Marketplace demand spike

Status: Stage 5 research milestone. Not launch-blocking. Complete this document after the public free Steam release (Stage 4) has been live for at least 90 days. No implementation work on a marketplace may begin until the entry gate in docs/marketplace-architecture.md is satisfied and the decision at the end of this document is made.

Audience: Outright Mental team. Share the recommendation section with the contributor community when the decision is ready.

When to complete:

• 90-day mark: Collect all signals listed below and complete sections 1–3.
• Decision date: Complete section 4 (recommendation) based on the signals.
• If building: Complete section 5 (post-launch roadmap) only after the recommendation is to build.

---

Spike metadata

Field	Value
Launch date (UTC)
90-day mark (UTC)
Spike owner
Decision date
Recommendation	(fill after section 4)

---

1. Telemetry-free signal review

The local-first promise means no usage telemetry is collected during play. Signal collection is therefore limited to user-visible events and publicly observable activity. Every signal source is listed below. Complete the counts and summarise the themes before moving to the creator survey.

1.1 Pack downloads and imports

Community pack distribution happens outside the app (GitHub, itch.io, direct links). Measure what is visible.

Signal	Measurement method	Count / observation
Official pack: GitHub release download count	GitHub API → release asset download count for each pack zip
Community packs: GitHub repos tagged convsim-pack	GitHub search topic:convsim-pack
Community packs: itch.io items tagged conversation-simulator	itch.io browse page
Pack import issues filed on GitHub	label:pack-bug issue count
Creator Workbench issues filed	label:creator-workbench issue count
Discord #pack-sharing or equivalent channel activity	Post count + unique contributors (90-day window)

Summary of pack distribution signals:

1.2 Creator activity on GitHub

Signal	Measurement method	Count / observation
PRs proposing new official packs	Search PRs with pack in title
Issues requesting pack distribution improvements	Label filter + keyword search
Forks of the repository	GitHub fork count delta (launch → 90 days)
Contributors who touched packs/	git log --all -- packs/ unique authors
Scenario authoring guide page views	GitHub Insights (if available)

Summary of creator GitHub activity:

1.3 Steam reviews and discussions

Signal	Measurement method	Count / observation
Reviews mentioning “pack”, “content”, or “scenario”	Manual review of Steam review text
Reviews requesting more content	Manual review count
Reviews mentioning “buy”, “paid”, or “DLC”	Manual review count
Discussion threads on pack creation	Steam forum search
Discussion threads requesting a content browser	Steam forum search
Discussion threads requesting paid content	Steam forum search

Notable Steam review and discussion themes:

1.4 Discord and community channels

Channel	Observation period	Summary of creator-relevant activity
	90 days post-launch
	90 days post-launch

Feature requests from community channels (3+ independent voices only):

Request	Source count	Channels

1.5 Qualitative feedback

Summarise any direct qualitative feedback (support email, private messages, Discord DMs, GitHub issue comments) that reveals creator intent or marketplace interest. Do not include personally identifiable information.

---

2. Creator interview and survey

The goal of this section is to understand creator needs before committing to a distribution architecture. Conduct structured interviews or a survey with at least five active pack creators (people who have built or attempted to build a community pack). Record anonymised summaries here — do not record individual names or identifying details.

If fewer than five creators have emerged 90 days post-launch, record that finding explicitly; it is itself a signal that the creator community is not yet large enough to validate a marketplace.

2.1 Interview recruitment

Recruitment channel	Invites sent	Responses
Discord direct outreach
GitHub issue comments
Steam discussion board post
Announcement in contributor newsletter / README
Total

Interviews completed: ___

If fewer than 5 interviews were completed, explain why:

2.2 Interview guide

Use the following questions as a structured guide. Adapt them for the format (1:1 call, async written survey, or GitHub discussion thread). Record anonymised responses under each question.

Pack creation experience

1. Describe how you built your pack. What tools did you use? What was your biggest friction point?
2. Did you use the convsim validate-pack CLI? If not, why not?
3. Did you use the Creator Workbench? What worked well and what did not?
4. How long did your first pack take to go from idea to playable?

Distribution

5. How are you currently distributing your pack (GitHub release, itch.io, direct link, not yet distributing)?
6. What would make it meaningfully easier for players to find your pack?
7. Would you want your pack listed in an in-app browser even if it remained free? Why or why not?

Attribution and licensing

8. Is your pack open-source, proprietary, or something else? Why did you choose that license?
9. Does the current author field in the pack manifest give you adequate attribution? What would you add?
10. Have you had any experience with someone reposting or modifying your pack without your permission?

Moderation expectations

11. If Outright Mental operated a curated pack registry, how long would you expect a review to take before your pack was listed?
12. What content moderation rules do you think should apply to community packs distributed through an official channel?

Monetisation

13. Would you want the option to charge for your packs? If yes, what price point and revenue split would make it worth the effort?
14. If you could not charge for your packs, would that stop you from creating them? Why or why not?
15. What would you do with revenue from pack sales — reinvest in more packs, cover your time, donate to the project, something else?

2.3 Interview summary

Complete after all interviews are done. Summarise across responses, not per respondent.

Pack creation experience — themes

Distribution needs — themes

Attribution and licensing — themes

Moderation expectations — themes

Monetisation interest — themes

Key findings

(Synthesise the 3–5 most important things learned from creator interviews that should inform the recommendation)

---

3. Constraint revisit

This section revisits the constraints documented in docs/marketplace-architecture.md in light of what is now known about the live game and the creator community. Complete after sections 1 and 2.

3.1 Steam Wallet and DLC constraints

Constraint	Status at 90 days	Notes
Valve microtransaction application submitted	yes / no / not yet
Valve microtransaction approval status	approved / pending / not applied
DLC approval turnaround time (if applicable)
Steam Wallet integration fee confirmed	yes / no	Current fee as of review date:
Steam review SLA documented

Findings:

3.2 Open-source project governance

Question	Answer
Does charging for community packs conflict with the CC-BY-4.0 licence on official content?
Are contributor agreements in place that would allow Outright Mental to operate a revenue-sharing marketplace without ambiguity?
Has the community discussed monetisation in public channels? What was the sentiment?
Would a paid marketplace create a two-tier contributor experience that undermines the open-source community?

Findings:

3.3 Revenue support goals

Question	Answer
What is the current funding model for Outright Mental’s sponsorship of distribution costs?
Would revenue from a marketplace materially reduce Outright Mental’s out-of-pocket distribution costs?
Is there a revenue threshold below which the operational overhead of a marketplace is not worth it? If so, what is that threshold?
Has Outright Mental’s board or leadership set a target or constraint on marketplace revenue expectations?

Findings:

3.4 Safety review capacity

Question	Answer
How many community pack submissions arrived in the first 90 days (if a submission path existed)?
What is the estimated human review time per pack (based on the pack validator + manual check process)?
How many reviewers does Outright Mental currently have available for pack review?
At the observed submission rate, how many packs per month could be reviewed with current capacity?
Would a moderation queue backlog discourage creators from submitting packs?

Findings:

3.5 Entry gate status

The five entry gate conditions from docs/marketplace-architecture.md — Entry gate must all be confirmed before any implementation work begins. Record the status of each condition here.

Condition	Status	Evidence
1. Public release live for at least 90 days	met / not yet	Launch date:
2. Qualitative player feedback confirms meaningful demand	confirmed / not confirmed / unclear
3. Legal review of revenue-sharing, VAT, and refund policy is complete	complete / in progress / not started
4. Valve consultation on Steam Wallet integration conducted and documented	complete / in progress / not started
5. Safety moderation capacity plan exists	complete / in progress / not started

Entry gate passed: yes / no / partial

If not all conditions are met, list what is blocking and what the estimated completion date is for each open item.

---

4. Recommendation

Complete this section after sections 1–3 are done. The recommendation must be one of the five options below. It requires sign-off from the Outright Mental platform lead before it is communicated to the contributor community.

4.1 Decision framework

Use this framework to select the recommendation. Each question narrows the option space.

Question	Answer	Implication
Has the entry gate (section 3.5) fully passed?	yes / no	If no: “do not build yet” is the only available recommendation. Return here after the gate conditions are met.
Is there evidence of meaningful demand for discoverable content beyond what manual install provides?	yes / no	If no: “do not build yet” is the recommendation.
Did any creator express interest in paid content?	yes — strong / yes — weak / no	Weak or no: paid marketplace options are premature.
Does Outright Mental have the capacity to review 10+ pack submissions per month?	yes / no	If no: external portal or Steam DLC (no community submissions) are the safer options.
Has Valve microtransaction approval been received?	yes / no	If no: Steam DLC or in-game marketplace options require this first.
Is the creator community large enough to populate a registry (≥ 10 community packs available or in progress)?	yes / no	If no: first-party options (curated free or Steam DLC) may be sufficient.

4.2 Options

Select one. Options C, D, and E correspond to the paid-distribution mechanisms analysed in docs/marketplace-architecture.md — Distribution path comparison — Steam DLC, an in-game Steam Wallet store, and an external registry respectively — but note that document labels those mechanisms differently (its Options A–D) and does not use the same lettering as the table below. Options A (do not build yet) and B (curated free registry) are decisions specific to this spike and are not enumerated in that comparison.

Option	When to choose
A — Do not build yet	Entry gate not passed, or demand signals are unclear or weak, or operational capacity is insufficient. The status quo (manual install from GitHub/itch.io) remains in place. Revisit in 6 months.
B — Curated free registry	Demand for discoverability is confirmed but monetisation interest is weak or absent, and Outright Mental can handle review volume. A simple indexed list of community packs with validator-passed badges. No payment infrastructure required.
C — Steam DLC packs	Demand exists for premium first-party content, Valve microtransaction approval is received, and Outright Mental is willing to commit first-party authoring resources. Community creator submissions are not part of this option.
D — In-game marketplace	Strong demand for paid community content confirmed, entry gate fully passed including legal and Valve approvals, and Outright Mental has the moderation capacity and infrastructure budget to operate a marketplace. Highest complexity and highest upside.
E — External creator portal	Similar demand profile to Option D but Outright Mental prefers to avoid Steam’s 30% cut and has the infrastructure capacity to operate an external payment and distribution platform. Requires the most independent infrastructure.

4.3 Selected recommendation

Recommendation: (A / B / C / D / E)

Rationale: (2–4 sentences explaining why this option was chosen over the alternatives, citing the specific signals from sections 1–3 that drove the decision)

Conditions on the recommendation: (Any conditions that must be true for this recommendation to hold — e.g. “Option B is recommended, but if creator submissions exceed 20/month within 6 months, revisit Option D”)

Next steps if A (do not build yet):

• Set a revisit date: ___
• Define what change in signals would trigger a re-evaluation: ___

Next steps if B, C, D, or E:

• Open implementation issues only after this document is signed off
• Reference this document and docs/marketplace-architecture.md in every implementation issue as the design baseline
• Complete section 5 of this document before opening implementation issues

4.4 Sign-off

Role	Name	Signed	Date
Platform lead		☐
Outright Mental representative		☐

---

5. Post-launch roadmap (complete only if recommendation is B, C, D, or E)

If the recommendation is to build, define the next milestone here. This section becomes the input to a new GitHub milestone and a set of implementation issues. Do not create those issues until section 4 is signed off.

5.1 Milestone description

Describe in 2–3 sentences what Stage 5 will deliver, at what scope, and by when.

5.2 What this milestone will and will not build

In scope	Out of scope

5.3 Implementation issues to open

List every implementation issue that will be created to track Stage 5 work. Each issue must reference both this document and docs/marketplace-architecture.md as its design baseline.

Issue title	Assigned to	Blocked by	Priority

5.4 Stage 5 entry criteria

List the concrete conditions that must be true before Stage 5 implementation begins. These are in addition to the entry gate conditions in section 3.5, which must already be met.

• [ ]
• [ ]
• [ ]

5.5 Stage 5 success criteria

Define what “done” looks like for Stage 5. These become the acceptance criteria for the Stage 5 milestone.

• [ ]
• [ ]
• [ ]

---

Links

• docs/marketplace-architecture.md — design baseline: entry gate, distribution path comparison, and scope of schema/signing/moderation/payment changes
• docs/STEAM_ROADMAP.md — release train: Stage 5 is the marketplace exploration milestone
• docs/steam-mvp-scope.md — what shipped in Stage 4; the post-launch baseline
• publishing/POST_LAUNCH_FEEDBACK_SUMMARY.md — 72-hour and two-week launch feedback; primary source for section 1
• publishing/STEAM_COMPLIANCE_AND_RISK_REGISTER.md — risk SP-05 (Steam Wallet and future paid DLC path)
• docs/safety-policy.md — content policy any marketplace pack must satisfy
• docs/privacy.md — local-first promise that marketplace infrastructure must not break
• docs/scenario-authoring.md — creator documentation; starting point for section 2 recruits
• schemas/pack.schema.json — current pack manifest schema