Require resource A to buy resource B

[MarkElf]

Hi, I'm fairly sure I recall reading a suggestion like this a year or two ago but I sadly couldn't find it within a few minutes of searching. As we already have this requirements section added in the last announcement a few days ago, I thought that adding a license requirement wouldn't be too difficult to implement and has some interesting potential to expand on the existing resources.

In the most simple way possible, think of buying a custom enchantment core resource that would be a requirement to purchase enchantments that are separate resources. The same idea can be applied to buying a plugin and the author selling different premade configurations for that plugin.

 

[Sloth]

Even if this were to be denied for some reason couldn’t you potentially create bundles? Having the core enchantment plugin bundled with the added enchantments would be an example of this.

 

[MarkElf]

Even if this were to be denied for some reason couldn’t you potentially create bundles? Having the core enchantment plugin bundled with the added enchantments would be an example of this.

Hard dependencies could be added for core plugins by developers but it would save yourself from a headache if someone bought an enchantment/configuration without the core plugin for whatever reason. Very Unlikely if made clear on the resource page, but still a factor to consider.
There's also the profitability of the suggestion. What I had in mind was a core enchantment plugin, which has a handful of built-in enchantments, but if a resource creator put a lot of time and effort into one of the enchantments, then s/he should have the option to sell it as an add-on. Sort of like token enchantments, I think it was, on Spigot.

 

[MarkElf]

It is a good idea but it comes with some issues.
Lets say this enchantment plugin is available for sale on Spigot and Mc-Market. A customer decides to purchase the plugin on Spigot for whatever reason. The customer wants to now purchase resource x, however, they have not purchased the enchantment plugin on Mc-Market. Another point is that plugins get shared: one server owners uploads it to their server and the other owner(s) now has(/have) access to it. A manual approval system would need to be utilised because of this.

I'm not familiar with Spigot's system but MC-Market already has a feature for resource owners to manually approve buyer requests if they don't meet the requirements. How that currently works is also beyond me as I've yet to use it.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't tolerate sharing resources. If the core enchantment plugin was bought on one account, it would just make sense to buy the other parts on the same account. Even in the event that a resource was shared (and said resource owner doesn't care) then what I said above about manually approving resource purchases when not meeting the requirements is applicable.

 

[MarkElf]

Bump.

 

[Anvity]

add this

 

[MarkElf]

Bump.

 

[DarkKnights22]

+1 - good idea!

 

[NickE]

but you can just put "YOU MUST HAVE BOUGHT <other resource name> FOR THIS TO WORK" at the top of your description

 

[jxhdvn]

but you can just put "YOU MUST HAVE BOUGHT <other resource name> FOR THIS TO WORK" at the top of your description

That’s not convenient

 

[MarkElf]

Bump.

 

[Function]

+1

 

[MarkElf]

Bump.

 

[MarkElf]

Bump.

 

[Mick]

Justis, @Majored and Zeiyon I'd love to know your thoughts on this. This could be quite a good thing for us to get developed for our XF2 migration perhaps? Something different that we have that other places like Spigot don't?

I'll move this to pending

 

[Justis]

Justis, @Majored and Zeiyon I'd love to know your thoughts on this. This could be quite a good thing for us to get developed for our XF2 migration perhaps? Something different that we have that other places like Spigot don't?

I'll move this to pending

I’m 100% on board with no criticisms whatsoever, hence my agree reaction and lack of additional comment.
I would assume Harry and Zeiyon agreed and didn’t comment for the same reasons.