RS3 How does the scripters get supported for their work?

Discussion in 'General' started by RobotPleaseWork, May 29, 2016.

  1. I think RUnemate should charge per month for the bot like it does already but have 99 days expiery on scripts bots so you pay scripts bots for like $10 maybe but it supports scripters?
  2. Not quite sure what you're trying to say...

    But for premium bots, Runemate charges per hour of use - 5c per hour etc. - and the bot authors get a portion of this charge as 'income'.
  3. .
    #3 Dryrr, May 29, 2016
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  4. Ehhh I don't believe this is necessary.

    Correction too, premium bots get all the income they generate - not a portion I believe. [WRONG]
    #4 AlexH666, May 29, 2016
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  5. Depends on what it is. Really I think a lot of bot authors write as a means to just get something done without having to do it by hand (me personally) or to learn a bit of coding, and decide to share it with everyone else bc why not? Their feedback helps us, and the bots help them.

    But I think more complex things might deserve a bit of payment. Most bots for complex minigames (pest control, defenders, torso, complete nmz bot, mage-arena, etc.) and skills (slayer), or bots that generate a lot of income in a short amount of time (zulrah, green drags, nature crafting, orb maker) should be paid. I think rewarding the bot authors directly isn't a bad idea because they do take a bit of work, but I like the idea of making them paid moreso to make them exclusive. That rewards the bot author for their work, and can somewhat slow down flooding the market/feeding bots even more with certain item. Would probably also slow down bans. But yeah otherwise things like powermining, magic bots, the common things shouldn't be paid.

    Most other sites have a ton of these bots and you see a bunch of people going to the "moneymaking" section first because thats what everyone wants to do. You'll have a bunch of users hopping from one site to another because they found a bot that gets them 500k/hr or does a minigame that no other bot does, and not really get any kind of community out of that - and it that scenario keeping it paid, or rather exclusive/limited helps slow that.
    #5 Serene, May 30, 2016
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  6. As far as i'm concerned, Runemate is different than most other bot sites because nearly all the bots are free and the bot authors are top class. I feel that i make a bot that i can benefit from, and decide to share it with others so that they can help make it better and make me feel like i helped others. Never the less, I don't think charging the bot users is the right thing, but rather adding ads or something that can bring in money and also keep things free. Which would create revenue for Runemate, some of which would go to the bot authors for the amount they deserve. But keeping things unpaid is still fine by me! I love coding and it makes me feel good to put out bots for others enjoyment. :D
    Arbiter likes this.
  7. Wrong
    kazemanie likes this.
  8. Bot Authors receive 80% of any proceeds generated from use of their (Premium) bots.

    The non-premium Authors just do it for the cars, the women, the money and the fame.
    awesome123man likes this.
  9. In all fairness, with the size of RuneMates community and the even smaller size of the RS3 user base over here, the hourly rate of scripts bots is almost negligible. It also removes the reward for creating any low usage high utility scripts bots, such as clue scroll solvers.

    Is there any plan in the future to allow selling flat rate scripts bots granted you are of a certain not author rank?

    I really love the Platform @ RuneMate, however it feels like pouring time into creating high quality premium scripts bots is almost non rewarding. Especially depending on the type of script bot.
  10. I thought I read that somewhere here, guess I'm wrong :D

    How would that work though? So a 0.04$/h script bot is actually (for the author) 0.03~?
  11. Bots which will have lower usage by nature of their task won't have to be stuck at like 0.04$/hr, you can bring it up on a pricing plan agreed with Arbiter.

    Regarding flat rate bot purchases, I'm sure it's something Arbiter would look at, but honestly I still reckon that if money is what you're after that by-the-hour bots aren't necessarily bad and considering RM has THE highest cut of profits made going to Authors....
  12. The way I look at it is like this, if you're charging $0.04/hour for a script bot. Someone would have to use the script bot for 156.25 hours before you earn $5.00 (After the 80/20 Runemate split) - I honestly cannot think of any skill that you can run a script bot for 156 hours on and not be either Banned or level 99. I understand you can boost the pricing of the script bot, but then again I doubt people are going to want to spend $0.30/hour or something on a script bot.

    A flat rate is more appealing to both the person selling the scripts bots and in some cases the person buying them. In all fairness the hourly rate is almost not fair to the developers.
  13. I agree with the majority of your post, but a flat rate is absolutely not more appealing - you just said yourself that it's considerably cheaper for the end-user :p And it's got nothing to do with being "not fair", if you were in this for the money you'd go code elsewhere.
  14. Eh, the way you put it is a bit misleading, it's not "someone would have to use the bot for 156.25 hours", it's the bot would need to be used for 156.25 hours total, buy any number of users, so 10 users for 15.625 hours etc, or 100 users for 1.5625 hours each

    I get your point is comparing it point per point, but then again for a single person running the bot for 6hrs a day, it'll take them about 26 days to reach the 156 hours mark, which is still within a month. The main reason for the per instance per hour model is that you pay for what you use, so the amount you pay is dictated by the amount of hours you run it for.

    There's no difference in fairness between a flat rate and a per/hour rate. The only difference is that with a flat rate you get it up front, whereas a per/hour rate you get it as it's used. If anything, a per/hour rate keeps the bot author motivated to keep the bot well maintained.
    #14 SlashnHax, May 30, 2016
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
  15. The way runemate uses the hourly rate with premium scripts bots is a sick system for bot authors, but runemate isnt as big as it should be to make it a money maker for bot authors.

    I REALLY like the hourly rate because:
    people that will use the premium bots dont have to pay 25$ for a bot that lasts for a month but can get their 99 in 5$.
    however.. goldfarmers will abuse the fck out of that 25$ and they cant really do that with the hourly rate. Goldfarmers make more than enough of $$ an hr with premium bots so why not let em pay 0.04 n hr per instance? a goldfarmer easily runs 10 instances on 1 bot, which makes it only 15.6 hrs for 5$ and a goldfarmer will make as much hours as possible a day. so the bot author will earn like 5$ a day just from 1 goldfarmer since they will run their 10 instances for like 10-18 hrs a day.
  16. I understand your comparison, and I understand the fairness to the consumer with the implementation of the hourly costs. However, I would like to touch on something you said:

    IF 10 users use the bot for 15.625 hours, you earn $5.00
    IF 100 users use the bot for 1.5625 hours, you earn $5.00

    Let's take a step back and go from $0.04/hour to $0.99 up front.

    If 10 users use the bot, period, regardless of time, you earn $9.90
    If 100 users use the bot, period, regardless of time, you earn $99.90

    Now, let's move forward to more advanced/higher demand scripts bots that may be $4-5 dollars to use.


    I understand that RM is trying to be fair to the buyer and keep the quality of scripts bots up, as-well as prevent premium scripts bots from breaking by allowing a one-time charge, but we really need to remember that without the developers there's no scripts bots for the consumer to begin with.

    Runemate isn't big enough to assume 100 users to be using the bot consistently every month. That's 8-10% of our active user count at almost all times. (Based on what's displayed on the website). Not to mention if the script bot is broken down to only be RS3 or OSRS, the total user count gets even smaller.


    EDIT: As pointed out, many people that use bots are gold farmers. Gold farmers will not pay by the hour.

    Another way I can see this working
    is a small charge $0.99 and then the hourly rate. This way developers have a reason to keep developing and keeping up quality, but they also atleast get a small return even if half the community doesn't use it for numerous hours.
  17. The hourly system is perfectly fine for runescape bots. It is fair for the user, and fair enough for the bot author, since you won't make a living off public premium bots anyways. It's more like a little pocket money you can spend at a bar.

    What other bot sites pull off is ridiculous. $25 is way too much for the average user and way too low for gold farmers, the only reason one time payments are so popular is because they are conveniant for both the user and the bot author.

    Another important aspect is that premium bot authors are forced to keep their bots flawless, otherwise they would not be used. A compulsion bot authors from other sites do not have that strongly.

    Also, what if you buy a bot license for $15 or so, and the bot gets taken down 2 days later?
    --- Double Post Merged, May 30, 2016, Original Post Date: May 30, 2016 ---
    This is a quite good idea though. The user would pay $1 (or 99ct), in order to use the bot at all. Then the user can bot as long as the $1 lasts, and after that it continues with the hourly rate.
    This concept may need some tweaks but i think it's reasonable @Arbiter
  18. I think I understand what you're getting at, you want to give the bot author a guaranteed amount of money no matter how long it's used for?

    I don't quite understand how the current implementation isn't fair on the bot author. Afaik it's a fairly common SaaS model that's used as it's both fair for the provider and the consumer. I do see the point that bots that have lower usage would generate lower income for the author.

    I reckon that the topic deserves a proper discussion though, although this thread might not be the place for it.
    DevTucker likes this.
  19. Sounds like ur in for it for the money and not the users
    awesome123man likes this.

Share This Page