Can't find any info on how to submit content packs

#1 @Don - Our content store is still in flux. We've managed to get some of our more popular content packs transferred, but we are still working on the logistics of getting more content in. The original process was cumbersome and had vague acceptance criteria. Before we start pushing more content in the store, we have to designate responsibility and refine the process. Of course, the most immediate priority is getting all the download links to work again.

#2 My unsolicited input;
- I received the docs to sign for the ability to sell through the site store.
I literally read 1.5-2 pages and stopped(there were many more pages to go). Then I would have to give half the money and wait for checks to come quarterly ? :/ ..sorry but I can't be arsed. :P

Turbosquid is a good example for a system; they still take about half the money but the signup and payment processes are nearly instant and pain free.

Perhaps you guys will eventually take that road so that you can over populate the store with goodies ? :D ..I truly think that is a big barrier.

#3 @eb, was that during IAC's reign of error?

#4 @Michael, Understood. I have a lot of work to do so this isn't an immediate need, but will need it in about a month tops.

#5 iirc yes but I can't be 100% sure.

#6 @eb, yeah, that doesn't help sell the main product, T3D; if there's only a few add ons available. What would help as a selling feature is to have many different types of add ons available that work with T3D. Right now if somebody needs to make cities for their game there's only two choices for buildings. There is a need for a wider variety of buildings, structures, vehicles, pc's and npc's, etc. It's a good venue for GG to make money without having to use any development resources to make it happen. So its a win-win situation. Course, without the downloads working at this point, heh, its not a priority at this time, which makes perfect sense. :)

#7 I am not sure why they don't turn this into an indy enterprise.

One thing is evident;
These guys really need to take a hard look at themselves.
The demos, the store, the 3rd party agreement, the payment system, the sdk issues. .. .
- They went an entire year without a T3D release.

I am happy that they are back with gusto, I just hope that T3D gets a proper release before the romance fades and the jaded behaviors return.

P.S. let me add that T3D is shaping up to be an awesome indy package.
I don't want the tone of this post to be terrible, I made it with hope in mind.

#8 I have a feeling great things will happen this year, can't explain it...

#9 Great changes are needed for all the systems related to user-generated content.

The forum could use some improvements, most importantly a private messaging system!

The store being in flux is natural, since they haven't had all that long to sort out a complete change of ownership for a lot of assets (as opposed to simply taking over an existing company; GSD bought the important things IAC owned, not the Torque company).

When things get rolling it would be a good idea to look at how eSellerate, FastSpring and similar companies handle payments, though. Their payment systems send out money every other week (which makes it possible to actually get paid before you starve to death ;) or so. A minimum amount is expected in the account, and several ways to receive the money are supported (PayPal, bank account etc.).

TDN and resources need some tweaks. A documentation army needs to be gathered - there was a call for writers last year, before the world collapsed. They were working on a tome of knowledge for educational use, covering various subjects in the engines. This might be revived once the dust settles.

In short, be less greyface and more garage-y :)

#10 Speaking strictly for myself, with respect to user-generated content. At the previous $1k price, I was reluctant to contribute for several reasons.

First and foremost, T3D was *way* out of my price range at $1k. Second, I felt that, given its high price, T3D should have been a complete and solid product that was thoroughly documented and didn't need third-party patches to fix bugs. Basically, my expectations of the product rose along with its price.

Third, I felt that IA had abandoned its indie roots with the addition of a "Pro" version. It felt to me as if they were splitting the community into "haves" and "have nots." As a programmer, any source code patched I might have made would have been of use only to the first group, widening the split between the groups.

So, I opted not to buy T3D, nor to contribute any resources for the engines I already own. Now, at a price point of $99 and with everyone having access to the full product including source, I feel compelled to rethink my position. Having more or less silently boycotted IA when I didn't approve of the direction in which they were going, I feel like I should, out of fairness if nothing else, buy a T3D license now and contribute to the community to show my approval of the new direction.

#11 Yeah, after ten years there's only 23 art packs available? There should be hundreds after ten years. Somebody comes to the Garage Games site for the first time and sees that is likely to think there isn't a very big support from the community. It could be a huge money maker for GG, and mostly what they would have to do is maintain the site, which they do anyway.

It's a win for GG to sell products it doesn't have to worry about making, a win for the person providing the art packs and a win for the person buying it who either doesn't have time or the know how to make the items.

#12 I was going to submit a content pack pre-IA, but being a Brit I needed to get some trading number for the USA, too much red-tape. Surely if you set it up like an affiliate program where we can either (a) be exclusive and get more comission from sales, or (b) non exclusive and get less commission, and it is then calculated at GGs end and using paypals API, it then sends us a payment after approval from GG after a few days. Which can be rolled back within 60 days? (not 100% sure) in the event that there is an issue.

#13 I'd love to more content for sale on garagegames.com, as well as more games. The games section doesn't really have a lot at this point.

#14 I'll chime in here and add that some of us already have stores or online solutions or are plenty capable of creating them. What is needed is an online API at GG to query ownership of GG products, etc. Usually one is left with tedious workarounds to post in the private forum of the GG product, etc.

I also balked at the terms of the previous site store. Payout once a quarter??? 50% for what... hosting some files? I did not like having to cow-tow to anyone for a product I created in support of THEIR engine...
One almost felt that it was a case of "We're doing you a favor to sell your little pack here so take it or leave it".

So seeing as we are striving to find the true path this time around where it works for both sides (well one would hope we're all on the same side this time ;p) creating a GG headed thread about it where we can all wrestle out the details would be a good start.

#15 DAZ3D and the Poser market systems may also be examined for example. They seem to have a very large vendor/affiliate list and have 'official' content as well.

The way I see things, as long as the art functions inside the engine with stock SDK functionality intact; it's 'worthy' of sale, to whomever is interested, period. Why hold 'lofty' standards? Isn't that narrowing your appeal?

There, you got my $.02 and more! Spend it wisely, ;)

...and a few more pennies from Heaven:

It would seem a more 'Artistic' input is in order, rather than rely upon the 'old' codeCentric model[imho], being driven thru the perspective of a "coder"???

No offense intended, Eric P. It's just pennies!

#16 My understanding of a 50%-style thing is that the value the revendor is supposed to provide in marketing, antipiracy, and/or other mutually-beneficial help is supposed to make up for it.

That understood, I'd find 50% difficult to live up to. I'd expect a lot from it, possibly an unreasonable amount given even how few things were in the shop. 50% is "joint venture" level revenue split. That, for me, sets expectations like _featuring_ what product of mine you're revending _regularly_ for as long as it is making us both money. That's hard to keep up once you've got even a dozen products in there because then they're all competing for "featured" placement (and so on).

A base transaction fee plus a low percent seems like it'd set more reasonable expectations. At least to me it does.

The once a quarter thing strikes me as boilerplate. The kind of thing extra large services do to not be overwhelmed by writing large volumes of tiny checks. There wasn't a huge population in the store, but, maybe they had higher hopes than that. Dunno. Once a month is kinder to someone on a shoestring, that's for sure.

#17 well, if anyone has quality games and needs hosting, I have unlimited storage and bandwidth on the awesomesauce page that i'm more than willing to share.

#18 @random9q:

Indeed on par with my thoughts on it. 50% seems like a old school publishing deal on a game. Lots of marketing spend, etc, and just plain greedy on some publishers. Not exactly the same thing as releasing content to your current user base (content that was entirely funded by the author there of).

The industry standard for payment systems (at least the many I've been part of implementing and integrating with, all have an N% plus minimum X, with N being single digit figures mostly). I'm happy to up that a tad, but 50% is enough for me to do it all myself, and if the legal fine print says I cannot then I'm happy to walk and spend my time where it is more profitable. Pretty much how it transpired for me before around here.

No one is expecting GG to be a non-profit, but that right extends mostly to their engine(s) which they fund and can expect return on, to a much much smaller extent to my contributions to those engines. I'm sure all these things will be taken into account with the new direction hinted at.

#19 I'm very interested to hear feedback on this topic. The store isn't a huge money maker for GarageGames. At least it hasn't been in recent years. The numbers aren't bad, but they certainly could have been better. I think an improved store has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the bottom line. I'd be lying if said that didn't matter to me. But also as a former customer of GG, I was always frustrated by the organization of the store (and because of that I basically never purchased anything - although devs that worked for me did). I think there are a lot of Torque projects out there developing a lot of overlaping tech and art assets. They could save some serious cash if the store (and GG docs, tutorials, and resources) were more accessible.

I'll look into the "payment delayed for 1 quarter" thing. It is amazing how manual their accounting systems were under the old regime - which was not within Eric or anyone's control at GG (until now). One area we at GSD can really help the guys at GG is to get those systems streamlined and automated. Like I said though, I look into it. There might be good reasons why payments to conent pack providers were only made quarterly. Can't imagine what, but I've learned to never say never when legal and/or accounting is involved. no promises.

As far as the design and organization of the store (and the website as a whole), the type of content available, the re-signing of old content providers who have gone missing, etc etc -- those are all known issues that are going to take a lot of work. It's a matter of allocating resources and deciding on priorities. You'd be amazed how some of the simple things that seem so obvious turn into complex time consuming nightmares. Ideas and feedback in this thread will be read and considered, so let's hear it. (maybe we will start a more general store and site design thread or threads)

#20 I never had any complaint with the way GG/TP handled my content pack. Review and processing was quick, and timing of payments depended totally on the number of sales. If your sales figures didn't meet a certain limit in a month then payment rolled over to the next month's sales -- or quarter as the case depended.

I actually received a royalty check monthly (unless there were 0 sales that month)... and two years later I still get them on average about every two months. Surely the difference between one sale in a month and getting paid that week as opposed to getting a larger check the next month wouldn't be life/financially critical?