A question on Licencing [Archive] - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

zWolf

March 31st, 2009, 08:28

Hail and Well met travelers:

Say, I'm thinking of purchasing a bundle of licenses for me to DM with. If I buy the licenses, how does this work?

if I play with the group of five players, and one of them drops out, do I have to buy a new license? for the new player? (I sure hope not, that'll be a deal breaker.) I hope that it's transferable to the new guy.

and in addition, if I run two groups, I am hoping that I can let both groups join my server. meaning 5 people on Tuesdays, and 5 Different people using the same Licenses on Thursday nights. the 6 licenses would only be used by one user at a time.

Anyway, I wasn't real clear on how the Licensing worked, but I am hoping for some flexibility as I'll be the 'owner' of all 6. (one full license, and 5 light versions.)

thanks for comments on this, I sure hope it's do-able! This product seems better suited to my needs that Battlegrounds, but they have that 'floating license' that would work perfectly for what I want to do, I just hope Licensing doesn't keep me from enjoying the better of the two products.

oh.. the other thing that, (at first glance,) Battlegrounds looked to do better than Fantasy Grounds, was the line of sight light controls... but hopefully I just didn't see how that worked in Fantasy Grounds... is there good 'fog of war' control with Fantasy Grounds II? That would be like super Frosting on an already perfectly baked cake!

zWolf -out.

Valarian

March 31st, 2009, 08:38

zWolf

March 31st, 2009, 08:53

There aren't currently floating licenses in FGII, although it's been requested on numerous occasions. According to the license agreement for FGII, the licenses are not transferable and wouldn't be able to be used for concurrent use. Each player would have to have their own license (at least Lite) in order to play...

hmm, that's un-fortunate. I couldn't find a copy of the Eula anywhere... but I did see a comment that stated the same as you have, so I'll assume that is indeed the case.

I wonder if I ran a 'cyber cafee' if they have a licensing plan for that, as what I want to do would kind of fall under that.

I suppose that I could just get by with just buying one DM Licence and one light, then install the light on a second computer, and have the other 5 users use a VPN connection to log into the computer using the 'light' software. they could share control of that computer with the VPN tools. If I can allow one client to control multiple characters I don't see a problem with that scenario... other than the fact that we'd have to rely on ventrillo more for chat, oh, and that the Dev's are out about a hundred bucks that I'd other wise be more than willing to spend.

... It depends on your gaming style though, if you run combat heavy games with miniatures then Battlegrounds may suit you well. I tend to run games which are more story based, and FGII suits my preference well.

yes, I find myself in that exact boat, I prefer story based games that focus on character development and plot. It will indeed be a shame if I have to use an inferior product (inferior when compared to my personal needs,) just because there isn't a workable licensing option for me.

zWolf -out.

Griogre

March 31st, 2009, 08:55

zWolf, if you give the license to someone then, yes by the language of the license then you would have to buy another license if that player dropped out. I would suggest you not buy licenses to just give away. Most people using FG have bought their own license (the advantage of the non-floating license module).

Bundles are really for if you have an existing group - if this is true for you I would suggest you get each player to pay for their own license. That's how I did it for my existing group when we changed to over to FG. I bought a bundle on a credit card and we split the discounts and I had them pay me on pay pal and when their payment hit I sent them the license and download link.

If you are running a popular system after work or on the weekends you will not have a problem finding players, there are always more players than GMs. To guage demand you might want to go to the Guild House messageboard and go back a few weeks to see what type of volume is there and for what games.

FG, in my opinion, is a better overall RPG VTT than Battlegrounds because of the character sheets. However Battleground's strength is its map manipulation, its like MapTool in this regard. FG map tools are much more like a battlemap that sits on a map image. FG does have a mask to represent Fog of War. However it is not dynamic, the DM reveals the areas he wishes as the party moves by lassoing the area. The mask is transparent to the DM.

If you have not done so I suggest you download the demo and play with the map. To see what a player would see, start a second instance of the demo use a different login name and connect to the host.

If you have any other questions just ask.

Edit: That will teach me to walk away for the computer a bit. :p

Ged

March 31st, 2009, 09:26

The FAQ now contains the end user license agreement. You can find it here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/faq.php?faq=license_and_purchasing_issues#faq_faq_ license).

zWolf

March 31st, 2009, 10:02

The FAQ now contains the end user license agreement. You can find it here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/faq.php?faq=license_and_purchasing_issues#faq_faq_ license).

Thank you Ged!

well... hmm, this gives me some hope... Though the intent of the license is pretty clear, technically I do think I'd be able to do what I want to here... lets see if my logic holds up to the scrutiny of my peers here:

here is the part of the EULA that relates:

---
1. LICENSE GRANT. SmiteWorks, Ltd. grants you a license to use one copy of the version of this SOFTWARE on any one system for as many licenses as you purchase. "You" means the company, entity or individual whose funds are used to pay the license fee. "Use" means storing, loading, installing, executing or displaying the SOFTWARE. You may not modify the SOFTWARE or disable any licensing or control features of the SOFTWARE except as an intended part of the SOFTWARE's programming features. This license is not transferable to another organization. You may transfer a license to another individual once if the software has not been used on any system, and you are the original license holder as defined above.

You may transfer the license to another system for your personal use as long as the SOFTWARE is not used or installed on multiple systems.

---
Here is the situation as I see it, If I purchase one full license and 5 light licenses, then I am entitled to use it, meaning " storing, loading, installing, executing or displaying the SOFTWARE " on six separate computers.

I would choose my own computer, and five computers that belong to my friends. I would then 'USE' the six licenses to play my game. the 'technicality' of it is that my friends just happen to get to log into my host computer and play with me, I am in effect, and 'technically' using all 6 licenses as I play with them.

at the time that one of them chooses to 'drop' and not play, he/she would but have to un-install the light client from his machine, at which time per the EULA line which reads "You may transfer the license to another system for your personal use as long as the SOFTWARE is not used or installed on multiple systems," I could then legally install that client on a new machine. which would happen to reside at a friends house who wanted to become active in my games.

so, how'd I do? I don't think that I break the EULA rules in this scenario at all do I? I don't see anything in there that says that my friends can't push buttons on a separate PC and control a character in my game. I'm 'using' my license as defined in the EULA, installed only on the number of machines for which I have licenses, I haven't given my license away or anything, I paid for it, and still own it. 'Use' as defined in the EULA includes both installing and playing, which I'll do both of. I have simply enlisted a friend to control one of the characters from his machine... using my license.

If this software was a spread sheet business application, and I purchased six licenses for six machines, it would work in a similar fashion. If one employee left the company, and I hired another, I wouldn't have to purchase a new license for him, I would still own the license and the new employee would use the same license that the old employee was using. So it seems like the EULA provides for that very contingency, even if it's not at first apparent.

I'm working this angle because I'd really like to use the software for my games, it does seem to best suit my needs.

it's unfortunate that the licensing practice used by battleground rpg isn't adopted here, as it would eliminate all the confusion.

thanks for looking this over, I'm interested in any thoughts.

zWolf -out.

unerwünscht

March 31st, 2009, 11:54

Thank you Ged!

well... hmm, this gives me some hope... Though the intent of the license is pretty clear, technically I do think I'd be able to do what I want to here... lets see if my logic holds up to the scrutiny of my peers here:

Let me first say that you will not find anyone here who sympathizes with you more than myself. I have 5 lite keys that are not usable because they have already been used by people who will never use them again. I feel for you man I really do.

However you are stretching "logic" a little far here. By the letter of the EULA once someone has used a license it is not usable by anyone else. Yet there is still light at the end of the tunnel for you. The first option is to get an astronomically large amount of people to tell Smite Works they will purchase Fantasy Grounds if, and only if, they add floating licenses (I would join your cause and pledge to buy 5 more licenses myself.)

You might also want to look into the First Sale Doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). However I warn you that it will come at a heavy price to you in the end. Just look up Blizzard vs Ebay.

EugeneZ

March 31st, 2009, 13:12

Not sure exactly which Blizzard vs. Ebay you are reffering to but the best case I know is when some guy tried to sell a WoW strategy guide, which doesn't really apply here, plus if I remember correctly he actually won in that case, even though his first account was banned.

As for first sale, it applies best if you haven't used the product and haven't agreed to the EULA. If you've agreed to the EULA, certain states are no longer as friendly with you. Look to your state laws.... in most cases that have challenged this, if I recall, it was ruled that a EULA cannot "license" a product to you to stop you from selling it, and if it does not does so, then you therefore own the product and can resell it.

For me it really comes down to respecting the wishes of a small company. It's up to you to decide whether to obey the EULA or not but be prepared for the possible consequences. (Still, I'm sure they haven't stopped many people from transferring keys. And Smiteworks knows that. Which this why this whole thing is kind of silly in my eyes. Shrug.)

Valarian

March 31st, 2009, 13:39

I would choose my own computer, and five computers that belong to my friends. I would then 'USE' the six licenses to play my game. the 'technicality' of it is that my friends just happen to get to log into my host computer and play with me, I am in effect, and 'technically' using all 6 licenses as I play with them....
Unfortunately not with the interpretation in the EULA, unless that interpretation has changed recently. I thought this as well when purchasing it and have since effectively "given away" two of the Lite licenses I bought. I have three other Lite licenses and a second Full license which are just lying dormant in the hope that floating licenses are implemented at some point.

You could have a look at Kloogewerks to see if that would suit you. It's another VTT tool that concentrates on the character sheet. I've not used it myself as I prefered Fantasy Grounds and haven't looked at it since I bought FGII. It has a demo version to try it out.

Let me first say that you will not find anyone here who sympathizes with you more than myself. I have 5 lite keys that are not usable because they have already been used by people who will never use them again. I feel for you man I really do.
The floating licenses has been on my personal wish list for FGII for quite a while. For much the same reasons as you're stating here. I would also be buying a couple more Lite licenses to add to those if floating licenses were to be implemented. It'd allow me to do demos of FGII to people not interested in D&D.

zWolf

March 31st, 2009, 16:19

...I have 5 lite keys that are not usable because they have already been used by people who will never use them again. I feel for you man I really do.

so, I'm curious, by 'not usable' does that mean that you have attempted to install them on another computer and they don't work now? or that your understanding of the EULA causes you not to install them and try?

By the letter of the EULA once someone has used a license it is not usable by anyone else.

hmm, I'd agree that it's the spirit of the EULA to prevent a person from using his license thus, but I'd still maintain that the letter of it still allows for it.

Blizzard's EULA reads quite differently about where you can install their program, here is a sample of one of the differences: Link to Blizzards EULA. (https://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html)

"Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with this License Agreement, Blizzard hereby grants, and you hereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license to (a) install the Game Client on one or more computers owned by you or under your legitimate control,"

they even have an option in their for selling the game to someone else (something I'd never noticed before... Found under #4 Ownership b.)

So I'm basically wondering how the software licenses became 'unusable' ? was it you willingly not using them on other computers? or was there something that didn't allow them to work when you attempted to install them on some one else s machine?

Yet there is still light at the end of the tunnel for you. The first option is to get an astronomically large amount of people to tell Smite Works they will purchase Fantasy Grounds if, and only if, they add floating licenses (I would join your cause and pledge to buy 5 more licenses myself.)

I like this Idea! I'd really like floating licenses too, consider my signature added to the cause.

Thank you,

zWolf -out.

Spyke

March 31st, 2009, 17:09

I've not weighed in on the floating license discussion before, but thinking prompted by this thread has made me finally come off the fence and join those who are calling for them.

My situation is that even after years of my using Fantasy Grounds my face to face group won't buy licences, partly because a key member has a Mac. If there were floating licences I'd be happy to buy them myself, as they could be used for my group and also to demo the GURPS ruleset and run one-shots to get other people interested.

Would that result in fewer licences being bought overall? I can't say. My guess would be that the ability to demo and let new people try out a game before they buy would lead to those users buying their own licences later on, and maybe even additional floating licences of their own.

My gut feel is that the sort of users who would always try to join a game using the GM's floating licence would probably be those who wouldn't want or couldn't afford to buy their own licence anyway.

What I can guarantee is that if Smiteworks wanted a one-off injection of cash, making floating licences available would trigger it!

Spyke

Valarian

March 31st, 2009, 17:35

My personal gut feel is that it would perhaps reduce the number of Lite licenses sold (except to GMs) but perhaps increase the number of Full licenses. I would imagine that a number of players would start with a GMs floating Lite license for a game or two, then perhaps start thinking about running their own games. Especially if we can start demoing the product with rulesets other than D&D3e.

As stated before, I'd recommend that Smiteworks go with a registered "Demo" license rather than just an open download. This would make the licensing three tier rather than two, with the Demo, Lite and Full licenses. Demo licenses only being usable if there is an available Lite license registered to the GM's Full version.

Sigurd

March 31st, 2009, 18:34

I think some of the floating license argument is an illusion. I don't buy supplies for my players. I don't buy their books, their cars, their houses..... If players aren't interested enough to part with 24bucks they probably aren't interested enough to put in the time or keep playing the game.

My best advice for everyone is to buy the full license, so you can DM. Join and play, online. Share your enthusiasm with your friends. Play the demo. If you like the program (and I do) you'll be happy you bought the full license.

In my opinion floating licenses would hurt earnings for Smite Works, (we are casually saying they should require fewer people to buy _their_ product.) and I don't think it would necessarily help the game. As a DM, I'm perfectly fine with their being a $24 dollar one time barrier to playing. If they aren't that committed then _they aren't that committed_.

Compared to the books you have to buy, or a tank of gas, its already practically free.

Sigurd

Spyke

March 31st, 2009, 18:43

In my opinion floating licenses would hurt earnings for Smite Works, (we are casually saying they should require fewer people to buy _their_ product.) and I don't think it would necessarily help the game. As a DM, I'm perfectly fine with their being a $24 dollar barrier to playing. If they aren't that committed then _they aren't that committed_.Where this falls down is that people like to try before they buy, and while the Demo supports a short tour for the 4e players a significant number would either like to play a full session to get a proper feel for the software or would like to see it running using their preferred game system.

Also I don't think we are casually saying they should require fewer people to buy _their_ product. We've said that we're not sure whether this would lead to more or fewer sales but that our gut feel is that overall sales would increase. Obviously the facts would need to be determined as best they can be from market research, but at the moment the truth of this simply isn't known.

Spyke

Sigurd

March 31st, 2009, 19:18

Where this falls down is that people like to try before they buy, and while the Demo supports a short tour for the 4e players a significant number would either like to play a full session to get a proper feel for the software or would like to see it running using their preferred game system.

If there was a reliable way to stop a floating license from becoming a pirated infinite license I'd agree with you. I think user to license accountability is a sad necessity in the software market. I don't know the ratio but there seem to be a lot more players than DMs -- a mystake with the player licensing could hurt.

I admit that the demo and 4e is a problem. Unfortunately WOTC has tightened their license considerably since the OGL. My understanding is that there are problems with releasing a commercial 4e ruleset. It would be nice if there was a way around that to allow a 4e demo. Still the Demo allows a proof of concept for buyers. Perhaps the site could use some slick flash demos of the game in progress to add appeal.

sigurd

Spyke

March 31st, 2009, 20:15

Perhaps the site could use some slick flash demos of the game in progress to add appeal.Yes, that could be a good way forward.

Spyke

Valarian

March 31st, 2009, 21:16

If there was a reliable way to stop a floating license from becoming a pirated infinite license I'd agree with you. I think user to license accountability is a sad necessity in the software market. I don't know the ratio but there seem to be a lot more players than DMs -- a mystake with the player licensing could hurt.
How do you stop a Lite or Full license becoming a pirated infinite license? Now tell me, how would a registered Demo license would be any different? i can't see how myself. It's just another option and one that I think would help me, personally, bring people in to using the tool. In addition, the major competitors do floating licenses already. Kloogewerks and Battlegrounds RPG both have floating license options in the license structure.

unerwünscht

March 31st, 2009, 22:50

I think some of the floating license argument is an illusion. I don't buy supplies for my players. I don't buy their books, their cars, their houses..... If players aren't interested enough to part with 24bucks they probably aren't interested enough to put in the time or keep playing the game.

Do you have any idea how many players are alienated by this? According to my research 74% of all role players are under the age of 18. This makes it VERY difficult for them to purchase an application online, with those credit cards they are not legally allowed to own till they are 18. Further, I don't know about you but I know when I was 14 and playing D&D all the time I didn't have a job, and thus had no money to buy said program with. Does this imply that I am to cheap to play D&D in your world?

Anyways, either way noone is saying that if Floating licenses became available you HAVE to buy them, you can always just tell your players, "Look I have no interest in paying for your ability to play the game, if you want to join my table you have to get your own license". Hell, that is actually part of the business strategy behind floating licenses. In this way some GMs will not buy floating licenses and some players will still have to go get their own license in order to play in all the games they want to play in.

Andugus

April 1st, 2009, 05:37

According to my research 74% of all role players are under the age of 18.

I would be interested in seeing your sources for your research. I feel the exact opposite about the age role-players are. I think most are older now with a younger generation mostly absorbed into MMO's or Console Gaming. Of course I have no scientific research to back up my personal observations. Which is why I'd like to see your sources.

unerwünscht

April 1st, 2009, 06:45

The aforementioned statistics are a guesstimate. However I know the owners of several gaming stores, and have spent countless hours in said stores I can assure you that if I am off, I am on the low side.

Based on the records from our now retired RPG Zone website, out of 236 users 184 of them are still under the age of 18 (close to 77% if I'm right). I will be able to give you an even more accurate estimate on a larger scale after Gaming Army takes off.

You can also go do the math yourself based on the research here: https://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001525.php but keep in mind when doing the math that for ever person over the age of 25 there are 5 under the age of 25.

Griogre

April 1st, 2009, 07:13

I'm against floating licenses. I think they are a poor business model given most users are players. Cannibalizing your player sales to allow a few GMs to buy a handful of player licenses in a bad long term strategy in my mind. There is a big reason WotC and most other companies tried to get out of the adventure module business and into making splat books. You are always better off selling to the bigger audience, especially in a niche market. I also prefer my players having some sort of financial commitment.

A GM buying floating licenses is a one time buy and after that most of the players of that GM will not buy a license unless they plan to run – why should they? So you have a near endless parade of players passing through the GM’s floating licenses. This might be OK if Smiteworks was charging thousands of dollars for a license – but they are not. There is also the fact there is no reason to assume a GM has more money that a player either, but if floating license were to become the standard - you just upped the GM’s financial commitment four to six times or so and you now you are trying to sell to the minority of your user base and making it harder for a GM to get started.

If someone was to get a license from someone else to play for free *I* think it should be the GM not a player. GMs do most of the work that allows players to have a good time, encouraging more GM’s to form more groups would sell more copies of FG far more than floating licenses ever would.

unerwünscht

April 1st, 2009, 09:41

Valarian

April 1st, 2009, 10:21

zWolf

April 1st, 2009, 17:33

Man we rock, we increased sales for smite works by at least 250%, brought more players to the game, and with some luck even more Game masters that will help to bring more players in the future. We should get a medal for our actions.

https://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/phd/PHD296/victory-medal_~56155.JPG

Awarded to for brilliant and persuasive math in the battle for a better future for players.

-----

heh, I liked your arguments there sir! I salute you.

So, I have been bouncing back and forth between D20 pro, Battlegrounds, and Fantasy grounds II trying to decide which virtual table to get. the thing is, all the floating licenses in the world don't make up for lack of community, and neither Battle Grounds, nor D20 Pro, appear to have a large and active community like Fantasy Grounds II does.

To be honest, I still cling to the hope that if I have a player drop, I'll be able to have that player un-install the software, and I'll have a new player install and use the old players spot in my games... (no one said if it was just their moral understanding of the EULA that prevented them from doing this, or something programed into the code / matchmaking that prevented it from working... so I'm going to 'assume' it's the moral understanding thing and go from there.)

That said, even if it doesn't work and I'm out some cash, I'm betting my play experience will be worth a few lost coppers... silvers... ok, gold pieces.

Thanks for the responses here and the opinions shared and the discussion about this! honestly it's the active community that excites me about the product!

I know that my main motivation to purchase was so that I could DM, but, looking at the active community, I'm betting that I would have a blast in some of your games as well.

Thanks again for hanging out in the forums.

zWolf out.

(here's a medal for every one that has posted so far!)

----
https://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/CSP/CSP001/medal-red-green_~k0010528.jpg
awarded for valiantly posting in the forums of fantasy grounds II
---

Griogre

April 1st, 2009, 18:22

OK.. lets draw this picture another way for you.
Lets say that there are a total of 1000 players out there who want to use Fantasy grounds, and 100 DM's. Those 100 DM's buy 5 floating licenses each to support their gaming tables. that leads to 600 licenses sold, and 500 open seats. Now, Lets assume you are running a game, and I am running a game. We each have 5 players join our game. But you run your game on the first and third Saturday of every month, and I run my game on the second and fourth Friday of every month.

Because of our open schedule one of the players in each of our games is the same person, lets call him Bill Freeloader. Now Billy hasn't purchased a license so he is riding on the coattails of our floating licenses, but wait that would mean instead of purchasing one license for Billy in essence we have purchased two. Hold on smite works made an extra sale off of that. Oh wait, we both have the same player using a floating license that means that there is only 498 open seats left. Do this 100 times over and Smite works just made a bunch of extra sales. Not to mention all the lite licenses that other players had to buy because they wanted to play in Sig's game, and he so priestly stayed to his belief in that fact that players should buy their own license.

Man we rock, we increased sales for smite works by at least 250%, brought more players to the game, and with some luck even more Game masters that will help to bring more players in the future. We should get a medal for our actions.
Your analysis is valid – but only if all your GMs can pay for 5 floating licensees, only if your ratio of GMs to players is correct and in your example if there is no turnover of players. What happens when Bill Freeloader drops out and is replaced with Bill Freeloader II, and then Bill Freeloader III, and so on? Then what happens when there is more than one clan of Freeloaders?

Let’s call them the Seatholders. And say they are an extended clan with 3 to 6 branches. To the extent FG licenses could have been sold to each different member of the Seatholder I clan, the Seatholder II clan, the Seatholder III clan, and so on - after the first floating copy sold to the GM, Smiteworks *loses* potential sales.

Now I will give you that *if* none of the members of the Seatholders clans I to VI would have ever bought FG, Smitworks makes more money with floating licenses than it would have otherwise, but the moment more than one member of each clan would have bought a licenses – Smiteworks will have lost potential sales and given the low, slow turnover I’ve seen in most campaigns I think that new players from turnover is normally a fair percentage of new sales. In a small niche of a niche business, I don’t think Smiteworks can afford to lose those potential sales.

Griogre

April 1st, 2009, 18:24

I would think that GMs will only put up with players using their floating licenses for a while before starting with hints of "how about you run a game?" or "you can get a lot more out of the Full version".
I would suggest that human nature being what it is that once you have a player that shows up and adds to the group the GM doesn't care about promoting FG sales (and why should he? He just wants to run a game) and doesn't want to rock the boat. Most of my players have lite versions, they have no desire to buy the full version. You can't put a limit on floating license duration since that defeats the purpose of one.

zWolf

April 1st, 2009, 18:42

I think that Griogre has very valid arguments/conserns, I also think that no one wants to see the devlopers suffer from gaining a convenience... I wonder if there is some sort of a solution where there were some additional features that a peson would get if they bought the light license over just using a 'slot' in a DM's game.

It would have to be something that still allowed the freeloaders to play and enjoy the game, yet something cool enough that they would want their own licence ya know?

of course there is some extra programing that would have to go into that... but, think of all the folks that might get exposed to it, (and advertised to,, basicly) that might not ever pick it up otherwise... it seems that added exposure to potential customers might be worth a floating license.

zWolf -out.

Valarian

April 1st, 2009, 19:38

You can't put a limit on floating license duration since that defeats the purpose of one.
No, but you could put a limit on the Demo license used to connect to the floating license. I could live with that, especially if it's set to something sensible like 90 days. Even the standard 30 day demo would give me the opportunity to demo actual games to players. Plus, if you fit the Demo license in to the existing licensing structure, the developers wouldn't have to maintain a separate demo application and us GMs could run a demo game using the latest version.

Spyke

April 1st, 2009, 20:05

How about taking another tack? What if the demo version also allowed a user to connect to a full host but with view-only access? The demo player would not have a character sheet and could not interact within FG itself.

This way we could demo games in our own rulesets.

There's a partial potential for abuse, a view-only player could interact with the game via a separate chat or voice program, and another player could host a character sheet and tokens for him, but I think the restrictions would be annoying enough to trigger an eventual sale.

Spyke

Sigurd

April 1st, 2009, 23:25

Everyone seems really sure of their point of view - even summoning statistics.

I personally think there is a more central problem communicating the value in this program.

Speaking only for myself,

I probably game an average of once a week for most of the year. (Mostly its twice but things happen.) Conservatively, that's 50 sessions a year lasting more than 3 hours each. I do pay for my internet connection and the books etc... for the hobby but I'm still thanking Fantasy Grounds for 150+ hrs of game time at a cost of $40. I bought the DM Edition because, if I like, I can start games on my schedule - if you like gaming consider it.

If I bought the program a year ago, my cost to Smite Works is about a quarter an hour to play. No sign up fees, no monthly fees, no ongoing billing and nothing to explain on my visa. Because of their honest and clear design, I'm even insulated if the company folds

I didn't buy the game this year. I bought 4 years ago. I spend more on Aspirin than I do on Fantasy Grounds - and I like FG a whole lot more.

The other side of the coin are the savings. Gas I haven't spent getting to my distant friends and travel time. A tank of gas for me is $50 now and has been much more recently. My best friend is an hour away. I can play 2 hours of game on line and take that right out of my driving time. My wife even understands and appreciates that I'm not in traffic or away from home.

I play with people all over the world who have been really interesting.

These are the only hard figures I can talk about with confidence. All the other problems: no credit card, initial price etc.... I'm not belittling them but I want to show that they're worth overcoming.

The program is a great deal if you use it. Perhaps it could be promoted better or sold differently, but that's not my lookout unless Smite Works wants my help. Everything else, statistics included, seem like back seat driving. Especially in a public forum.

Sigurd

zWolf

April 1st, 2009, 23:43

Everything else, statistics included, seem like back seat driving. Especially in a public forum.

Sigurd

hmm, if I had a passenger in my back seat whilst I was driving, and he shouted out;

"Hey look! a sack of gold!"

and I drove over and somehow got to keep it, I'd be thankful for a wee bit of back seat driving.

Seaking only for my self, as a potential customer that's willing to drop a hundred quid (I don't really know what that word means, but I thought it went nicely with 'wee',) I just wanted the owners to know that as I'm shopping around, and comparing products, with wich to run a game with, I noticed that theirs was the superior product for my needs, but that there is a great possibility that I'll be spending my 'quid' or what ever, at another company solely due to the fact that I'm offered floating licenses.

For my own self, I have rationalized out that according to the license agreement I'll have to sign, The 6 licenses I purchase will work just fine for my needs. Others are noting in the public forums that they don't interpret the agreement the same way that I do, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable 'switching out players' from their games, with out a 'floating' license. Either way, I think this is a great forum to chat about it, and show interest in said licensing structure.

thanks,

zWolf -out.