitative - they are a thinly-veiled attempt to create a monopoly.
They can be exploitative, sure. But whether they are is dictated by the method and intent in which they're implemented. If a host uses ad and/or subscription revenues to cover overhead and the rest is distributed to add-on authors who opt in, there is nothing nefarious at play here.

With that said, I'm fine with an enhancement to the site that allows for more funding options and helps promote them.

The most-downloaded add-on on WoWI (Leatrix) is now abandoned I would assume for this exact reason.
And? If an author decides that maintaining multiple hosts is too much of a hassle and/or another host offers more benefits, how's that a problem? It's their project.

While I can sort of see where you're coming in regards to the "monopoly" bit, especially considering that "Big Business" had it's dirty fingers in CF, that really isn't applicable here. As Dolby mentioned, multiple hosts is a good thing. As is users and authors having options.

I am also not in favour of introducing download restrictions for free users as a means to recoup expenses or requiring users of third-party managers to log in, which is more than likely to backfire with WoWI’s current hold over the ‘market’.
Seems like you're saying that you expect hosts to allow third-party managers to bypass their means of recouping costs while utilizing their resources to distribute content that those managers may not even have permission to distribute. Also, WoWI doesn't current have a "hold" over the market. That claim is still held by CF and will probably remain so after OW takes over.

The way *I* drive traffic back to WoWI is by limiting the amount of information presented in the catalogue and by linking back to WoWI. If users want to see what an add-on looks like or view add-ons created by the same author or discover add-ons in a category or interact with the author, they have to visit WoWI. My add-on manager also accepts WoWI URLs so that users are not obligated to use my catalogue; they can browse WoWI like they normally would.
This doesn't even make sense. You don't "drive traffic" by limiting information. The less information a user has, the less likely they are to follow a link. Not to mention that it negates efforts by authors to ensure that users have as much information available as possible.

P.S. Third-party add-on managers are not ‘scraping’ WoWI. They are using the undocumented MMOUI API used by Minion.
That may be true, but they're still bypassing the system without any consideration of how it affects the host or authors.

So far you've explained why you don't like any of the ideas presented. Do you have any alternatives?

Last edited by StormFX : 10-21-20 at 10:31 AM.
  Reply With Quote