- #BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE FOR FREE#
- #BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE UPDATE#
- #BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE FULL#
- #BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE SOFTWARE#
This is largely invalid, as Apple began offering a 15% revenue cut to nearly all developers in December of 2020. It’s worth noting that Zweig also made several comparisons to Apple, presumably by way of a 30% revenue cut (70% to the creator) at the Plus tier. If someone does, I’ll still need to hear why YouTube to Buildbox is a better comparison than Buildbox to Unity or Buildbox to Unreal, other than that Unity and Unreal charge indies nothing at all until they earn a great deal of money. As for YouTube, so far no one has been able to point me toward a program matching what Zweig is talking about. This is true, and it’s plenty controversial.
Roblox, which most certainly does call itself an engine, does indeed charge 70% of revenue for in-game purchases. Roblox Studio (an engine) can be compared to Buildbox (not an engine). In Zweig’s reasoning, by which Buildbox is not a game engine and can’t be compared to other “game makers” (his term) that are engines, he repeatedly brought up Roblox and YouTube. This seems a thinly-veiled attempt to get out of a price comparison in which Buildbox appears to stick it to indies hard. Zweig directed that attention to the word “codeless” before “game development engine,” but most major game engines have a visual development solution in the present day just as Buildbox has its own scripting functionality for advanced users. Twitter users were quick to point out that Buildbox uses the word “engine” just about everywhere. Apples and oranges to compare Buildbox to any game engine 🙂- JZ ⚾️ May 18, 2021
#BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE SOFTWARE#
Buildbox is software that provides a service : allowing our creators to make games without writing code. Thanks Kenney! Love the feedback! Remember Buildbox is not an engine and we don't compete with game engines. So, what is it? “Buildbox is software that provides a service: allowing to make games without writing code.” To make matters infinitely more confusing, CEO Jonathan Zweig set out to correct what he seemed to perceive as misconceptions about the very nature of Buildbox in threads started by famed asset creator, most surprising, Zweig stated several times that Buildbox is “not an engine.” Per the same policy page, revenue sharing obligations cover not just integrated ad revenue, but also premium sales, subscription fees, in-app purchases, and other “independent revenue” apparently as determined by Buildbox/AppOnboard. In the free tier, users owe 70% of revenue above just a $5 threshold. For the higher tiers, lower percentages are collected after higher thresholds are reached–that’s 30% after $50 for Plus users, 10% after $2,500 for Pro.
On this third separate page, Buildbox acknowledges the “Default” revenue share is 70% to Buildbox, 30% to the user. Since this has literally no meaning, users can hunt down a “rev share” details link in the collapsed FAQs. It stands out that where other tiers list a revenue share percentage and a share threshold dollar amount, the free tier lists “Default” in both fields. Indeed, the tiers for what they now call Buildbox Classic and Buildbox 3 both include a free option.
#BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE FOR FREE#
In a whirlwind of celebratory announcements on the Buildbox blog, Zweig mentions that all users will soon have the option to use Buildbox for free as part of the company’s new pricing tiers. “Default” means 70% to Buildbox after $5 threshold
#BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE FULL#
A full interview write-up is coming soon.
#BUILDBOX 2.0 UPDATE UPDATE#
Update 7/21/21: CodeWritePlay interviewed Buildbox CEO, Jonathan Zweig, and SVP Design, Doug Manson, for the GameDev Breakdown podcast. Update 5/23/21: Per Buildbox CEO, Jonathan Zweig’s invitation, check out our 5 open questions for Buildbox. Here are the changes, Zweig’s comments, and a theory about what might be coming next. “Buildbox is not an engine and we don’t compete with game engines.” Jonathan Zweig, CEO, Buildboxīuildbox CEO Jonathan Zweig took to Twitter Tuesday to defend changes to the company’s pricing structure and, apparently, reject Buildbox’s own brand messaging in a series of Tweets that raised many unanswered questions.
0 kommentar(er)
