Back to the Shapespark home page

Video meetings are now available

Hi @Vladan,

We don’t have special plans for clients of our users. If they wanted to manage scenes and meetings on their own they would need one of the regular subscription plans.

@wojtek, I respect you, but

In competition with your favorable terms,


we can hardly succeed in selling our scenes and asking clients to pay 99 $ a month for something they don’t use.

Please, reconsider your custom offer.
image

1 Like

@vladanpop, thanks for the feedback. Please take into account that when you Buy a longer meeting you get one meeting link for a scene provided by Shapespark, so it’s not directly comparable to managing multiple meetings for your own scene. By the way, meetings are included in the Standard plan (49 USD), they don’t require the Plus plan (99 USD).

Would pre-generating a set of meetings and handling the links to the client work for your use case? You can set a limit for the number of minutes for each meeting link separately.

We can offer custom plans for certain requests, but unfortunately we cannot offer a favourable reply to every request. Thank you for your understanding.

Hi @wojtek,
You don’t have to rush into a decision.
Some clients request delivery of video meetings, after testing on my account. They want their account, not vladanpop.shapespark.
Maybe you can modify the Starter or Standard plan for their purposes?
I don’t know in the future how many scenes they will need or how many minutes they will last per month. It is good to show them the costs in advance.

Hey @Vladan Surely the application only needs to be used by the creator? i.e. you, who can be a team member on the account?

I personally think the overall monthly price for shapespark on pro, being able to host so many scenes, as meetings or just tours is actually really good value on its own. Yes I use the software to create with which I am willing to pay for, but if the client doesn’t want to use the software and just have the scenes hosted with a really good meetings option I think it is still good value.

If the client decides not to download the application if they go to cloud.shapespark.com they will be prompted to add log in details and from there they can set up meetings themselves and add minutes?
@wojtek am I wrong in this?

@Vladan What would be the minimum price that clients would be willing to pay for a meeting space? Would it be a single meeting or do they require a week or a month to meet? I have been approached by clients who ask me about this and I think that one solution would be to generate virtual spaces for particular meetings for example: ¨classroom¨, ¨meeting room¨ or ¨small theater¨ to say a few. I think you can generate several meetings on the same space (please correct me if it is not so @wojtek) and deliver those links to each client separately and manage yourself the time of existence of each meeting space. It could be one more service one can offer. Something like this https://all360.shapespark.com/meeting_room/

I absolutely agree with you on this.

However, in the video meeting market there is 3DVista for € 499 (around the New Year they had a 20% discount) which makes video meetings and can be hosted on the client’s server without paying extra minutes.
Ok, everyone has the right to choose what to order, I personally like to use Shapespark.

I believe you have positive experiences with quality clients.

Hi @jorgearq ,
I plan to promote meetings with colleagues from France in 10 days. There will be 360-degree recording of client space, coworking space in Shapespark and fictional space (rendered for 3DVista). Everything with meetings. I still don’t know what the biggest interest will be, what price I can achieve with Shapespark and how customers will react to additional costs.
I know for sure that they can only accept my link in the test phase, after asking for delivery.

2 Likes

Right, if the client has a scene on their account, they can manage meetings and add minutes without having the application installed.

Right, @jorgearq.

2 Likes

@Vladan agree everyone can have a different view, but so far for us we prefer the overall experience with Shapespark as both end user experience and creator pipelines are much better.

We do use 3DVista, but as a project scoping tool from 360 site visit photos, rather than a public facing tour tool.

That said I find the 3D Vista tour UI customisation is a huge plus point of that software and would be so excited if this type of customisation was available through the editor in Shapespark rather than needing to be done externally. (I would happily pay a much higher price for shapespark if it did that! @wojtek)

I know it might be a big undertaking, but so useful for us creators.

I have no coding resource internally in the business and therefore I do not have anyone who we can test or develop even our own customised interactions and interfaces. The end product for the client would be easier to market if we could do this, but as a small business in a pandemic we cannot afford such R&D and would be better set in editor so we have known parameters we can offer clients.

I have tried to contact a few people on here who have done custom UI elements, but no success yet in getting to discuss it.

Any experts on customising the UI for us I would welcome a discussion!

2 Likes

I like the discussion with you @njay.
Each of us came to Shapespark already with some experience, at least in modeling and rendering.
Google street view and spherical rendering existed much earlier than Shapespark was launched, and they covered a lot of the market.
Shapespark’s 3D meeting is certainly nicer than the 3D meetings done at Unity https://3dcreation.fr/salle-virtuelle-3d-immersive/
I plan to use it for the grand opening of one of the art galleries, simply to honor the client. Probably someone else will find a nice use for this supplement.
I agree with you that many Shapespark users have not yet had their wishes fulfilled. My first post 3 years ago was the desire to solve the glass material better, I don’t want to mention the others.
Do you think that the approach to this problem solving could be done as Twinmotion did?

@Vladan Yes I always read and enjoy your posts and I can see your interest in exploring what is possible in and out of Shapespark, which in the 3D & realtime world is what will keep us all ahead of the competition.

I have posted a number of requests on the Twinmotion user feedback, which have turned into items they are developing (Not just my request I am sure many are requests are needed before any features are considered valuable). It is good to have this as you know what is coming and for me one in particular was the Twinmotion to UE4 pipeline, which as I had requested it, they included me in the initial Beta testing, which has been really useful for understanding the roadmap and what is going to be possible for my clients.

Having the roadmap publicly like they do in your image is really helpful, although I would prefer the devs at Shapespark commit their time to developing the software than a feature roadmap, as practically that will get us all features faster.

The dev teams at Epic that can feed into Twinmotion are huge and I know they are heavily recruiting atm, which makes it a different league to Shapespark. (No disrespect intended by that btw, it is a different company and business model)

I am sure as Shapespark grows they will be able to develop elements faster, but growth in numbers for devs comes with growth in revenues, which is hard when you don’t have the worlds most popular game to generate revenue like epic do with Fornite!

1 Like

I haven’t seen @Karolina_Pura’s posts in a long time. She also had some nice ideas, and would be dedicated to this.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion and feedback.:slight_smile:

We do consider all the feature and business requests, but we hope you understand that the request list is always longer than what we can deliver, that some requests are more common than others, some requests are more difficult than others, and some requests may look simple from the user’s point of view, but in practice they turn out to be a significant technical challenge. So, in the end we have to reject some of the requests or to make them low priority.

Regarding the public roadmap, we understand that it’d give the users a clear view of what to expect in the longer future, but we believe that at this stage it wouldn’t be effective for us.

@Vladan, what do you mean by modifying the plans? The Standard plan already includes the meetings.

Karolina is no longer working with us. If you have some marketing-related issues or questions you can reach out to @mateusz.

Thank you @wojtek for participating in the discussion. I hope for positive solutions that will result from them.
Yes you are right, sometimes questions really need to be correct for the correct answer. You built Shapespark to present apartments and houses. Meanwhile, Shapespark is growing into a platform that offers much more: galleries, shops, fairs.
If I offer a 3d meeting to a company that has nothing to do with architecture, modeling, etc., then they don’t need an application, only a scene with meeting.
Can you think of just that option for them?
Of course the Starter-m (meeting) plan would include one host-place and time - minutes within the price of 19 . Standard-**m** (meeting): for 49 they can get more host scenes and minutes, maybe a custom domain?

Do you think it is necessary to add the following text on your page https://www.shapespark.com/3d-meetings : If you want a custom scene, our experienced artists are at your disposal https://forum.shapespark.com/c/Shapespark-related-job-offers/10
I hope you have noticed the interest of many of our members in new projects.

Examples where Shapespark meetings can be successfully placed are like this,


but I believe that the developers of Unreal Engin have already made their offer.

Thanks for the clarification, @Vladan. At this moment we are not planning to introduce special hosting-only or meeting-only plans.

We are working on some updates to our website, and we think we’ll have a place similar to what you suggest, linking to the Shapespark experts.

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback.
If you want we can continue the discussion at pm.
Certainly, your unfinished page https://www.shapespark.com/3d-meetings leaves a dilemma:
Do you describe a product - a Shapespark app that has these features or just sell minutes (when who wants and how much they want)?

We will be glad to meet yours @mateusz
image
Business people say that the best advertisements are satisfied customers.

To clarify: the intention of this page is to allow people to quickly test the meetings without going through the process of creating Shapespark account, importing own 3D model, baking, uploading, etc. Some potential customers interested in the meetings (for example a company that would like to have a virtual showroom), don’t have necessary 3D skills to use Shapespark. This page allows such potential customers to learn about the meetings and quickly create a trial meeting (a short one is free, a longer one is paid, the payment is mainly to avoid this trial being abused as a free conferencing tool). Before you open this popup there is a description:

Host your first meeting in a space provided by the Shapespark team. You can either request a free link to a 45-minute meeting, or purchase a link to a longer one.

After the test, if a person likes the experience, she can start a normal Shapespark trial.

2 Likes

Hello @Vladan!

In fact, hello everybody! Getting into my stride and looking forward to some great conversations with you gals and guys here.

1 Like

Hi @mateusz,

Thank you for your participation in the forum.
We all know that @jan and @wojtek are wonderful people and great programmers. They helped each of us in something.

Can you as an administrator open a new category “Roadmap” and ask developers to start this category with their improvement plan for this year.

There have been a lot of nice suggestions these years, it seems to me that they have been forgotten. We must all be honest and open if we want Shapespark to remain our favorite program that meets many desires and criteria.

This is the first step towards improving quality in photo-realistic views and is still under consideration, and it seems to me that it can be resolved in a maximum of two days.

Other members also have good suggestions, I will give a list of my wishes later.

Best regards!

1 Like

Hi @Vladan,

as Wojtek has said, we won’t be sharing our product roadmap publicly anytime soon. At this stage of growth we experiment, test various possibilities, sometimes we reshuffle our priorities a bit. It would be rather irresponsible of us to commit to something and then fail to deliver because various things have changed.

We do have our ears and eyes (and our developers’ brains) open to what is being said here, though, we discuss those wishes and requests. It would feel lovely to fulfill those we consider beneficial for the majority of our customers and our product development quickly, but we have to categorize them somehow: that has to be postponed indefinitely and this will be done soon etc. I can definitely promise that we will be paying a lot of attention this year to improving overall rendering quality.

2 Likes