Floating licenses and affiliate program [Archive] - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

Ged

April 2nd, 2009, 09:37

One of the most requested features for Fantasy Grounds has been the capability to have players join games without first purchasing a license (this has also been opposed). This kind of model is often referred to as a "floating license". For various reasons, we have not offered this kind of licensing. First it was out of principle; the GM should not be made to pay for all the fun. Then it was a technical difficulty relating to piracy, and finally a feasible business model was hard to formulate, one that would not ruin some of the economic basis that allows us to keep developing Fantasy Grounds (sales of Lite Licenses).

We have also thought of how we could reward those users who persuade others to adopt Fantasy Grounds. If we had a large inventory of different products, we could give those in return to some points accrued, but we don't. We could also give upgrade codes to those having a Lite License. But as we believe, it is the GMs, who recruit new players. The GMs already have the best we have to offer.

There is now one model that could accommodate both of these issues, although we know the solution will not get everybody's cheer. We are planning a subscription based floating license system. As it is subscription based, players will probably be more aware that using the floating license seat is not the standard way they should attend games, i.e. GMs should not be expected to provide the seat. The subscription fee could be paid with both money and affiliate points (how to earn affiliate points will be explained when we near the completion of the system). The subscription fee will be deducted from the account only on those months that floating license(s) are used (again one way to protect GMs right not to pay for everything). Several floating licenses can be used, but each one used simultaneously within a month counts as one deduction from the account.

The subscription fee will probably be about $5 per month per license used simultaneously during said month.

As I said, this will probably not receive everyone's cheer, but it is a way we could go ahead with floating licenses as well as give some protection to the GMs purse. There are technical as well as legal issues with the model we have to sort out before even beginning to implement any of this. We also have other things in the pipeline before any of this, but we wanted to share some thoughts already early on. We would like to hear any comments or feedback, those will be read and considered (and if the feedback is unanimously condemning, we might still pull the whole idea).

Thanks in advance,

zWolf

April 2nd, 2009, 09:49

Yay! well, I'll start out saying that I'm for such a thing,

the main concern that I have is that I would be planing to pay for 5 or 6 floating licenses each month, and 25 to 30 bucks a month would get too high really. I'm used to paying 15 a month for other subscription services though, and could easily see me just budgeting for that each month.

Thanks for listening, and coming up with something to offer to the community!

I'll probably just use a freebee VT till this comes out, but I WILL be first in line, when it comes time to snag this...(as long as it's not tooo expensive.)

Thanks,

zWolf -out.

Oberoten

April 2nd, 2009, 11:38

This sounds like a great way to get to show of the game for newcomers.

I like it.

- Obe

Bidmaron

April 2nd, 2009, 11:57

I think this is a workable solution and I would probably keep two licenses. The fact that you folks listen to feedback is a great thing about the company.

Spyke

April 2nd, 2009, 12:36

On first sight, that looks to me to be a workable solution. Good thinking.

Spyke

mr_h

April 2nd, 2009, 13:30

It may be too early for me in the morning...but as I understand: There'll be A) Purchase a full license and a B) Purchase a floating license as needed plan? Both existing, or is it only one or the other?

I'm not a fan of pay to play, so I'd rather have a just buy a product and be over with it. If everything switched to a subscription based, I'd probably have a problem with it. IF both options are given to folks, it'd be nice. Much easier to demo off the product too.

Ged

April 2nd, 2009, 13:37

mr_h,

The Full and the Lite licenses will remain as they are. The floating license will just be an additional option.

mr_h

April 2nd, 2009, 13:42

mr_h,

The Full and the Lite licenses will remain as they are. The floating license will just be an additional option.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Sounds good to me :D

Valarian

April 2nd, 2009, 14:06

Ged,

Thanks for the attempt to produce a floating license solution that would work for the company. What you're proposing seems workable from my perspective, although there are some questions over how the proposed scheme would work in practice.

If I understand this correctly, the player would set up a subscription account and get a license to go with the account. If they use that license to play in a game during any particular month, then the account is charged at $5. Good for a casual look before buying with only a minimal outlay.

Less clear, I think is the demo game scenario. If (as a GM) I want to run a free demo game, I set up a subscription account and get a license to give to the players. For each player using that license in any particular month, I get charged $5.
1. Could you use the same subscription license to connect to one Full license, or would several subscription accounts be needed?
e.g. I want to run a demo game for four players
2. Will the subscription account be locked to my Full license, so unscrupulous players can't go and use the license to connect to someone else's game and charge me?
3. Would you be able to open a subscription account for a limited period (say for a certain online convention)?
3a. Would I then be able to open another subscription account for the following time I want to run a demo?
3b. If not, would I be able to indicate whether the license should be considered active or not within the account?

I presume that the subscription player would have to connect using the alias server, rather than being able to connect directly using an IP address.

Regards,
Ian (Valarian)

Ged

April 2nd, 2009, 14:33

Valarian,

First, the details are still very much open at this time, thus anything I say may change...

The floating licenses would only be available to GMs, i.e. a particular Full License would be connected with a subscription of the floating license service. It is quite common for a GM to have a group (or serveral) going, and one player who would like to try it out. The GM can lease his floating license to that one player for the duration of the game (as a matter of fact, he cannot lease it any other way - one GM cannot lease his floating license outside games he hosts). In the next group, the GM has a different experimenter, the GM gives the same floating license to that player. As long as there is only on player on a floating license at any particular time, the subscription fee is only for one floating license. On to your questions:

0. The GM would not be paying by individual players, but by the number of players using floaging licenses simultaneously. You could have ten (or whatever number of) different people using the floating license as long as they are not using it at the same time. The GM naturally will have a way to control the number of players being able to connect without their own Lite or Full licenses.
1. If a particular player uses floating licenses in several different games, the GMs of each of the games needs to have and be willing to provide that license.
2. A floating license is only usable with the Full license to which the floating license is connected
3. We haven't decided yet how the subscription periods will be defined. At this point it seems that the subscription account will click on monthly basis. If you have three months worth of subscription, you use one month now, the next on May, and the last in December (during the months you use the subscription, you can use it as much as you like). I don't mean, at least not now, that the subscription has to be tied to calendar months, but just to give you the idea.
3a. The subscription service would remain alive as long as there is enough funds on the account. When you decide to use the funds, is up to you.
3b. You will be able to give or not to give the license to a player who wants to jump in and use the floating license.

We don't know yet how the players would connect. It will, in any case, require some validation on our server.

Culdraug

April 2nd, 2009, 16:04

Ged

April 2nd, 2009, 16:48

Hmmm so, if I spend $15, would I have 3 floating licenses or 1 floating license that can be used for 3 months? Or some combination?

Would it be possible, for example, in June, have 1 player connect and then in July 2 players connect (simultaneous)?

As far as our thoughts go at the moment, you could have any combination - and you would not have to decide in advance. Either use the $15 in one month (three simultanous floating licenses), in two months (1 player on one month, 2 on another) or during three months (only one floating license working at any one time).

zWolf

April 2nd, 2009, 21:24

So... this sounds like I wouldn't be out anything if I were to purchase a full licence now right? I mean as far as your current plans go, to be eligible for the subscription service one would need to have a full license already, correct?

So, I might as well get mine now, so I can perhaps play with some folks in the FUMcon coming up.

I'll probably just use freebee tools for my group till your subscription plan comes out, (and I'll just have to hope that you have a package plan that supports 5 or 6 connections for 15 ish bucks...)

might I suggest for consideration a pricing tier like so:

1 slot = 5$ a month
2 Slots = 10$ a month

3-6 slots = 15$ a month

7 - 12 = 20$ a month

and

13 - 16 = 25$ a month.

So basically lets say some one puts $50 dollars on his account to use extra slots - then, if he had 5 concurrent users the first month then 15$ would be deducted from his original 50. the next month he only had 2 connect at the same time, so - 10$, leaving him 25$ on his account to use however.

anyway, there is a ruff draft of an Idea, I'm sure it could be fine tuned to something that wouldn't cost 25 to 30 dollars each month to run a normal sized adventure (4 to 6 players.)

I'm pretty exited about this, and think it may boost sales greatly, in that the players that connect to my (poor boy) games get a taste of what FG II can do, but won't be able to experience other game masters content with out first buying their own license.

anyway, those are my thoughts, I'll snag my full license when I get back from work this evening.

Thanks again for figuring out something that works for you and your users!

zWolf -out.

Rienen

April 2nd, 2009, 22:01

EugeneZ

April 3rd, 2009, 05:08

Definitely sounds good but I feel there would need to be a "bulk" option as zWolf points out. I don't think his chart is the best example of that, but you guys seem to have some experience in the field of discount bundles, heheh, so I think you know what I mean.

Edit: Also just wanted to thank the SW team for paying attention to what the community is interested in.

Ged

April 3rd, 2009, 05:13

Ged, without putting words in your mouth, what would happen if said player using the above scenerio's choses to buy a Lite of Full license and references he played under my subscription floating license?

And for the record, so far I like it. I'd happily buy a 3 month float, to have a couple people who are currently on the fence try it out.

If I understand your question correctly: if a player acquires a Lite or Full License of his own, he starts to use that immediately, he no longer uses the floating "slot". That leaves the floating license free, someone else can start using it.

Let's say that you play 30 times in a month with a group of 4 people with Lite Licenses. Additionally you have 10 people who would like to try FG, and you use one floating license. Those 10 people can all use the floating license in any order they choose, any number of times, as long as they are not using it simultaneously. And they can only use *your* floating license with a game you host.

there would need to be a "bulk" option as zWolf points out.

It is still too early for me to address anything on some discount structure, let's just say that the opinion has been noted and it sounds reasonable.

longarms

April 4th, 2009, 06:30

could you let me just purchase five lite licenses upfront and just be done with it. then I could always host up to five players that don't own the software.

I generally i like buying things and being done with it. I don't like renting or montly fees.

If you can make it so that I only get charged the months I actually use the floating license, that would a good middle ground. not keen on paying $25 for months that I don't end up running the game. i think that's what you said, but I wasn't certain

Ged

April 4th, 2009, 06:33

If you can make it so that I only get charged the months I actually use the floating license, that would a good middle ground. not keen on paying $25 for months that I don't end up running the game. i think that's what you said, but I wasn't certain

Yes, this is what I meant.

LauraW

April 16th, 2009, 21:41

Any idea when this might be implemented? Unfortunately, I didn't realize that I could not buy floating licenses for FG when I started looking closely at this. Fortunately..and there always is one..I discovered this before I bought it..by about 5 minutes! Pays to read the forums.

I want to have at least a couple floating licenses that I can give to friends who want to try the system. Yes, I know...we should make players buy their own but this is simply not feasible in this economy. My friends don't want to invest money in something that may or may not work for them or for us.

Now..this will work great for my friends that are moving away. I am sure they will buy a license. But I am a member of a large role playing guild and was hoping to get a few of them to test the system with me and possibly join in a game on occasion. I don't feel comfortable asking them to pay for something they might use a few times.

So..depending on when this might be implemented, I am back to looking at other systems. Too bad too as this was looking really good! And what a wonderful community! Of course, maybe no one else will even want to try it out..then I will be back to buy FG. Its so nice and shiny!

zabulus

April 16th, 2009, 22:07

try holding alt when throwing the D20 :)
(I just learned this myself *grin*)

LauraW

April 16th, 2009, 22:11

I saw that in the video..marvelous! :) I am weak..I will probably buy this anyway even if just for our friends who are moving away...sighs. At the very least, they could join us at guild meetings since our venue does have wireless. That would be fun.

Pikup

April 17th, 2009, 22:36

Sorry I do not mean to be negative, but that option (subscription) has little to no value to me. The lack of a true floating license has lead me to find other software options. I like the program and continue to poke my head in from time to time to see how things are going, but for actual play I have moved on.

Have you considered a third tier of client for the floating license? Make the floating license to only work when connected to a running server. Eliminate the character creation portion. Find a way to provide a reason for a regular player to want their own lite client. But for me to have to ask folks to buy a full license to find if the play style is interesting to them has been a very unsuccessful model.

Pikup

LauraW

April 17th, 2009, 22:45

I did end up buying this and three licenses for my family and friends. But when I posted about FG on the forum for our role play guild, I received links to free tabletops. I like FG better but I can't get them to try out FG if they can use something free..which is too bad because the price really isn't high for software. A floating license has the advantage of allowing the player to try out the software with limitations and possibly become interested enough in the extras that they forgo the free software. I don't mind paying for a floating license as a GM because I enjoy the time with my friends. Its worth more than a couple movie tickets to me.

Rienen

April 21st, 2009, 16:54

If I may be so bold as to suggest a referral program as well?

If a player were to purchase a lite (or full) license because they played off a GM's floating license, extend that GM an extra month's worth of floating licence. They're clearly making an effort to sell more product.

Xorn

April 21st, 2009, 17:27

I think Riven brings up a very good idea there. If a GM is bringing new players to FG2 who buy their own Lite/Full license, then it seems like giving them another month to try and bring someone else in free would be a nice referral.

johniba

April 21st, 2009, 18:07

unerwünscht

April 21st, 2009, 21:36

I am really sorry, but this alternative to a floating license does not appeal to me.

I would buy as many as 6 floating licenses, if there was the option.
Any kind of monthly charge, or similar, simply wont work (for me at least)

I think the floating licenses could even be more expensive than a lite or full license, I would still buy it.

Yea, I read over this whole thing and decided not to rock the boat. But I agree with you, this is NOT a floating license system, and why fight it? I'm just going to ignore that it exists, and go about my life like nothing is changing. I will just stick with the players I have, and not bother my time or effort in bringing new players into the system, cause I sure as f**k am not paying a monthly fee to sell fantasy grounds for smite works, without getting some sort of benefit out of it.

At first the idea seemed great, but ...... sigh.

Spyke

April 21st, 2009, 21:41

In Ged's first post in this thread he mentioned affiliate points for GMs. I kind of assumed that this was the sort of thing he was talking about.

Spyke

unerwünscht

April 21st, 2009, 22:36

In Ged's first post in this thread he mentioned affiliate points for GMs. I kind of assumed that this was the sort of thing he was talking about.

Spyke

I assume you are correct, however looking at the prices they are suggesting right now it's really not that great of a perk. From the data we have at this moment (we know its going to change, and hopefully for the better) if you run a gaming table of 6 players, on a large scale rotation to try and help sell Fantasy Grounds (what I was looking at doing) I will have to pay $30 a month every month.

I assume the affiliate program will change this some, but who knows how much. How many sales do you need to generate before a license becomes free that month? How are they going to accurately track referrals? for that matter what happens if I start a game at 10PM on April 30th, and it lasts until 2AM on May 1st? Do I get charged for both April and May for one game?

The only information we know at this point is that it will come with a monthly fee, and that is already a strike against it in my book. Why cant I just pay my $150, get 6 lite keys, plug them into my DM server, and let people connect that way? No key is getting used more than once at any given point in time, and everything is clean and simple.

Sigurd

April 22nd, 2009, 06:56

We don't have any 'Data' right now.

Right now people are thinking out loud. This should be a simple dialogue of ideas and suggestions. Say what you want but stay civil and don't expect that everyone will be pleased all the time.

I don't sell this game, I just share what I like with people who ask - sometimes that's Fantasy Grounds 2. It isn't any skin off my nose if they find it too expensive - that's their decision.

I just can't understand people who are posturing or implying they will oppose Smite Works based on anything that happens here. Its closed source commercial software. It has to make money somehow. You can always vote with your feet, but for most people its simply better than the alternatives and I find it a good deal.

I just shared a game with a friend I've known for 20+ years on his birthday. We both have families and live in different cities. It was a good game largely because Fantasy Grounds works well.

I'm not going to debate price. I care, but not so much. Its a one time thing. I would like to ask people to look for solutions not squabble. Expect that the company has its own goals. If they gave it away they wouldn't be a company would they? Try and find shared goals where profit and value are not incompatible.

And have a good night. Its my friend's birthday dammit!

Sigurd

unerwünscht

April 22nd, 2009, 07:26

I am so glad you are made out of money, why don't you send $100,000 my way since you can afford to throw it away so easily. Or just STFU and understand that not everyone has $60 per year per key to blow on a virtual tabletop. That's $360 a year for me to run my average game.

When I suggested floating licenses and an affiliate program it was not so I could spend a lot of money on smite works, it was so I could use my connections to help spread the word about the application and maybe bring some fresh meat to the Fantasy Grounds world. But since you are so narrow minded that you can not think outside of you limited box... you know what f**k it. I am done with being nice to you.....

Smite works seams to be making the same choices that WotC is making, and honestly i hope both companies tank from it.

Sigurd

April 22nd, 2009, 08:27

Why are you having a hissy fit?

I appreciate you don't like the idea. Nobody is threatening you with any mandatory change. You want a way to make the game free for players or people you introduce to the game. Smite Works wants a way to keep track of who plays and make sure they all contribute financially to the project. There is no insult here and no need for antagonism.

You have eloquently and vociferously expressed your objection, even derision, for the plan as you see it. Don't take it personally. Remember this is on top of what we have now, not instead. I think they are trying to see if the idea can be accommodated. Give them a chance to talk this out without over reacting. If there's no common ground we haven't lost anything.

Share your objections. Send them a private message with improvements or alternate plans. Please don't swear at me or anyone else here - this is too nice a board.

Sigurd

Oberoten

April 22nd, 2009, 08:37

...

Right. Which part of option is the problem here? Don't like the option don't use it. That is how simple it is.

unerwünscht

April 22nd, 2009, 09:24

...

Right. Which part of option is the problem here? Don't like the option don't use it. That is how simple it is.

Agreed, I don't plan to use it. I have everyone on my staff testing alternatives now, because we need a tabletop to promote. Unfortunately none of them are as flashy as Fantasy Grounds, but apparently I am the only one here (locally, not on the fantasy grounds forum) that thinks the 3D dice are invaluable.

I know it appears that I am alone on my opinions here, but I know for a fact that people agree with the way I feel. There are Literally hundreds of people (237) to be exact that play in our rotating games, and out of those I have convinced 4 people to buy Fantasy Grounds. I can start a poll on the site to find out why but I can give a solid guess that it will have something to do with floating license keys. As all of them pay a monthly subscription fee on one of our sites, and most of them had no issues dolling out the cash for Battlegrounds (A VTT that is just not an option for me, I don't like it one bit, and have no reasons for not liking other than a simple fact that I don't like it).

unerwünscht

April 22nd, 2009, 09:48

Share your objections. Send them a private message with improvements or alternate plans. Please don't swear at me or anyone else here - this is too nice a board.

Sigurd

Look, I cant afford to break anymore fingers or monitors right now. These monitors cost me about $300 each, and my fingers I just set myself, but the pain is more than I really want to deal with at the moment.

I'm really not trying to get something for nothing here. And I even understand the analogy of $30 a month is less than what I spend on lunch in a week (its less than what I spend on lunch each day). In fact, it's about what I spend on cigarettes in a day, and those are doing nothing but killing me.

And I could probably write around a 300 page report on floating licenses, the various ways to handle them, the pros and cons for a company, the costs, functions, and analysis. But why would I? What do I get out of it? Are you going to pay me $75 an hour to do the research and write the report? Is Smite Works? Is anyone else here? The answer is no.... I could go on, but I am about to punch my last monitor, and the store doesnt open for another 3 hours.

Spyke

April 22nd, 2009, 09:52

Would the following idea be workable?

1. The Lite license is linked to a Fantasy Grounds account and anyone (the player or a third party such as a GM) can pay for credits to that account.

2. When a Lite license connects to a Full license the Fantasy Grounds account server is checked and a nominal amount is deducted permitting play within the next 24 hour period. Let's say 2$.

3. The first hour of the 24 hour period is free, after which the 2$ is deducted. This allows for situations where connectivity problems kill off the session, but is restrictive enough to make it frustrating for any group to use this to get round paying in the long term. It will also allow for short demos in any ruleset.

4. When the price of a Lite license has been paid through the player's account they get a registration number for that Lite license, and no longer need to pay to connect. They have effectively paid for their Lite license in instalments.

5. The option to upgrade from a Lite license to a Full license is always available.

This would seem to lower the barrier to trying out the program to an acceptable level. It also removes the other current obstacle that we've not touched on yet in this thread which is that some prospective buyers are put off because they don't want to spend the full amount on a GM license without playing first, but don't want to waste their money on a Lite license that they can't convert.

One thing that might cause a problem here is that any credit card charges would be applied against each amount paid in, which would reduce the profit to SmiteWorks. I don't know whether linking this to PayPal would get round this issue.

Spyke

Spyke

April 22nd, 2009, 10:29

I've realised that the account server would also need to check the player's IP address to prevent users hopping between multiple accounts to play for free.

What are the issues around this?

Spyke

unerwünscht

April 22nd, 2009, 11:42

I've realised that the account server would also need to check the player's IP address to prevent users hopping between multiple accounts to play for free.

What are the issues around this?

Spyke

Well just for starters, we went from paying around $30 a month for the games I run to around $460 a month give or take. But other than that.... who am I kidding I didn't honestly consider it any further than that.

Edit: and now that I have sent Spyke a PM, and thought about it a little more. How much would it cost for my company to purchase Fantasy Grounds? $100,000? We would of course include a royalties package in the purchase for Smite Works.

Spyke

April 22nd, 2009, 12:44

Well just for starters, we went from paying around $30 a month for the games I run to around $460 a month give or take.True, it doesn't work so well for you, but you're looking for a model where you can run FG sessions where the licenses are free to the player, and where you're expecting an unusually high volume of players. You'd need to GM 38 sessions with 6 players in each during the month to hit the $460 vs $30 comparison between the models.

At an average of 4 hours a session that would be 152 hours of GMing each month, or 19 man-days. You indicate above that you're charging a subscription for membership of your rotating games, so presumably this means that the players are paying for your time as GM.

As you say, what it looks like you need is a licensed VT engine to support your own sites' activities.

Spyke

unerwünscht

April 22nd, 2009, 18:31

True, it doesn't work so well for you, but you're looking for a model where you can run FG sessions where the licenses are free to the player, and where you're expecting an unusually high volume of players. You'd need to GM 38 sessions with 6 players in each during the month to hit the $460 vs $30 comparison between the models.

At an average of 4 hours a session that would be 152 hours of GMing each month, or 19 man-days. You indicate above that you're charging a subscription for membership of your rotating games, so presumably this means that the players are paying for your time as GM.

As you say, what it looks like you need is a licensed VT engine to support your own sites' activities.

Spyke

That's about right. What you are overlooking is that I have 6 people here in the office that each run games for our "geek" site. And I am not looking to make the license free to the player. I am looking to give the player a free seat for awhile till they can make the honest choice to purchase a license on their own (with luck a full license, and more floating keys).

But seeing your point is why I have offered to actually purchase Fantasy Grounds. I will have no problems selling the 3,000 licenses that I will need to make my money back, and I would be very surprised if Smite Works sells 3,000 keys a year. So it could be a better move for them in the end.

Tristram

April 22nd, 2009, 19:25

unerwünscht

April 22nd, 2009, 20:06

I have been reading this thread and it seems that the big problem is that the GM pays for everything. The players testing out the system get to playtest for free. That is the problem I would try to fix. If a player wants to try the system for free they can check out the free demo and probably get someone to show them around the demo. Playing in a game, however, is a better way to see if you want to purchase FGII. For that I think the player should pay the cost of the floating license. It is a nominal fee compared to committing to purchase one's own license. If a player isn't willing to put up a little money to test out a real game then they probably aren't serious about buying it at all. Furthermore, maybe the money they put towards the floating license could give them a discount on when they purchase their own license. This way the GM isn't financially burdened and hopefully everyone is happy, except for those who want a free VTT.

-Tristram

My issue has nothing to do with the GM paying for the keys, I am looking for a way for me to pay for the keys in fact. The issue is that in the real world when you go an buy a gaming table to play D&D on (I know almost everyone just uses the dinning room table) but still you do not have to buy a new table for every single player you have. You buy just one table and a set of chairs, and sit people down. The same should be true of the VTT community.

The GM buys the table (the full version) and he buys some chairs (floating lite licenses) to go with his table. Then the players sit in those chairs and play their game. Now if they would like to run a game (most of the would) they run off and buy a table and chairs of their own.

Phystus

April 22nd, 2009, 23:47

The table analogy only holds if you're playing at the GM's house. ;)

And in the real world the players bring snacks and sodas for the GM! I miss that... :D

~P

unerwünscht

April 23rd, 2009, 00:01

You bring snacks and sodas for the GM? We live in the same state, would you like to join one of my games?

Tristram

April 23rd, 2009, 07:04

When I read-

The GM buys the table (the full version) and he buys some chairs (floating lite licenses) to go with his table. Then the players sit in those chairs and play their game. Now if they would like to run a game (most of the would) they run off and buy a table and chairs of their own.
It makes me think that the GM is the only one paying for FGII. The players get to play for free. That doesn't seem right to me. The players should pay instead since its the GM that does most of the work setting up the game.:D And in my 29 years of gaming I have found that few players become GMs. Players like being players and GMs like being GMs. This is especially true if you can play for free instead of paying to GM.

The dining room table analogy is a bit odd. I would use the analogy of the GM who buys all the rulebooks, dice, miniatures, etc. and the players get to use them for free. Been there and done that with no complaint. I didn't, however, expect any gaming company to give me free, or discounted, copies of Players Handbooks to hand out.

My comment was about how it seems the problem is how much this will cost GMs. My suggestion was to have the players pay for the floating licenses. If a GM wants to pay then that is up to the GM.

If a player pays then he gets a month of usage at 5 dollars? That's far cheaper than going to 1 movie. That player could then play in as many games as he could find and try out different GMs and rulesets. He could see how different people use FGII. The only limit would be how many GMs are running demos or one-shot adventures. Some GMs might allow a player to log on to a game and watch without being a PC. Once the player finds he likes FGII then he could buy it and maybe get the 5 dollars discounted from his purchase price. And I'd point out to any prospective player that FGII is a one time buy vs an ongoing monthly subscription and not much more expensive than buying one gaming rulebook. You get free updates, can create your own rulesets, and have access to a lot of great, free, content made by other FGII owners.

-Tristram

unerwünscht

April 23rd, 2009, 07:31

I think I am going to try and tell my players that I am switching to a new game system. and that they have to buy the books for me, and see what happens.... This should be interesting.

Spyke

April 23rd, 2009, 07:48

My suggestion was to have the players pay for the floating licenses. If a GM wants to pay then that is up to the GM.That's my suggestion too, see post 36 above. Though if a player is paying then it isn't really a 'floating' license. I suggested that the model should allow the player to pay for a Lite license in instalments.

Spyke

Tristram

April 23rd, 2009, 19:08

I think I am going to try and tell my players that I am switching to a new game system. and that they have to buy the books for me, and see what happens.... This should be interesting.
Tell me how it goes. In my experience players are just a bunch of freeloaders! They want the GM to buy all the books and stuff. They want the GM to spend hours coming up with interesting adventures and campaigns. The GM has to make sure each player has a good time in the adventure and listen to complaints if they don't like the game. And the GM has to deal with players showing up only when they feel like it.

Now they want to use FGII for free and have the GM foot the bill?

Don't they know they should treat their GMs like gods or, at least, minor celestials that are able to read rules and modules, created by paid writers, and then take the credit for good time had by all?

(The above are the fevered ramblings of a long time GM and do not represent the feelings of the person who wrote them.:confused: :p )

But I digress. Essentially I think the floating license (or rent-to-own license) should have a cost, to pay for the great work of SmiteWorks. Both GMs and players should have the option of paying for the license. And encouragement for new GMs to join will naturally bring in players rather than the other way around.

Sorry, Spyke, for not giving you credit for stating this idea first. I agree with you. And for those who disagree, that's what this forum is about. I'm sure SmiteWorks will take in all the opinions and ideas and come up with a plan that works for the majority.

FGII, like life, is a work in progress.
-Tristram

longarms

April 23rd, 2009, 20:40

"Now they want to use FGII for free and have the GM foot the bill?"

I think you raise a valid point - how will they address leechs on the community, e.g. a person that never buys the software, and has no intention, but is happy to keep playing in games with floating licenses.

You identified a valid problem. Its not an issue of fairness either (as you presented it), but an issue for fostering a good community.

If people such as the above join the community in large, I don't think that will good for the long term interests of the developers. If such people were a small minority, of course it would be a big deal, but I'm not sure how you go about predicting that.

EDITING: looking back at the first post of this thread, I see that Ged seems to be aware of this potential problem. He hand waved it away though, lol, see "As it is subscription based, players will probably be more aware that using the floating license seat is not the standard way they should attend games, i.e. GMs should not be expected to provide the seat. " I guess its their prediction that it will "only be a small minority" of people that operate as leechs... I guess we'll see soon enough whether this prediction is correcT!

Invain63

April 26th, 2009, 03:51

When I read-
I would use the analogy of the GM who buys all the rulebooks, dice, miniatures, etc. and the players get to use them for free. Been there and done that with no complaint. I didn't, however, expect any gaming company to give me free, or discounted, copies of Players Handbooks to hand out.
-Tristram

You hit pretty close to the mark here. In my group we rotate GMs and play lots of different games. The GM buys all the source books to run a new game - including one player book for the players to share. If a particular player loves the game then he/she may go out and buy a copy for themselves. That is great but doesn't help the GM much, though.

Once a GM buys source books he/she can run the game with many different groups of people. The lack of floating licenses means that I, as GM, have to buy all the lite licenses because my players don't want to spend their money on a game that we may wind up only playing once. No problem. I just bought all the licenses that I expected to need at one time, getting the volume discount. It wasn't cheap, but I have payed as much before to buy rule books for a new game (GURPS Traveller).

Because my FG lite licenses don't float I am forced to install the client for each player (so he/she doesn't know the key) and then uninstall it after we are done. That is pretty tedious and annoying. And actually impossible if my player in Japan participates! (I would have to just give him a license to keep, I guess.) If a player likes FG then he/she may eventually go out and buy a personal copy, which is great if it happens. It doesn't help me much, though.

What I would really prefer is the option to buy a master FG full version (at a higher price than the standard full version) that comes with four crippled lite licenses that can only connect to me. Then if my players decide that they want a personal copy of the lite license that they can customize and use for other games than mine then they can buy it themselves.

The proposed floating license setup would be good for adding an unexpected extra player to a game. If this were in place now I might have only bought three lite licenses. I am not sure if this is a consequence that would benefit SmiteWorks.

It only takes a couple of months of float licenses for the money paid to equal the cost of a bulk purchased lite license. This means that I would only use the float license one month and if the player liked it enough to continue one or the other of us would buy a regular lite license.

As I think about it, I might have just purchased the GM version and run the game entirely on float licenses for one month to test the waters. If FG doesn't work out for us I am out $60 instead of $100. If it does work out, then the money I loose in float licenses and lost bulk purchase discount for the GM copy would be like an "insurance premium". My decision on which way to start would depend on how much confidence I have that my game group will like playing with FG. Likewise, offering this option would indicate SmiteWorks' confidence in their product. :)

-KP

Oberoten

April 26th, 2009, 07:41

WELL Said. :)

- Obe

Sigurd

April 26th, 2009, 17:59

I have to say

1) I won't subsidize my players - I spend too many hours making up the adventures for them. I have good courteous players. All but one have DM'd before and they know how much work they're not doing. The remaining one is Dming now.

2) I don't mind a small hurdle to entry - I worry about what will happen to the average dedication of players if some have not had to do anything or pay anything to play. This is part of what I like about the basic fee structure. A lite license is not expensive and its a great deal.
I have heard stories of players simply disappearing or showing up so infrequently that they detract from sessions. I'm not eager for the players who wont invest even a little.

It is a good thing for the program to grow. It is not a good thing if the gaming experience is hurt by spoiled players without any courtesy. Of course I'm speaking to nobody in particular but rather to the worst common denominator.

The other issue, in my mind, is the mistaken perception that this online gaming experience will be like the Warcraft or some such. I don't want bored people that don't understand judging human DMs harshly and then poisoning their friends with comparisons to Diablo. With no commitment required they may not hang around long enough to judge FG fairly or they may have a DM they don't like and quit.

I think the license is sort of a passport into the group. It shows a little commitment. I'm content to draw my players from people who have joined this group. Fortunately, my immediate friends did join. If they hadn't I'd still be playing the community has lots of interesting people.

Sigurd

unerwünscht

April 26th, 2009, 19:51

Tristram

April 27th, 2009, 00:49

Interestingly enough, I am having trouble finding players who are willing to pay to play. See for yourself HERE (https://fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10172). Maybe you will have better luck than I, but I think I am going to have to bite the big one, and buy yet another book for my gaming group.
I am not sure why you are posting this here? If I understand your problem correctly, no one wants to pay to play one session of one particular game system at one particular time and day. And they evidently would already need to own FGII.

This thread is about people paying, the same amount you're asking for, so that a license could be used as much as wanted for a month in whatever rulesets the GM has at various times and days the GM is willing to play. And the players wouldn't need to already own FGII.

Sounds like comparing apples and oranges.

-Tristram

unerwünscht

April 27th, 2009, 01:01

I am not sure why you are posting this here? If I understand your problem correctly, no one wants to pay to play one session of one particular game system at one particular time and day. And they evidently would already need to own FGII.

This thread is about people paying, the same amount you're asking for, so that a license could be used as much as wanted for a month in whatever rulesets the GM has at various times and days the GM is willing to play. And the players wouldn't need to already own FGII.

Sounds like comparing apples and oranges.

-Tristram

No sir, the current debate is about the Game Master floating the entire bill for the gaming group. And if we are going to draw that line, makes since to me that the gaming group split all costs. So instead of just having them pay for their license to Fantasy Grounds, lets start having them pay a percentage of the Adventure Modules, and rulesets, and token packs, and everything else we game masers had to purchase... It's only fair right?

Oberoten

April 27th, 2009, 03:13

Tristram

April 27th, 2009, 06:43

No sir, the current debate is about the Game Master floating the entire bill for the gaming group. And if we are going to draw that line, makes since to me that the gaming group split all costs. So instead of just having them pay for their license to Fantasy Grounds, lets start having them pay a percentage of the Adventure Modules, and rulesets, and token packs, and everything else we game masers had to purchase... It's only fair right?
I am glad you see the point about splitting the cost so the GM doesn't pay for everything. As you can see it does seem fair.

The difference between your version and mine is I would ask that players only pay a portion for the stuff they want. If there is a specific module they'd like to play, a ruleset they want to use, or specific tokens they want use then it makes sense that they help pay. This happened often in my face-to-face games. Someone might want to play a new module, new game or use some minis they found and they would buy them for the group to use even though they weren't the GM.

Now, if the players aren't the ones asking to play a specific module, a new ruleset, or use certain tokens, they shouldn't pay for what they didn't need. If a GM decides he wants to use some of this stuff then he should pay. Or, if he doesn't have the money or want to buy something the group might not want, he could ask for a donation to use for that which the whole group will get enjoyment from.

I don't think a GM should force players to pay for something they didn't ask for and don't need to enjoy the game. After all, FGII comes with a ruleset, with free ones available from the community. FGII comes with tokens, with free ones available from the community. And a GM can find plenty of free adventures which he can use with FGII by scanning maps, copy and paste text, etc.

The only thing that players really need is a lite license and so how to work payment for that is the question. Everyone has an opinion on how to handle this and, of course, everyone thinks their opinion is the best solution. If they didn't like their own opinion they wouldn't have it in the first place. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

-Tristram

unerwünscht

April 27th, 2009, 07:22

zWolf

April 30th, 2009, 22:18

First position:

...It makes me think that the GM is the only one paying for FGII. The players get to play for free. That doesn't seem right to me. The players should pay instead since its the GM that does most of the work setting up the game.

-Tristram

then a bit later:

... Essentially I think the floating license (or rent-to-own license) should have a cost, to pay for the great work of SmiteWorks. Both GMs and players should have the option of paying for the license. And encouragement for new GMs to join will naturally bring in players rather than the other way around.

-Tristram

I haven't been on the boards for a while, but... what I do read in this thread makes me somewhat sad.

It seems that a debate has sprung up as to whether or not DM's should have the option of providing licenses for their players. No one is suggesting that a DM would be FORCED to purchase product for their players but some of us honestly and truly desire to at least have that as an option.

If you are of the opinion that you'd never buy a book / module / program for your players, those of us hoping for the option to do so are not asking you, who do not wish to, to give that position up.

you may disagree with, and ridicule us for wanting to provide for our groups, but, I just don't understand why you would want to prevent us from having that option? does it some how infringe upon your ability to ask your players to pay for their own light licenses or something?

I want to get several of my friends into playing who have never RP'd before, but live far away now. a VTT is a great tool I can use to accomplish that. as of now, I have purchased 8 light licenses for them to use.

I have other friends and other systems that I would like to use, however, I am not willing to afford light licenses each time I want to recruit a new player to the game. I desperately want the opportunity to offer a floating spot to my games. I am so exited that Smite is considering offering that to us.

The arguments against such an offering baffles me, as I understand it nothing would change to the status queue, but an option would be added that would accommodate some of us that really want to see it.

When I am using books, I can buy extras to be used by players that don't have books, I loan them out - then if they drop, or the players change, I can get the books back from the first person I loaned them too, and loan them to other players. I am exited to see on the horizon

I just ask for some support from what I see as a great community for those of us that want that option. please don't try to take that away from us. or if you do want to take it away, please have a better reason than you just don't want to use that option... because you don't HAVE to use the option, we just want it to be one.

anyway, my 'quotes' up there at the top were just to show that even some one that seems to be against the option, later in another post seems to amend his position on the matter admitting that it would be ok for the DM's that want to fork out the dough to pay for floating licenses for their players. If he can do it I hope that we all can.

thanks for listening to my request for community support on this matter.

zWolf -out.

Tristram

May 1st, 2009, 06:23

Wait? So its ok to want free stuff? As long as its free to everyone? So if Fantasy Grounds was a free application all together you would be ok with it. But floating licenses are not cool because you (the DM) has to pay for something, while the players do not? Is that right?
Sigh:rolleyes: ...of course it is ok to want free stuff. This is the age of the entitlement generation after all. And there are some nice, free VTTs out there. I, personally, support the idea of having a minimal cost to prevent some from taking advantage of SmiteWorks since I think they've earned some payment for what they have given all of us gamers. I am sorry if my posts have not been clear in showing that what I am not "cool" with is GMs paying being the only option. It makes more sense to me to have the Players pay for the license but if the GM chooses to be the one that pays then that is ok too. I hope that clears my position up for you? If not, at this point, it is probably best to just agree to disagree. I don't think that a social occasion need become warfare.

-Tristram

Tristram

May 1st, 2009, 07:12

unerwünscht

May 1st, 2009, 09:04

Sigh:rolleyes: ...of course it is ok to want free stuff. This is the age of the entitlement generation after all. And there are some nice, free VTTs out there. I, personally, support the idea of having a minimal cost to prevent some from taking advantage of SmiteWorks since I think they've earned some payment for what they have given all of us gamers. I am sorry if my posts have not been clear in showing that what I am not "cool" with is GMs paying being the only option. It makes more sense to me to have the Players pay for the license but if the GM chooses to be the one that pays then that is ok too. I hope that clears my position up for you? If not, at this point, it is probably best to just agree to disagree. I don't think that a social occasion need become warfare.

-Tristram

I agree with you 100%, there should be the option for a GM to buy a floating license (not rent it), and the option for a player to buy his own license. But seeing as the full license as it exists now will connect to a game, and the limited functionality that one gets with the lite license as it is now, I see no reason for anyone to honestly buy the lite license. I however encourage all of my players to purchase the full license, and hope that smite works chooses to support the purchasing of floating licenses.

zWolf

May 4th, 2009, 03:54

zWolf, I am sorry if I came off as suggesting that GMs shouldn't have the option of paying for the floating licenses. That was not my intention. The debate started, for me, over whether the floating licenses should be free or not. In the original example of how the floating licenses would be set up the GM would be the only one paying. There was an opinion that this would cost a GM quite a bit and so the floating licenses should be free. I, personally, think it makes sense for there to be a minimal cost, for reasons I have already stated. My solution, for a GM that didn't want to pay for floating licenses, was that the players should pay for the floating licenses but if it can be set up to work either way then that would be the best of both worlds.

As I understand the proposal, the DM buying / renting floating licenses just provides players who have not purchased a license the option to join games that the DM with Floating licenses is hosting.

A player that wishes to pay for his own light can join the DM's game with out using one of the floating license 'slots'.

That means that the player CAN play like your hoping... like he can right now.. in other words nothing will change on that front. The only thing that is added, is the option for GM's to pay for Players to join.

It makes the cost actually reasonable instead of un-reasonable were the DM to have to buy a new light license every time a new player joined his game.

The benefit to smite works comes in that more players will be exposed to their software, and if the players want to play in any games where the DM's don't provide floating licenses, then those players will need to buy at least a light license. it all sounds wonderful to me. I just can't wait for it to become a reality.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to finding a way to give people a true demo of the product so they can decide if they want to buy without giving away the product for free or putting the cost solely on the GM.

-Tristram

on this, I think that as it is currently proposed, the cost would fall squarely on the DM's shoulders - as he would have to pony up the 5 bucks (or what ever,) for the floating license that would allow a player to join his game.

However, it does sound like a great suggestion that perhaps the full DM license include one floating license for free or something. That would satisfy your request for sure, allowing DM's to demo the games for people.

It was a Demo that finally sold me on the product! so it certainly sounds like a sound business investment, good idea.

thanks,

zWolf -out.

johniba

May 4th, 2009, 13:20

How about this:

I know the main concern from the company here might be that by offering the floating license option, they would be going through a bad marketing decision, since I believe, most of their revenue comes from lite licenses (being natural since there are probably more players then GMs)

I wonder, maybe they could sell floating licenses, but limited offers...

What I mean is: offer the option to buy floating licenses for a limited time, or maybe a limited number of licenses, for a limited time.

Maybe open up this option from time to time, as they see fit.

zWolf

May 4th, 2009, 18:59

...We are planning a subscription based floating license system.

...As I said, this will probably not receive everyone's cheer, but it is a way we could go ahead with floating licenses as well as give some protection to the GMs purse. There are technical as well as legal issues with the model we have to sort out before even beginning to implement any of this. We also have other things in the pipeline before any of this, but we wanted to share some thoughts already early on. We would like to hear any comments or feedback, those will be read and considered (and if the feedback is unanimously condemning, we might still pull the whole idea).

Thanks in advance,

Ged,

I know that it has only been a month, but, on the flip side, it has been a month and there has been feedback here on the forums regarding the suggestion... I'm just wondering after a month of evaluating the communities comments and feedback, how does the team feel about the whole idea?

is it still something that your looking to go forward with?

If yes, can you give a 'ball park' estimate as to when, the community might see it's implementation? i.e.

1) sometime this month.
2) a target release of 3rd quarter 2009.
3) sometime next year.
4) we plan to release it simultaneously to the release of wizards VTT ...in other words, *never :- P *

thanks for any input sir!

zWolf -out.

Sigurd

May 4th, 2009, 21:24

I think its great that people get their say. And I'm grateful to Smite Works for making this so public and giving us such freedom to tell them what to do. They really are being very open minded.

I just want to say, because in their place I'd hate to have to say this myself, that there are realities and goals that we as customers are completely not party to.

I don't think anyone on this list wants to harm the company that brought us this product.

We realize that you're talking about the details of an idea, not a plan, and certainly not a promise.

We know there are issues, like piracy, profit, etc... that frankly we don't have to worry about but you do.

As vocally as we may talk about 'our solutions' to this situation we know we're only talking but you'd be doing. Smite Works is going to see any financial impact - not us.

I hope these views are generally held. We appreciate you hearing us and we love the program.

Sigurd
(who has said his piece in this thread)

zWolf

May 4th, 2009, 21:46

Amen Sigurd

unerwünscht

May 4th, 2009, 23:47

We know there are issues, like piracy, profit, etc... that frankly we don't have to worry about but you do.

That was kinda my idea behind an affiliate program. If we stand to make a gain, even a small one that doesn't really matter much in the end.., something like token sets (I would be willing to donate some BTW) or other small addons even, I think the average user would be a little more aggressive with ant-piracy. At that point the pirate is not only stealing from smite works, but potentially steeling an affiliate sale from each and everyone of us.

Its also part of the idea behind the floating license structure, if it has to be passed through the SW server, it will be more difficult to pirate. However, I think the "rental" structure that has been suggested will have the opposite effect and will end up encouraging piracy more.

Invain63

May 7th, 2009, 15:07

We know there are issues, like piracy, profit, etc... that frankly we don't have to worry about but you do.

As vocally as we may talk about 'our solutions' to this situation we know we're only talking but you'd be doing. Smite Works is going to see any financial impact - not us.

Actually, we do see the financial impact. A cash starved SmiteWorks isn't as proactive on development and support. A bankrupt SmiteWorks means a product with no future - or at least a very very uncertain one. Wanting SmiteWorks to be as profitable as possible is enlightened self-interest.

-Kevin McD

Ged

May 7th, 2009, 20:43

I know that it has only been a month, but, on the flip side, it has been a month and there has been feedback here on the forums regarding the suggestion... I'm just wondering after a month of evaluating the communities comments and feedback, how does the team feel about the whole idea?

The feedback hasn't been discouraging enough to make us scrap the idea :) However, to your disappointment, I cannot comment on the hows and whens at this point. We haven't done anything concrete on these regards yet.

Bidmaron

May 8th, 2009, 00:16

I'd like to register that I am in favor of the proposal. It might not be perfect, but it is better than we have now.

zWolf

May 8th, 2009, 07:08

The feedback hasn't been discouraging enough to make us scrap the idea :) However, to your disappointment, I cannot comment on the hows and whens at this point. We haven't done anything concrete on these regards yet.

Ged, I'm happy to know that it's still on the 'consider as a possibility' pile! thanks for keeping the hope alive for us pulling for it!

zWolf -out.

Valarian

May 8th, 2009, 08:29

Having considered this carefully, I must say that I'm not as keen on a subscription model as that of a one-off purchase of a floating license. However, if this is the only way to get this functionality without damaging sales of FGII for SmiteWorks, then I'm for it. It would give me the option to run some open demonstration games for future FUMCon events, beyond the current demo restrictions of two players and d20 ruleset.

I would caveat that by saying that, as a GM, I'd want a way to turn the floating licenses off for a game that wasn't open. An option tick-box at game start would be fine.

unerwünscht

May 8th, 2009, 08:45

I would have to say that if the "rental" structure is the end structure, I will bite the bullet and take my business elsewhere. There are other VTT's out there that do a fine job, and tho the 3D dice of FG are absolutely awesome, they are in no way awesome enough to justify the price difference between Fantasy Grounds and some of the other options available.

Oberoten

May 8th, 2009, 09:17

While the subscription option isn't one I will use, I can see how it makes sense.

After all, nothing stops me from buying a car even if I can also rent it.

- Obe

unerwünscht

May 8th, 2009, 10:53

While the subscription option isn't one I will use, I can see how it makes sense.

After all, nothing stops me from buying a car even if I can also rent it.

- Obe

That's almost exactly my point. Why would I rent floating licenses for Fantasy Grounds when I can buy them for Battlegrounds, or any number of other products?

Blurr

May 23rd, 2009, 07:42

I realize I may be bringing up a dead horse or whatever, but as a new player (hopefully soon DM) who is looking to buy into FG I thought I could add my point of view.

I have played with OpenRPG before and it was adequate, but after trying the demo I really think FG is the way to go. It gives a lot more in terms of atmosphere for the players which really makes you feel the whole role playing game vibe. The 3d dice, the wood finish background, the lighting effects. These things really make the program much better than the other products I've tried, just as an ambience for the game.

I am looking to buy a GM license, which is just a bit more than I'd like to spend. The problem is I'll be DMing for a group of players that have never played in FG before, if online at all, so it's a bit of a steep buy to just have each of them get their own licenses without knowing if they'll even like the game.

This is presumably where the floating license idea would come in. The problem I'm having though is if I buy a GM license, and then have 6 players play for a month on my floating license, that's 40 for the GM and then 30 for my players to try the product. That puts me out 70 bucks when I can't guarantee my players will even buy their own licenses the next month. I see both sides of the argument, because GMs want to be able to let people try out FG for less than the cost of a license, and 5 bucks is a cost that I could maybe cover as a limited or one time deal for a new player/group. Of course if I make the player pay that, then they also still have to pay the full 30 for a lite, as the whole floating monthly fee actually prohibits the use of the bundle deal. Let me say that again for effect.

It feels like the $5 monthly floating license, if used, completely negates any savings from a bundle deal, for the GM. (Or for that matter, a new player joining the group when everyone else already owns a license)

On the other side of the argument, I see what some people are saying. Yes sometimes I will buy a new game book or two for the group, and yes I am paying 40 bucks so they can play and not have to pay. However, after we're done playing, the book goes home with me. I think that's the problem people have with it. They pay their $5 and it just disappears, they don't really get anything in return for their money. Especially if the person just shows up 1 time or doesn't mesh with the group/whatever. When I pay for a floating license, I want something that I keep in return. The reason some people prefer a 1-time buy for a floating license that they keep, is that they don't lose out if the player doesn't work out. They would keep the license rather than buying a lite for the person who just leaves with it. That way they could reuse the license on someone that works out for the group.

Okay, so we've seen both sides of the argument, and both are valid points, now what? Well I have a solution. It's just an idea really, but I think both sides could agree on. This is predicated on the fact that SmiteWorks can credit someone with x amount of cash for their floating licenses, which I believe is possible because they said someone could pay $15 and have 3 people play for 1 month or 1 person for 3 months on the same $15. This would also require SmiteWorks to be able to know which floating licenses are connected to which GM license (which I assume they can do). Finally, this would require SmiteWorks to be able to take a floating license as a discount/coupon code in their online store (which I hope they can figure out how to do, if they can't already).

Solution:
1- GM buys a GM License for $40 (or discounted price based on bundle)
2- SmiteWorks credits the GM License with $40 (or discounted price as above) to their License to be used ONLY for Floating Licenses
3- GM then brings in players and can give them each a Unique Floating License tied to his own GM License (call it a Sub-License)
4- The Sub-Licenses can then play at $5 per month per license, taken out of the GM License credit (which he can then refill with his own cash, or let it run out)
5- The Sub-License can then be used to purchase a Lite (maybe Lite only?) at a discount of $5 (or something scaling preferably on # of months it was used) but CANNOT be used in a bundle discount.
6- Optionally, each Sub-License bought under a GM License rewards the GM License with a $5 credit to his Floating License account.

The numbers can be tweaked, but I think this solves a number of problems.
1 and 2 encourage the GM to be the first member of the group to buy, and also gives him added value for paying more, while also encouraging him to convert others. 4 allows new people to try the game while not spending more of the GMs money. The credit money from the initial license gets used up and doesn't actually lose SmiteWorks much because they can make it up through the lite being bought but not bundle discounted. The credit back to the GM encourages him to bring even more people in for more Lites. Everyone feels like they got some extra value from trying out the system, and since people still only have a finite amount of time to be on a floating license, they can get hooked without losing either the GM or SmiteWorks much money. Like I said, it's just a rough idea, and maybe someone in accounting can adjust it so SmiteWorks doesn't lose out at all on the deal.

This way, someone who plays for only 1 month or 1 session uses up the $5, but doesn't really hurt the GMs real wallet. In the case that someone ends up playing for 2 or more months, of course they're going to buy the full version rather than quit out of the game, especially when they get a $5 discount. This also helps new players join a group that already have licenses (since they couldn't get a bundle anyways). And if a bunch people all buy lite licenses at the same time with their $5 discount, they're each still getting a deal, but still paying more than the bundle, and still rewarding the GM back for using up his credit. Credit which he can then use to convert more followers, err, I mean players.

Anyways, i've probably gone on way too long, and it's just a rough idea, but I'm sure you could make something like that work. Help us help you sorta deal. We all want to see FG become more popular, and maybe SmiteWorks can stay as profitable or more so while they do it. All I ask in return is if you use my idea, think about tossing me a free GM license :D.

Hopeful future member of the Fantasy Grounds community,
-Blurr

Invain63

May 25th, 2009, 02:49

I realize I may be bringing up a dead horse or whatever, but as a new player (hopefully soon DM) who is looking to buy into FG I thought I could add my point of view.
-Blurr
And a worthy point of view it was, too. Thanks for sharing it with us!

-Kevin McD

MeepoSose

May 30th, 2009, 02:45

As has been stated earlier, my vote would be for an option to buy server licenses that allow X random people to connect to my license and play. They can install a client version that doesn't do anything until it connects to my server. My server copy is assigned a private key. When I'm ready to host, my server version gets a fresh public key for use with hosting from SmiteWorks. Each un-licensed user puts in my server address and when they connect, it uses their crippled private key to contact Smiteworks for the public key they need to connect to my server. If they try to connect to anyone else with the key it will fail and the software will remain crippled.

I've already tried to sell the use of FG2 to my groups and haven't gotten any takers. If I buy enough to host 5-person games, I'll probably end up getting a bunch of them to eventually buy full licenses of their own. Meanwhile I'll simply keep my floating licenses. If you want to reward the GM who brings in players like that, maybe reimburse them for every referral so they get part of their floating license cost back for each sell. Heck, if someone goes hog wild and ends up generating 1000 referrals, give them a small profit as well. It's not uncommon for a company to pay 15%-25% commission on any sales. They make money on every sell even with the commission and don't lose anything if they don't make any sells since they paid for the floating license up front anyway.

cryptoknight

June 9th, 2009, 20:46

As has been stated earlier, my vote would be for an option to buy server licenses that allow X random people to connect to my license and play.

If I buy enough to host 5-person games, I'll probably end up getting a bunch of them to eventually buy full licenses of their own. Meanwhile I'll simply keep my floating licenses.

I have to agree with this much of that message.

I came to the FG site having been sold on it by a user who uses it to run his table for a person to person game. He projects his maps and initiative board etc down on to a whiteboard and we play in his home.

He was confused on how licensing works. I had come to the site planning to buy 1 GM license and 6 lite licenses because he was convinced that I could plug those lite licenses into my GM server and I could let 6 people log into my server and play.

For an LFR player, this is awesome. I don't know who my 6 players at the table may be each weekend, but I don't have to care. They'd get to use the license while connected and we'd all be good. When they log out, their licenses deactivate unless they hit another server with roaming lite licenses.

I know who my core players are, and they'd very much likely buy FGII after getting to use it for a while. Which is fine, they'd pick up full licenses, and I'd still have floaters to cover potential new customers to FGII.

Of course then I found out how lite/full license work. I'm sorry, but that's not very useful for me when I'm trying to find a common denominator that I can use with LFR players. In a heartbeat, I'd drop $200 to buy 7 full licenses if necessary so that people plugging into my server could play games, but since I can't control who uses my licenses that way, I guess I'm stuck looking elsewhere.

unerwünscht

June 9th, 2009, 23:22

Of course then I found out how lite/full license work. I'm sorry, but that's not very useful for me when I'm trying to find a common denominator that I can use with LFR players. In a heartbeat, I'd drop $200 to buy 7 full licenses if necessary so that people plugging into my server could play games, but since I can't control who uses my licenses that way, I guess I'm stuck looking elsewhere.

I plan to hold out here another month or so, and see what smite works decides, if they can't make up their minds in that time, or they chose to go with license rental, I will be going to battlegrounds as previously mentioned. But you might want to take a look at battlegrounds, it's structure is what you are looking for.

Esperifiel

June 28th, 2009, 11:45

Totally new here, potential buyer.

I'm more than willing to pony up the cost for myself as the DM and five player licenses.

However, the issue is, I have no idea who will be playing from week to week.

Instead of a subscription service, why not this:

Sell me my DM seat plus 5 floating player seats.

When a player logs in with his free client, I approve or disapprove of him joining the game. When the 5 floating seats are filled, no more free clients can join. (Full clients can still join).

Solves the problem and gets rid of the whole subscription nightmare.

Spyke

June 28th, 2009, 11:55

Sell me my DM seat plus 5 floating player seats.

When a player logs in with his free client, I approve or disapprove of him joining the game. When the 5 floating seats are filled, no more free clients can join. (Full clients can still join).

Solves the problem and gets rid of the whole subscription nightmare.This is what most people want, Esperifiel, but Smiteworks have made it pretty clear that they don't want to go down the floating license route.

Can I refer people back to my earlier post (#36 (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=72795&postcount=36)) which has gone off the radar a bit, but which might still be worth some discussion. In it I suggested lowering the barrier to entry by charging players a nominal fee each time they play until they reach the price of a Lite license, at which point they own it. It would require setting up an account with Smiteworks, and an active server connection, so there are disadvantages, but maybe a workable mechanism could be found for this?

Spyke

Hamish

June 28th, 2009, 14:45

Looks to me that there are 3 kinds of groups using FG:

1. Real life friends that want to use FG to play with the same group every time. I think the current licensing scheme works fine for them, the GM can buy the Full and Lite licenses if he's willing to pay for it all, or he can buy a bundle and hand out the keys as players hand over the cash. No floating licenses required.
2. GM centered groups with changing players. In this case the GM is willing to pay for all required licenses for a game, but only if he can use the same licenses for another game with different players. Floating licenses would be bought by the GM to provide players with a free game.
3. Groups focused on trying out FG. The GM is willing to host a game so the players can try the game, and if they like it buy a lite license themselves. Floating licenses would be bought by the player to connect to a series of games to try out FG.

Now the trick seems to be to invent a licensing model that satisfies everyone. I'll give it a shot.

Obviously every player playing in a game should have a valid license, but to satisfy everyone, it must be possible for both the player and the GM to provide it. So here's my proposal:

A. The GM purchases a Full license, and can optionally buy a 'true' floating license for each player he wants to provision for in his games. In my opinion, since these licenses allow many people to play (although not concurrently) they should be quite expensive. I'd say maybe the price of 3 or 4 Lite licenses.
B. The player either buys a Lite license, or installs FG without a license. When connecting to a host, if the player does not have a Lite license installed, the GM can approve the player to use one of his floating licenses, or require him to go to the FG website to get a 'temporary' license. Let's say something like $2 for 24h.

The demo program should still be available so the GM can try out the game without paying for it.

JamesWOD

July 6th, 2009, 21:37

Quick note, I also fall into the "Willing to buy 1 GM and 4 Player licenses, but I own them, not rent them".

I certainly would support a authentication check to a Smite Works server reaffirming that the players that connect to my game either 1) Own their own license or 2) Are using a license I bought.

That being said I would potentially be open to a subscription based service if it was fair and reasonable. I probably spend more on latte's each week then I would for a month of the subscription anyway.

Either way I'm going to hold out on buying FG for now. I had made a post today asking about this very question and I'm glad I found this thread. Sadly I do not think any of my friends will buy this on their own untested and frankly I'm only interested in running a nWOD game, not a demo of D&D. If there comes a day I can buy a GM license and also buy/rent licenses to give to my players for the duration of my game (and only my game), then I will be back!

Cheers!

~ JamesWOD

unerwünscht

August 5th, 2009, 02:23

Well since it doesn't look like they care about those of us wanting floating licenses here, let me know if you would like a demonstration of Battlegrounds.

EugeneZ

August 5th, 2009, 06:00

The devs have officially said they will be keeping up with this thread and considering the system hasn't been implemented, it would make perfect sense that they are reading all responses. I think it's not very fair to say they don't care when all proof shows to the contrary. Id' hope you'd give them a chance before you try to promote a competing product on their own forum (which is just never a polite thing to do, even if its not against the rules or outright wrong).

unerwünscht

August 5th, 2009, 06:51

For a month this thread went without a post. It has been 3 months since the devs last commented on a floating license system. I think its safe to say they do not care about those of us who want one.

Seeing as other companies not only support floating licenses, but answer the call of their users. I think it is more than fair at this point to say "Hey, this is not working the way we would like it to work, Would anyone like to try something that might?"

P.S.
And oh... seeing as the other company in question supports floating licenses its not like anyone else has to purchase anything.

Oberoten

August 5th, 2009, 08:24

Oh I just figured the idea might have been abandoned since so many seemed rather violently oposed to it since they couldn't get it tailored to their own ideas of how things should work.

- Obe

MeepoSose

August 5th, 2009, 15:02

EugeneZ

August 5th, 2009, 18:09

Agreed with MeepoSose here. No need to jump ship, SmiteWorks has always been quiet and slow. They'll get around to it and I'm sure they'll give your system of choice the consideration it's due.

cryptoknight

August 7th, 2009, 17:38

I have a strong suspicion they will be addressing this in the near future. I realize people are sitting on the fence over this issue right now and have been waiting for a resolution for some time, but I think we can all agree that a suitable Fantasy Grounds based solution would be much better than using an inferior product simply due to licensing issues.

It wouldn't be the first time. In the corporate software landscape, licensing in a way that meets the customers' needs is a feature of the software itself. Several times I've seen an inferior product win out over a superior one because the licensing terms were more flexible. Especially with regard to concurrent vs named licenses.

unerwünscht

August 7th, 2009, 18:00

joshuha

August 7th, 2009, 20:40

There are a lot of things that factor into "the better product"
From the product itself, to licensing, to official support, to "addons and modules"

And I can say without question Fantasy Grounds is currently falling short on 3 of those 4, and questionably falling short on the 4th at this point. It is quickly becoming and inferior product.

I'd be interested to see the user numbers compared to the other main pay VTTs out there. Doubt any of them would release those figures though. I do agree though that a floating license scheme would serve to bring more people in. I was very close to purchasing Klooge when I first was looking years ago but after scanning the activity on their boards I settled with FG.

unerwünscht

August 7th, 2009, 21:12

Don't get me wrong, I honestly believe with a little work Fantasy Grounds could become "The Best" product on the market again. A true floating license system would help a lot with that.

Visually (in my opinion) Fantasy Grounds is worlds above any of the other products I have seen. However some of the others at this point support things like simulated Miniature War games (I.E D&D Mini's and Warhammer 40K), something that is very difficult to actually pull off with Fantasy Grounds. I have also seen support in other VTT's for trading card games such as Magic and Naruto, as far as I know something that can not be done in any way with Fantasy Grounds.

Other things I have seen in other products that Fantasy Grounds just doesnt do: "Fog of War", PDF support, Voice/Video support, MP3 Support, Map Tiles, More robust token rotation, Token Binding (like locking one token to another token), Token Cycling (I.E. stage 1 standing, stage two hiding, stage three dead etc..), Automated map conditions (such as torch light, night vision, blindsight etc...)

This list keeps going, but I think my point is valid. Most of the features would be very easy for Smite Works to incorporate into Fantasy Grounds, but for whatever reason (and there are many valid reasons) they have not.

I can understand that there may not be enough users to justify the time required to make said changes. I can understand that Smite Works is only a few guys, working on Fantasy Grounds part time. I could even understand if it happened to be an issue of they dislike me so much they do not want to acknowledge any feature ideas that I come up with, but no matter what the reason, Fantasy Grounds has gone from "King of the Hill" in the VTT market to being a second rate application.

Spyke

August 8th, 2009, 07:19

What I see has happened over the last year is slightly different. There is no one first rate application. The main VTs are getting differentiated by the niche where they excel. Fantasy Grounds is the front runner by a long way for atmosphere, text chat-based roleplay and campaign management within the GUI. That defines the way a large number of people want to play.

Other VTs lead the field in things like tactical miniature play, audio/video support, pdf and web support which can expose external file structures to the game, etc.

So, at the moment, talking of being second rate is premature as there's no one application that does everything better.

What's true is that none of the developers can rest on their laurels, the market is mature enough for each to understand where their feature set lags behind, and the arrival of that first rate application is probably not too far away.

Spyke

unerwünscht

August 8th, 2009, 09:21

Isn't that what I said?

Spyke

August 8th, 2009, 10:47

Nope. ;)

... but no matter what the reason, Fantasy Grounds has gone from "King of the Hill" in the VTT market to being a second rate application.

You said it had already become second rate. My point was that no single competing VT had broadly surpassed it (or any other) yet, though I strongly suspect that this will happen during the next year.

Spyke

unerwünscht

August 8th, 2009, 18:29

You said it had already become second rate. My point was that no single competing VT had broadly surpassed it (or any other) yet, though I strongly suspect that this will happen during the next year.

Ok, now we are just splitting hairs :-)

I do agree, tho others have more features, the "visual experience" of Fantasy Grounds still has me holding onto the hope that someone can light a fire under that *rear ends* of the Smite Works Team, and get them to open their eyes and bring Fantasy Grounds up to date feature wise.

In all honesty with programs like ventrillo and yahoo they can skirt around the audio/video features for now, and focus on the token and map aspects of the application. However the floating license issue at hand in this thread is truly what will make or break them at this point.

I can say with utmost certainty that the rented license scheme originally announced will generate a few more sales for them, but will bring about the end of Fantasy Grounds as a legitimate table top alternative. Tho from everything I have seen at this point the clock is ticking against them. They only have till Epic Table is released if epic table lives up to what it looks like it will.

SolSec

August 12th, 2009, 07:51

mr_h,

The Full and the Lite licenses will remain as they are. The floating license will just be an additional option.

Sounds good if both options are available. In this way, the players who might spend a small bit of money (at first) to have a taste of 'floating license' admission into the games..... may eventually be tempted to purchase ownership of a full or light license.

VenomousFiligree

August 12th, 2009, 08:45

The feedback hasn't been discouraging enough to make us scrap the idea :) However, to your disappointment, I cannot comment on the hows and whens at this point. We haven't done anything concrete on these regards yet.
Any nearer to making an announcement on the way ahead?

Dupre

August 15th, 2009, 20:07

VenomousFiligree

August 15th, 2009, 20:15

zWolf

August 17th, 2009, 16:00

We have been actively developing the system for managing floating licenses and we expect it to be ready for release in the upcoming month or two. Details on the pricing structure will be available closer to release. We appreciate your patience.

I know it may not be the best use of posting space, but I just wanted to celebrate this post from the devs a little bit! So good to know that this is something that is being worked on!!

Thanks Dupre, for keeping the hope alive here!

zWolf - out.

johniba

August 26th, 2009, 21:43

My god!
Thank you Devs, really!
I am so happy.
Altough I have lots of friends, none regular players, and I cant wait to buy 5 licenses and run games.

The Canterbury Tail

September 14th, 2009, 22:19

Any more news with regards to this?

unerwünscht

September 15th, 2009, 00:24

As far as I can tell this will explain everything. "Full Disclosure" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

Zeus

September 15th, 2009, 07:37

As far as I can tell this will explain everything. "Full Disclosure" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

swine - you got me (good thing I have a sense of humor).

Oberoten

September 15th, 2009, 12:08

AGHHHH.... not just .... AGH... GAAAAH... Dual-Loss.

*headbutts keyboard*

unerwünscht

September 15th, 2009, 18:23

I know, it was a low blow, but I have been holding that one back for awhile now.

mr_h

September 15th, 2009, 18:52

AGHHHH.... not just .... AGH... GAAAAH... Dual-Loss.

*headbutts keyboard*

*whispers from the shadows*
Go ahead....do it, you know you want to. No court in the land would convict you...justifiable homicide...temporarily insane.......

:)

VenomousFiligree

October 3rd, 2009, 00:37

Looks like FUM are having another FUMCon end of october / begining of November, floating licenses would be ideal for this!

Phil

ddavison

October 15th, 2009, 18:56

There is a prototype developed that supports floating licenses, but I asked them to hold off on releasing it until the ownership change was finalized. For various reasons, that process took longer than expected. The prototype will probably need to be altered somewhat to support the model I expect to employ.

The floating license will require one full license along with X floating licenses which are linked to your full license. These licenses will allow X anonymous people to download a basic version of the application and connect with your full license. You can have X simultaneous connections active in addition to any other connections from Full and Lite licenses. The floating licenses will be a subscription model -- either renewed every 6 months or renewed every year.

Preliminarily, I am proposing something like the following:
Full License: Same cost
Floating License Subscriptions:
Qty Price 6-month renewal
1 $20.00 $10.00
2 $40.00 $20.00
3 $55.00 $27.50
4 $70.00 $35
5 $80.00 $40
6 $90.00 $45

There is additional server burden to provide the real time floating license to full license match which the 6-month renewal would address.

If a user finds that their regular users have all purchased their own licenses, they can reduce their subscription amount by decreasing the number of floating licenses they subscribe to.

Tenian

October 15th, 2009, 19:11

You say full licenses will be the same cost and then break down the floating options. Does this mean the Lite license will no longer be offered?

In other words if you had a static group of 4 players and 1 dm/gm, the most cost effective purchase would be 5 full licenses? As this option would avoid the recurring $35 fee?

ddavison

October 15th, 2009, 19:16

The lite license will remain an option for static groups. You could theoretically mix all 3 types together.

Invain63

October 15th, 2009, 19:40

<snip> These licenses will allow X anonymous people to download a basic version of the application and connect with your full license.

Are the basic and lite versions functionally equivalent? If not then what features might the basic version lack.

<snip>
Full License: Same cost

Is the Lite version cost remaining the same also?

Floating License Subscriptions: <snip>

If you let your floating licenses laps and then later want to renew them again would you have to start over with the base price or would you just pay the +6 months fee?

From a price comparison perspective, for the first six months this scheme offers an approximately $4 discount off the equivalent in bundle purchased Lite licenses. Thereafter it becomes significantly more expensive. It appears to be a slightly cheaper way to add an unexpected extra player or two.

The discount isn't so much that I personally would choose it over just buying a Lite license for my extra player. My game group is fairly stable and relatively small. Even if some of them didn't follow my instructions to uninstall their Lite license once the campaign is finished, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any of them would be trying to use their Lite license with some other Full License holder at the same time that I am running a game.

Other groups are no doubt different, so this is only a problem if my group is typical of FG2 groups in general.

Still, if it results in more business for Smite Works then more power to it.

-Kevin McDonald

ddavison

October 15th, 2009, 20:18

The lite license will remain the same price-wise for the time being. I have no plans to change that although I may look to provide a permanent lite to full upgrade path.

The Lite license will still be preferred when you don't mind the license being given to a specific user. As it is today, they are basically able to connect to any full license they want but you aren't able to swap them in and out for other players as a GM under the same license. It's a different beast and only appropriate for those people who need that sort of flexibility. Long term, there is a premium paid for that flexibility.

I actually imagine that for most DMs, they may keep a single floating license to allow someone to try their game before buying. In that regard it is superior to the demo license since you can connect with live games running custom rulesets along with other users who own a full or lite license. We may also look to institute some form of referral bonus credit that basically allows a GM to waive the cost of a floating license renewal for each referral that resulted in either a Lite or Full license sale.

Does the pricing seem reasonable so far?

ddavison

October 15th, 2009, 20:20

Are the basic and lite versions functionally equivalent? If not then what features might the basic version lack.

The basic version will be crippled in that it will only allow connections to GM's who have an open floating license. Otherwise I expect it will be the same.

If you let your floating licenses laps and then later want to renew them again would you have to start over with the base price or would you just pay the +6 months fee?

That's a good question. I will have to think about that some more before answering.

VenomousFiligree

October 15th, 2009, 20:29

We may also look to institute some form of referral bonus credit that basically allows a GM to waive the cost of a floating license renewal for each referral that resulted in either a Lite or Full license sale.

I GM a lot of [Savage Worlds] one shots with new players so would welcome the opportunity to both try and increase the player base of FG and benefit through that :)

Does the pricing seem reasonable so far?
To me, yes.

Invain63

October 15th, 2009, 22:33

The lite license will remain the same price-wise for the time being. I have no plans to change that although I may look to provide a permanent lite to full upgrade path.

Both statements receive the Kevin seal of approval!

The Lite license will still be preferred when you don't mind the license being given to a specific user. As it is today, they are basically able to connect to any full license they want but you aren't able to swap them in and out for other players as a GM under the same license. It's a different beast and only appropriate for those people who need that sort of flexibility. Long term, there is a premium paid for that flexibility.

Understood.

Please forgive my rambling - I am working this out in my head as I type this response. As it is, I have rewritten this email about 16 times. Ugh!

Just to be clear, I am observing that under the current system GMs with a small player base and/or infrequent FG2 hosted games will be tempted to give out the same Lite license to more than one player if both players are not in the same game at the same time. Under those circumstances the odds of a license conflict are vanishingly small. I understand that this is a violation of the FG2 license, but I am sure it happens. How often it happens I can't say. Being a pessimist, I assume that people will typically act according to their narrow self-interest.

That sort of GM is not likely to find the floating license scheme to be very attractive. As MurghBpurn observed, the floating license scheme *will* be attractive to GMs who have a large player base (ie run demos, etc) or play very frequently with a variety of players. Those GMs are much more likely to encounter license conflicts if they break their license and hand out Lites to all players.

If the GM always plays with the same players (ie no drop-in players) and gives each of them their own license then this isn't an issue. (That is my situation - 4 players, 4 Lite licenses, no problem.)

GMs that have popular ongoing games using FG2 are more likely to be able to get players to self-support than GMs like me that are just starting out and have a skeptical group of players to win over. For the popular FG2 GM the floating license would make tempting players to buy their own licenses that much easier, which is a good thing.

Otherwise, the up-front cost of 4 floating licenses isn't all that different from buying 4 Lites and the Lites don't have a recurring cost, so I would probably still buy the Lites if faced with the floating license scenario as described.

I actually imagine that for most DMs, they may keep a single floating license to allow someone to try their game before buying.

Maybe. It depends on how likely the GM is to have more than the just occasional drop-in player. The very occasional one or two drop-ins can be handled almost as cost effectively using Lite licenses - possibly more. I expect that the floating license program is of most benefit to the GMs that can potentially bring in lots of new customers. :)

<snip>We may also look to institute some form of referral bonus credit that basically allows a GM to waive the cost of a floating license renewal for each referral that resulted in either a Lite or Full license sale.

Now THAT could tip the value scales in favor of the floating license for lots of people. Please do give that serious consideration.

-Kevin McDonald

ddavison

October 15th, 2009, 23:22

Thanks for the feedback and keep it coming. I want to hear what people have to say about it -- even if it's a simple "I don't like it." or "I do like it."

unerwünscht

October 16th, 2009, 02:12

bislab

October 16th, 2009, 03:49

So to answer my one and only question, you plan on sticking to the rented license structure.... That is very unfortunate, but I will no longer have any use for Smite Works or Fantasy Grounds.

That being said, now that Autodesk vs. Vernor (https://www.lawupdates.com/summary/federal_judge_approves_ebay_auction_of_copyrighted _autodesk_autocad_design_) has affirmed that we may legally sell our used licenses, and with the luck of Smite Works being purchased by an American Company, I have roughly 3 Full, and 15 lite licenses that I am willing to sell for around $10 each to whomever may want them.

That seems kind of a hasty post considering nothing has been carved in stone yet and the new owner has stated that he WANTS the thoughts of this groups members in deciding how things WILL go about. All change is not bad, and for software especially change is needed to keep it relevant. I don't post here often, but have bought this software because I like what it brings to my game play. For my money I have a working program that does what I need it to do. Yes, I would like to see floating licenses and am not a huge fan of the monthly pricing structure...but until it actually happens I'm more than satisfied enough with this product to give the new owner the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, I'm rambling. I guess I just want to say...wait and see before any "I'm leaving" statements are bandied about.

EugeneZ

October 16th, 2009, 04:15

Heads up, bislab, your ten posts indicate you likely don't know unerwünscht's status here. Don't bother trying to convince him, and if you're unsure why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

As for the floating license issue, it seems fine to me, but I am not the target audience.

unerwünscht

October 16th, 2009, 05:07

Well EugeneZ, I happen to agree with bislab. The application as stands is great for a fixed group that never (or rarely) has old players move on and new players join. This sadly is not the case with our gaming group. I have a list of around 160 people waiting for someones character to die so they can hop in.

But while we are on the subject of name calling and finger pointing did you notice that my posts are all on the topic of the floating license structure and your post is only a link to "a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community"

Look in the mirror next time, and/or die in a horrid accident that kills you slowly. :-)

Edited: Ooops forgot the smiley to let you know that was in jest.

ddavison

October 16th, 2009, 06:31

That seems kind of a hasty post considering nothing has been carved in stone yet and the new owner has stated that he WANTS the thoughts of this groups members in deciding how things WILL go about. All change is not bad, and for software especially change is needed to keep it relevant. I don't post here often, but have bought this software because I like what it brings to my game play. For my money I have a working program that does what I need it to do. Yes, I would like to see floating licenses and am not a huge fan of the monthly pricing structure...but until it actually happens I'm more than satisfied enough with this product to give the new owner the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, I'm rambling. I guess I just want to say...wait and see before any "I'm leaving" statements are bandied about.

Just a minor clarification, the subscription setting I'm looking at would not be every month but would be a small amount once every 6 months. I guess that could be considered basically the same as the cost divided by 6 each month, but I just wanted to make sure you read the pricing structure I proposed correctly.

I am willing to listen to feedback from everyone, however, even those who think my proposal is a bad idea. If you can make a counter proposal and more people are in favor of that idea and it still helps move things the way I think they need to go for the company that I would like to hear them.

Zeus

October 16th, 2009, 08:18

I'll add my two pence worth.

Whilst my groups are pretty static with all players currently having purchased lite licenses I can understand the appeal of a floating license structure as it offers flexibility for getting new players into FGII.

However it strikes me that the proposed 6 month subscription will NOT appeal to those who will compare the costs of a subscription vs lite license and determine its not cost effective if you have a large group of dynamic players (as in Unerwünscht's case).

So, if the desire is to introduce some annuity revenue into the business why not consiider the following:

1) Offering a lite license equivalent (available to GM Full licensees only) that can be used in a true floating manner with ANY player at an affordable price. The floating licenses will need to either be transferable to lite licenses or offer some sort of concession for referal to a proper lite license.

2) Introduce new feature sets such as a hosted offline campaign management/wiki space, HTML versions of PC's/NPC's, that integrate with FGII and allow GM's/Players to interact outside of game sessions. This service could be subscriber based and would deliver the annuity revenue your looking for. At the same time it would alleviate the need to turn the floating license model into a rental license scheme and at the same time deliver a richer and more complete experience to our RPGs.

3) At the same time perhaps also introduce some sort of subscriber based matchmaking service whereby if I, say as a user, finds some spare time on the spare of the moment I can fire up FGII and connect to the matchmaking service which finds me a GM and game and connects me straight in, a sort of drop-in/drop-out dungeon delve service perhaps.

Anyways, just a couple of examples of alternatives for generating annuity revenue.

unerwünscht

October 16th, 2009, 08:23

At the same time perhaps also introduce some sort of subscriber based matchmaking service whereby if I, say as a user, finds some spare time on the spare of the moment I can fire up FGII and connect to the matchmaking service which finds me a GM and game and connects me straight in, a sort of drop-in/drop-out dungeon delve service perhaps.

I like that one, it's sort of on the same lines of the chat system we suggested, but its a nice spin on that idea, and would work well in tandem with a global chat system.

Valarian

October 16th, 2009, 08:41

Personally, I would only need floating licenses a couple of times a year (to demo the product at FUMCon) so the currently proposed subscription looks expensive to me. If I could purchase the licenses (say for $25 each) then I could justify the cost as a one-off. If I had licenses available, I could possibly invite new players to try before they buy - but I'm not willing to pay a large subscription on the off-chance. Again, if I had the option to buy, I could justify this as a one-off expense.

mr_h

October 16th, 2009, 13:46

One thing a friend of mine brought up: A one time expense for a floating license would be a good idea. You could share it easily with others for one shot adventures or bringing in new folks. Very nice.

But, a reoccuring cost for a floating license would make it more economical to purchase a light license, then share the license number with other people as needed. Granted, this would be in violation of the license agreement, but let's be honest, someone would do it if it meant saving money. You could stop it with a central server that keeps track of things, but the first time that went down and prevented people from doing a gaming session, everyone would be looking for new products.

Invain63

October 16th, 2009, 15:10

<snip>You could stop it with a central server that keeps track of things, but the first time that went down and prevented people from doing a gaming session, everyone would be looking for new products.

Well, I have my full license on several machines (desktop and laptop) so I don't think a central server that checks IP addresses or some sort of MAC address based hash would work. Attaching a username and password to a license might work better, but it would still suffer the problem you described (login server failures) and people would probably come up with bogus ID's that they could hand out with the license number anyway (guestplayer142, etc).

-Kevin McD

ddavison

October 16th, 2009, 15:11

Again, I am very pleased with the amount of feedback received. I am going to drop the idea of a renewal fee for floating licenses and make them a one-time purchase option. The prices will need to be adjusted somewhat to keep them relative to the Lite license fee. Would $30 for a floating license feel about right?

Also, I imagine use of the floating licenses would require an active Internet connection. Your full license would continue to work off-line as it does today, but it would not accept an incoming unlicensed connection unless it was able to verify adequate floating licenses. In addition, if a floating license player crashes, there would need to be a re-sync operation that would occur to re-verify the number of floating licenses currently in use. I doubt the check would be any more significant than the server alias lookup, but it does need to occur.

ddavison

October 16th, 2009, 15:14

Well, I have my full license on several machines (desktop and laptop) so I don't think a central server that checks IP addresses or some sort of MAC address based hash would work. Attaching a username and password to a license might work better, but it would still suffer the problem you described (login server failures) and people would probably come up with bogus ID's that they could hand out with the license number anyway (guestplayer142, etc).

-Kevin McD

As a user myself, I have copies of my full license on several of my personal machines to make it easier for me to work on stuff off-line and then transfer it to my gaming laptop for sessions in person or run off my desktop for online games. I have no desire to limit that sort of usage.

VenomousFiligree

October 16th, 2009, 15:23

Would $30 for a floating license feel about right?

So looking at the store:

Fantasy Grounds II Full License $39.95
Fantasy Grounds II Lite License $23.95

So doesn't seem too unreasonable, they would be liable for bulk discount?

Casimir

October 16th, 2009, 15:38

Invain63

October 16th, 2009, 15:59

However it strikes me that the proposed 6 month subscription will NOT appeal to those who will compare the costs of a subscription vs lite license and determine its not cost effective if you have a large group of dynamic players (as in Unerwünscht's case).

At first I thought you were incorrect here, but I now have to agree. The floating license scheme should be of greatest benefit to GMs with large dynamic player bases but the cost effective strategy appears to be for the GM to buy an excess number of Lites on the off chance that a past player happens to be using one of them when the GM is trying to run a game with new players. The GM just says "Oops! That license is in use. Here, try this one." That would be annoying, so if it happens frequently the floating license scheme would become more attractive. I really doubt that it would, though, except in extreme cases.

It seems to me that there should be *some* way for the floating license scheme to be cost effective, but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. The fees should probably be set up such that over the life of the license the cost is at least as much as a Lite, but is never painful at any given time. Perhaps a minimal up front cost with another small activation fee for when the floating license is used.

Maybe something like this, for six slots:
$5 per slot setup (activation not included) and then $3 per 3 month activation. That way the break even point would be at the 1 year continuous use mark and the rest is gravy for SWUSA.

This is approximately the same as the current scheme - Six licenses: $15 per including 6 months activation plus $7.50 per additional 6 months (in my terms, $7.50 initial setup plus $3.25 per 3 months activation.) Of course SWUSA would loose on both ends. My proposal is cheaper for the customer and gives them more chances to opt out. My philosophy is that frequent small fees are more palatable to customers than occasional large ones, so the customer is more likely to buy on impulse.

-Kevin McDonald

Invain63

October 16th, 2009, 16:07

Again, I am very pleased with the amount of feedback received. I am going to drop the idea of a renewal fee for floating licenses and make them a one-time purchase option. The prices will need to be adjusted somewhat to keep them relative to the Lite license fee. Would $30 for a floating license feel about right?<snip>

I should really learn to make small frequent posts rather than spending the time to compose a magnum opus! :)

Yea, this sounds reasonable to me. One issue is that it raises the cost of entry for the GM. The cost of entry for GMs is a significant issue. The current high cost of a Full + Lites (or floaters) means that only the truly dedicated (or wealthy) will take a chance on the product. I seem to remember you saying that this is something under review, so I am interested in what you come up with.

-Kevin McDonald

mr_h

October 16th, 2009, 16:11

Again, I am very pleased with the amount of feedback received. I am going to drop the idea of a renewal fee for floating licenses and make them a one-time purchase option. The prices will need to be adjusted somewhat to keep them relative to the Lite license fee. Would $30 for a floating license feel about right?

I'll offer you a bannana peel and a piece of lint that I've had in my pocket for a month. :)

An idea I had, and someone would have to fill this out because it's only a partial idea here. If you're looking for some sort of a continuing income stream, something to consider is, in addition to floating licenses, you could have temporary floating licenses. They could be cheaper ($5), but time limited (say, one day from the time of purchase).

Something like that might be a hit with conventions, letting a bunch of new people try it out. It wouldnt be really optimal to use in the place of another license (6 sessions for a regular floating license or a lite license).

Dunno, just an idea I had that I thought I'd mention before I forgot it.. There might be problems with it, but I haven't thought that far ahead (Maybe someone already mentioned it :b)

VenomousFiligree

October 16th, 2009, 16:14

So looking at the store:

Fantasy Grounds II Full License $39.95
Fantasy Grounds II Lite License $23.95

So doesn't seem too unreasonable, they would be liable for bulk discount?
Also a look at the competition:

Software Licenses
GM Client $34.00
Player Client $18.00
Floating License (Requires GM Client) $18.00

unerwünscht

October 16th, 2009, 18:27

Also a look at the competition:

Software Licenses
GM Client $34.00
Player Client $18.00
Floating License (Requires GM Client) $18.00

Yes, but you also have to look at the difference between the applications themselves. I don't think anyone here will argue against "Fantasy Grounds is superior to BattleGrounds." Battlegrounds still has a few features that are not in Fantasy Grounds but the remaining features are of limited use. Where as Fantasy Grounds has a much cleaner user interface, and is just an all around awesome application.

That being said, I think $30 is a fair price for the floating license. It's not as powerful as the DM license, but in comparison does offer better flexibility than the lite license.

I am very pleased to see the change in pace, and am a firm believer that Smite Works has just secured Fantasy Grounds position as "The Best" VTT on the market for quite some time to come. I am also looking forward to working with them (if they will) on some of our gaming products now.

Griogre

October 16th, 2009, 19:48

This has been a good discussion. I think FG might be better off with several types of floating licenses. This is because there are really two very different ways these licenses are going to be used:

1) The "Demo" Floating License: This is a license which would be used at a Con or to actually demo the software in a real group. The characteristics of a "demo" license is it’s only needed for a few days and tends to benefit Smiteworks USA as a marketing tool and doesn’t hurt the sales of other licences. This license could be very cheap (or even free in some cases like at a Con) and for a very limited time. You could offer a small discount to someone who uses a demo license and upgrades to a lite or full version.

2) The “Traditional” Floating License: This license shifts the cost burden from a player to the GM and in return gives the GM the ability to easily recruit, add and change players. It competes directly with the lite version and would have some impact on new lite license sales (the most commonly sold license). The pricing should probably somewhere between the full and lite licenses.

Oberoten

October 16th, 2009, 20:04

I have to admitt I like what I see so far, we have a dialogue. :)

And yes, I agree there should be some kind of 'short-term-floating-license' available for demo-games and cons etc.

I like the idea of a one-time price for the floaters as well... it gives me an option to demo my stuff to anyone who is interested without them having to gamble and buy a light license first or for me to buy them one. (( You guys KNOW who you are.... ))

- Obe

Moon Wizard

October 18th, 2009, 02:50

Another option that is a derivative from another tabletop I used previously:

You download one program. If you enter the appropriate license key, then it enables usage based on the license.

1. Basic - Only can connect to hosts that have floating licenses, otherwise acts as demo.
2. Lite - Enter license key, and can connect to any host.
3. Full - Enter license key, can connect to any host, and can host games. Additional license keys can be entered to add floating licenses.

Cheers,
JPG

unerwünscht

October 18th, 2009, 03:14

Ok... I just got SUPER confused.... Is that not what we have been talking about this whole time? If not that is how it should work.

EugeneZ

October 18th, 2009, 03:21

Well, four pages is a lot to read. But, yeah, my understanding is that we've been discussing the system moon_wizard suggests.

Griogre

October 18th, 2009, 04:09

I think what Moon Wizard is saying is that in that VTT it uses all one program but that one program acts differently depending on which key is used.

unerwünscht

October 18th, 2009, 05:57

Ahhh... I see now. Where as that is a great idea from the view of the end user, its a bad move for the developers in the end. It makes it MUCH easier to break the code and create pirated copies.

Ukki

October 18th, 2009, 10:18

In other programs, your code is checked when you download updates. Thus if you settle with current version, you don't need "just now" connection to network, so don't spoil your rpg session.

I have noticed that this model encourages developers to release minor bug fixes faster :) Normal cycle is about 2 weeks per update (size is from few kilobytes to up) so if one version of the program or license is cracked it won't effect next versions or atleast it could be isolated. Perhaps same as in Time Machine - you are required to connect to server in last 30 days to use program?

Spyke

October 18th, 2009, 11:11

Perhaps same as in Time Machine - you are required to connect to server in last 30 days to use program?
No, please no. I want to be able to continue to use FG even if the worst comes to pass and SmiteWorks goes bust.

Spyke

Valarian

October 18th, 2009, 11:31

No, please no. I want to be able to continue to use FG even if the worst comes to pass and SmiteWorks goes bust.
Seconded ... most strongly

zabulus

October 18th, 2009, 18:10

Thirded, just in case this was needed :)

unerwünscht

October 18th, 2009, 18:20

VenomousFiligree

October 18th, 2009, 18:30

... more of us can become featured module makers, and sell product directly through the smiteworks store. In that case its only fare that smiteworks also makes a percentage of those sales, and that will go a long way to keeping them in business.
What he said! :)

joeru

October 18th, 2009, 18:58

My hope is for a better relationship between the new owners and the community than what existed with the previous owners. If a better relationship exists then more of us can become featured module makers, and sell product directly through the smiteworks store. In that case its only fare that smiteworks also makes a percentage of those sales, and that will go a long way to keeping them in business.

I'm certain Mr Davison would be happy to oblige you, though you might want to make clear what 'better relationship' means to you in this case and exactly how it would enable/allow more of us to become featured model makers.

Oberoten

October 18th, 2009, 20:11

I agree, but also think we are on a good track here.

We are having a dialogue instead of a monologue with both sides coming forth with views.

Noe if Mr Davison keeps this upp I think we'll loose a LOT of the frustration that was occasionally generated when there'd go months with no updates or even board-visits by the developers.

- Obe

ddavison

October 19th, 2009, 06:32

Well hopefully if the worse case ever happens, smiteworks would be nice enough drop an unlocked version of the application, however, I don't see the community ever letting it come to that.

My hope is for a better relationship between the new owners and the community than what existed with the previous owners. If a better relationship exists then more of us can become featured module makers, and sell product directly through the smiteworks store. In that case its only fare that smiteworks also makes a percentage of those sales, and that will go a long way to keeping them in business.

I do have ideas for that sort of thing. I was a huge fan of NWN Vault and how the community members could rate each other's work and become well known among the community by putting out fantastic modules. If it could also generate a little revenue for those authors and for FG, I don't think anyone would complain either.

No need to worry about things going bust. Things were going well when I bought it and as long as I listen to the community and keep pushing the envelope technically, we won't see things dip down in the near future.

unerwünscht

October 19th, 2009, 06:57

Well I can tell you that people on my other sites have been asking A LOT of questions about Fantasy Grounds since the announcement of your acquisition. Most of them are looking forward to giving it a try through the floating license system, and a good majority of them plan on getting Full Licenses if all works well for them.

zWolf

November 14th, 2009, 19:41

Yes, I 'pop' in here every month or so especially to check this very thread. It's the only one I look for (shame on me, I know...) but my purpose is to track the progress on the floating licenses.

If there is another place for me to get updates on it, by all means let me know. I'm exited to see them offered. (oh, I check the store too... just to see if it's posted there.)

anyway, this time I figured I'd post something... instead of just 'lurk' about.

thanks for keepin it alive Ddavidson!

zWolf -out.

ddavison

November 15th, 2009, 02:37

Okay, I have an update on the floating licenses. I think this is going to take a little longer to get it in place according to the model I outlined. There are some issues with how the licenses will need to be purchased and linked to your full license key and with the procedure that checks this at run-time.

To better support what I would like to accomplish with this, I will be shifting the store and web site over to a new host and developing it in my language and database of preference. That work has already begun and is pretty far along but will still need quite a bit more work and testing before it can go live.

Unfortunately, I expect this may delay the floating licenses until some time in January. I will post regular updates as I make progress on achieving this goal. Thanks for your patience so far. I realize this is a major issue for many people and I will do what I can to get it done correctly and as quickly as possible.

Doug

zWolf

November 15th, 2009, 07:03

Thanks for the update sir Doug, I'm exited by the progress so far, and the good news that it's high on the stack of things getting done.

thanks again.

Sakusammakko

November 15th, 2009, 10:04

Mid-January will probably be fine as I imagine things are going to be slowing down for the holidays soon.

Some game masters may need to recruit new members after having some New Year dropouts and a floating license will help us find new recruits.

Look forward to your efforts.

FYI, I had 4 new players last night and the game ran really well with 7 players, myself, the tokens and a decent-sized map. Would have gone more smoothly if I'd remembered to pre-load it.

R

Oberoten

November 15th, 2009, 21:02

I don't mind a delay as long as it is some comunication about it. :) I am glad to see the floating licenses coming along and will buy up one or two to tie to my main license.

- Obe

Rienen

November 30th, 2009, 19:54

Ditto here. I have a couple players that are interested... but not enough for a full license... yet.

I'm hoping once they can sit in on a game or two each, they'll buy.

ddavison

December 1st, 2009, 17:31

Ditto here. I have a couple players that are interested... but not enough for a full license... yet.

I'm hoping once they can sit in on a game or two each, they'll buy.

You can also relay to them that the Lite to Full upgrade path is now permanently available. They no longer have to buy the full version on faith alone or worry about having a limited version that gives them no credit towards the full purchase later.

zWolf

December 2nd, 2009, 01:00

The DM of my local weekly F2F game, is looking at virtual table top software he has narrowed down to Fantasy grounds as a final contender. We talked about licensing and he was quite enthusiastic about the floating license program. He would buy his DM license and the Floating licenses for his group.

I Told him that it's scheduled to come out in January - we'll see if he stays his purchasing hand till then.

zWolf -out.

Cearlan

December 7th, 2009, 01:32

This is about the best news going. Especially seing as you seem to not favour the subscription route. However I do have one slight query, financing half a dozen floating licences will come in at 6 x $30 = $180 comes in at around £110 real money. I accepet that there will be bulk purchase discounts and so forth, but still anything in the region of £100 is a lot to fork out in one hit.

Are there any plans to assist those not overflowing with that much spare cash in one hit?

I know you are running a company and all that goes with that, and ... I suppose the best arrangement for someone in my position would be to buy them as and when I could afford it, but I'd be prepared to buy one or maybe two floating licences, a month.

Norm

tenkar

December 7th, 2009, 02:45

with the bundling discount 4 lites come out to about 15 bucks a pop... 1/2 the 30 you are quoting and less then the 24 bucks or so each lite costs on their own.

a fair price if you can get your group motivated ;)

ddavison

December 7th, 2009, 03:55

The plan is to allow you to buy additional floating licenses incrementally instead of having to do so all at once. That does make things a little more difficult than allowing a one-time Full+X Floating licenses since we have to hook it up to your license somehow.

Hopefully you can encourage some of your players to actually go with a full or regular license and only pick up the floating licenses for those less than regular players in your group.

zWolf

December 7th, 2009, 17:27

I think that many of those looking at doing this will be doing a DM + 5 floating... It costs about 115 bucks right now to do that with light licenses. (what's that... ~60 Pouinds Accross the pond? )

Personally, I bought a DM + 7 because my group was going to be a tich bigger. That was about $145.00

I'm still holding to my understanding of the EULA that 'I' own the licenses. even if I decide to install the light client on a friends machine. so that way if one friend moves from the group, that I can transfer the program - licensed to me, to another computer belonging to another friend - my 'own' version of floating license, which like I said - the EULA doesn't appear to prohibit. Though several of the community would disagree with me on that point.

I think I would have been willing to spend about $150 for a DM + 5 floating... but ya, at some point if the floating licenses cost tooooo much, they won't be useful to the situation that it seems many people want to use them for. (the DM+group people)

on the flip side, there were a large number of users that seemed to want just 'one' floating license so that they could do 'demos'. In that situation I imagine users would be willing to pay more for a single floating license.

heh, I don't envy DDavidson trying to come up with the formula that will allow him to find the sweet spot in generating a profit. G'luck to ya mate!

but, I would look at trying to cater to both groups of customers... so perhaps a hefty single floating license cost, and a hefty 'bulk' (5 or more) discount.

happy day's!

zWolf -out.

unerwünscht

December 7th, 2009, 19:54

I'm still holding to my understanding of the EULA that 'I' own the licenses. even if I decide to install the light client on a friends machine. so that way if one friend moves from the group, that I can transfer the program - licensed to me, to another computer belonging to another friend - my 'own' version of floating license, which like I said - the EULA doesn't appear to prohibit. Though several of the community would disagree with me on that point.

I would like to point out that in a perfect would you would be correct, there would be nothing wrong with this. But the world we live in is far from a perfect world, and there is nothing to ensure that the previous user will stop using his install of FGII. At that point you run the risk of having more than one instance of the same key in use at the same time, and I would say since information is passed through the FG server when connecting through alias, you run a risk of your reg key showing up in the system multiple times at the same time, and they would be more than justified in disabling all of your keys when this happens.

EDIT:
I would also like to point out I am not 'picking' on you... I would think that the majority of us who have more than one key at one point or another has 'loaned' our key to a friend so that we could get through a session.... This is part of why I pushed so hard for a floating license structure.

Cearlan

December 7th, 2009, 19:55

Sorry, I got the $30 figure from ddavison's post #132 et al. which was the last price I saw.

I am looking to have a 6 character game - I have both full and lite licences and one of my players also has a lite so I would be looking for 5 floating licences; which according to my maths works out at $83:83 = £51:02. certainly a lot better than my initial thoughts. I would probably be able to offset some of this cost as well.

ddavison

December 7th, 2009, 22:41

VenomousFiligree

December 7th, 2009, 22:47

The cost of the ultimate license was going to be a one-time cost of $150
Hmm that's quite a lot, remind me on how much an individual floating license will cost when they're avialable next year.

Darkfaith

December 7th, 2009, 22:58

Just to throw this out there...

We have a version of the floating license called the "ultimate" license. It allows an unlimited number of incoming connections. This is pretty much ready to go as-is. The version I was going to implement instead would allow you to buy individual floating licenses. The downside is that the implementation of that is substantially more complicated since you have to sync with the server every time someone connects and make sure you haven't exceeded your floating license connection limit. Not too difficult, but still an extra step. On top of that, the purchase of the floating licenses needs to be linked in with your full license somehow in order to enable that in the first place.

The cost of the ultimate license was going to be a one-time cost of $150 -- about equivalent to buying a bundle of 1 full and several lite licenses today. Would there be sufficient interest to implement this now and then still work on releasing the individual floating licenses early next year?

I like the idea of having the option of an "ultimate license", but would this include the full license in that cost? And, if so, would there be an option to upgrade from full to ultimate? I would totally go for that, either way. I already have a full license, but I was seriously considering getting a number of floating licenses for the game I'm going to be starting up because I have a number of people who either want to watch before they try, or won't be able to join frequently enough to justify the cost of a lite license for them. Even if the upgrade option isn't available, I'd definitely go for an "ultimate" license.

ddavison

December 7th, 2009, 22:59

Floating licenses would cost $30 per pop. It is still undecided whether or not they would benefit from the bundle discount -- but they probably would. They would just start higher than the lite licenses.

VenomousFiligree

December 7th, 2009, 23:03

...but would this include the full license in that cost? And, if so, would there be an option to upgrade from full to ultimate? I would totally go for that...
Yes, that would make it more attractive.

zWolf

December 7th, 2009, 23:15

... At that point you run the risk of having more than one instance of the same key in use at the same time, and I would say since information is passed through the FG server when connecting through alias, you run a risk of your reg key showing up in the system multiple times at the same time, and they would be more than justified in disabling all of your keys when this happens...

You have described exactly how I think it should work. 100% (Cept maybe not 'all' of my keys, but for SURE the one that was attempting to infringe on the licence by running on two comps at the same time.

It would of course be up to me to make sure that the licence (and software,) had been scrubbed from any computer I was moving it from. thats pretty standard fair when dealing with Licenses and Software.

EDIT:
I would also like to point out I am not 'picking' on you... I would think that the majority of us who have more than one key at one point or another has 'loaned' our key to a friend so that we could get through a session.... This is part of why I pushed so hard for a floating license structure.

oh, I didn't feel picked on at all. It is how I think it would work as well.

I appreciated your comments on it.

zWolf

December 7th, 2009, 23:22

The cost of the ultimate license was going to be a one-time cost of $150 -- about equivalent to buying a bundle of 1 full and several lite licenses today. Would there be sufficient interest to implement this now and then still work on releasing the individual floating licenses early next year?

I havn't read every one's comments yet re: this proposal, however, I'll tell you one thing... I have already paid for a full, and 7 light's but would be willing to plop down another 150 on this today (or as soon as it's up,) just to show my support. I think this is a fantastic solutions ddavison.

zWolf -out.

Cearlan

December 8th, 2009, 01:09

I'd go for an 'ultimate licence' personally. However there would have to be some sort of upgrade path available. $150 works out at £91 pound odd - call it £100 for arguements sake. At this time of year especially, there are not that many people lucky enough to be able to splash the cash like zWolf can. Setting the price too high can make FG seem elitist, but then again it's a lot of do-dah for your money!

As I type this put two further thoughs have occured to me, firstly ans a bit obvious maybe, and to a degree I feel a bit stoopid asking, but is it safe for me to assume that if half of my group had lite licences and half floating, there would be no problems with the programme running on all machines?

Secondly, how future proof would the floating / ultimate licences be ... imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if you sold x number of ultimate licences and two or three month later release FGIII?

Sorry to be a moaning minnie :cry:

zWolf

December 8th, 2009, 04:05

Sorry to be a moaning minnie :cry:

heh, I think the 'future proofing' question is very important, definitely something to have for knowledge of... like 'includes lifetime upgrades' or, 75% off next upgrade or something would be good to lock down for sure.

as for me 'splashin cash' ... it's not that I can really afford it... I'm just stupid with money is all :-P (Damn these credit cards anyway! :-P - a fool and his gold, etc etc.)

zWolf -out.

ddavison

December 8th, 2009, 04:56

While I can't say with 100% certainty what the future would hold, I don't envision an FG III in the near or mid term future. Future editions are currently planned to be 2.x.xx for some time now. If some brand new technology surfaces which mandates a complete or significant re-write, then it might warrant a jump to 3.x.xx, but there is nothing on the horizon that I know of that would fit that bill. Okay, maybe if Microsoft Surface or something like that came out and became popular enough to fill every home.

The Ultimate license is basically a FULL + an unlimited number of floating licenses combined in one. An upgrade from a full to an ultimate would make sense but would probably be scheduled for later as well since it requires a bit of additional coding to support it.

Valarian

December 8th, 2009, 08:33

Okay, maybe if Microsoft Surface or something like that came out and became popular enough to fill every home.
Fantasy Grounds Surface ....drooool! :cool:

The Ultimate license is basically a FULL + an unlimited number of floating licenses combined in one. An upgrade from a full to an ultimate would make sense but would probably be scheduled for later as well since it requires a bit of additional coding to support it.
At $150, the cost of an Ultimate license would be roughly the equivalent of 1 Full and 5 Lites (or 6 Lites when discounts are factored in). With the cost of the floating licenses being mooted, the Ultimate would be the equivalent of buying 4 floating licenses on top of your Full version. For an unlimited number of floating connections, this seems like a good deal and I'd probably take you up on this. Especially if someone wants less than 4 floating licenses, they can purchase individually.

However, to play devil's advocate, I'd caution that maybe an Ultimate license may hurt sales in the long run? Would the availability of an unlimited floating license version encourage the expectation that GMs put up the money and players game for free?

zWolf

December 8th, 2009, 09:04

...

However, to play devil's advocate, I'd caution that maybe an Ultimate license may hurt sales in the long run?

Stop being the Devil Val!!! Long live the Ultimate License plan yay!!!!! :-P

Let's focus instead on THIS part of his post:

...

this seems like a good deal and I'd probably take you up on this.

hehe, I kid, I kid - I'm sure dd will make the right call.

zWolf -out.

zWolf

December 8th, 2009, 09:27

However, to play devil's advocate, I'd caution that maybe an Ultimate license may hurt sales in the long run? Would the availability of an unlimited floating license version encourage the expectation that GMs put up the money and players game for free?

I know I joked earlier... but honestly the best argument is that that position looks like the exact and most logical price point that he'd want to be at to attract the 150$ sale right?

I mean, if people are going to buy 'single packs' and get one floating license at a time they would pay slightly more to get to the 'normal' group size (5,) than some one that was willing to plunk it all down up front. Most 'normal' GM's would most likely only buy the 'one or two' floaters for the folks that just want to 'try it out' first before they buy their own Light licenses and encourage those that tried it out and liked it to get their own light license so that the floater will be open for some one else to try. <--- this last thing is how I think MOST DM's will use a floating license.

I think that the ultimate is really going to appeal to a fairly small audience, but, that small audience will most likely be a HUGE advantage at getting exposure of FGII out to the masses.

heck, it was your Demo Valarian, that you ran me through at FUMcon back in April that convinced me to pony up the cash for my DM + 7 purchase. Imagine what you could do, if you weren't limited to the 'demo'. ya know?

on the flip side, for those few that want to buy for their whole groups and just be done with it, there is a very attractive and simple plan available. much more than $150, and the number people that would actually be willing to put up that kind of cash gets quite small. perhaps so small that it might not even be worth putting the option up on the store... who knows.

I can see how one might factor in the 'lost sales' to the free loaders, that 'might' have purchased a light license instead of getting the free ride, but here are the counter points to that.

I. - more exposure to increase the player base. there will (potentially,) be allot more players getting exposed to Fantasy grounds. With the floating license they only get to play in games where DM's have paid for the floating license, there should be quite a few players that would be willing to spend money on the light licenses so that they have access to ALL games run by DM's. with any luck, the additional exposure to new gamers, could actually BOOST sales of light licenses. it will be hard to judge that one.

II. - Some players that are exposed to FG II, via the floating licenses, will want to DM their own games. it's a natural progression, these players become potential buyers of Full licenses, and a few of them will pick up the 'Ultimate License' as well.

anyway, those were a few 'serious' reply's that I thought of -

if ddavidson, is really concerned about it, he could offer either a limited # of Ultimate licenses, OR perhaps only offer them at certain high profile times... 'black Friday sale' or Holiday specials... Anniversary sale or during FUMcon etc. etc.

this would allow him to track what happens, and make a more informed 'permanent' decision after some of the tracking data comes back in.

anyway, there were a few thoughts from some one that should have been asleep hours ago... I hope they made sense.

zWolf -out.

Valarian

December 8th, 2009, 10:28

Most 'normal' GM's would most likely only buy the 'one or two' floaters for the folks that just want to 'try it out' first before they buy their own Light licenses and encourage those that tried it out and liked it to get their own light license so that the floater will be open for some one else to try. <--- this last thing is how I think MOST DM's will use a floating license.
This is how I saw the floating licenses as well. One or two licenses to allow people to really try out the product before they commit to buying.

I think that the ultimate is really going to appeal to a fairly small audience, but, that small audience will most likely be a HUGE advantage at getting exposure of FGII out to the masses.
I agree here as well, and I'd probably be tempted to purchase the Ultimate version to do some evangelising myself.

heck, it was your Demo Valarian, that you ran me through at FUMcon back in April that convinced me to pony up the cash for my DM + 7 purchase. Imagine what you could do, if you weren't limited to the 'demo'. ya know?
:D

ddavison

December 10th, 2009, 23:28

The ultimate license is now available from the store. You will need the new installer to use the ultimate license key. I am testing the waters with this and we will see how it impacts sales over the next several months. It may be for a limited time only if we determine that it is hurting sales long term. Either way, if you buy it now, it will be active even if we discontinue future sales of it in the store.

Along with this, your potential players will need to download the normal setup and check the box during the install which says "Install unregistered version for connecting with ULTIMATE licenses (check box and leave license field blank)."

The demo version is still a stand-alone install that is limited in overall functionality. Over time, we may merge this in with the unregistered license, but for now they should uninstall the demo version if present and then install the new unregistered version.

I am still planning to release a true floating license that can be associated with a full license.

unerwünscht

December 11th, 2009, 00:03

AWESOME!!!!!
Now we just need to get a fix to our current economic situation so I can go buy a few.

Darkfaith

December 11th, 2009, 00:08

I'll definitely be picking one up as soon as there's a little more money to spare, probably next week. Thank you!

zWolf

December 11th, 2009, 00:27

Woot!!

Way to go Doug!! I'll be buying mine immediately.

/em makes sure that there's still room on credit card... :-P

zWolf -out.

Oberoten

December 11th, 2009, 05:29

My gods... Is this ever a lovely christmas present. Once the rest of such are bought I will be looking into one as well.

- Obe

Invain63

December 11th, 2009, 15:16

However, to play devil's advocate, I'd caution that maybe an Ultimate license may hurt sales in the long run? Would the availability of an unlimited floating license version encourage the expectation that GMs put up the money and players game for free?

Perhaps, but probably not for new Fantasy Grounds GMs. My player group would NEVER pay any amount of money for an experiment that I am running that might turn out to be a one shot thing. Knowing this I bought a Full and four lites as a bundle.

If the Ultimate version had been available I would definitely have chosen it instead. The cost isn't that much more and I could do it without the annoyance of giving my players licenses for free that I can't use again in the future with a different player without entering uncomfortable ethical territory.

Thus, in my case Smiteworks would have made more money and as a side benefit prevented me from becoming comfortable bending - if not actually breaking - the license.

Putting the floating license plan aside, the financial balance for smiteworks appears to be between the number of new whole player groups running with Ultimate as opposed to the number of new individual players inspired to make Lite purchases by experienced GMs.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out!

-Kevin McD

drahkar

December 11th, 2009, 18:45

I'm forced to agree. This is no different that a GM buying the bundle for use that is already practiced. Well, not dramatically different. I think from a business standpoint I might, instead of having the Ultimate License be unlimited users, have it be a sizable number. General practice by most software companies is that the initial license pack with a software license includes 5 licenses. Then you can expand from there.

To me that seems like a reasonable number. Then offer Ultimate License upgrades where they can purchase 5 more users, all served from the GM server.

The Canterbury Tail

December 13th, 2009, 13:42

Right well this removes all my reservations about buying this product. So if the Ultimate is still around in the new year, I'll be putting my credit card on the line for you.

Griogre

December 15th, 2009, 17:33

Your concerns are justified. Smiteworks may lose money on these licenses - the problem is that nobody knows and that is why Doug said in another post these licenses are possibly a one time thing.

Smiteworks will break even if the circumstances are that of a DM with a group buying for guys in a specific group who never change.

If the GM who buys the ultimate license has player "churn," turning over players, then on every player after say the original half a dozen - Smiteworks will lose money from a potential sale of a lite license. This potentially is a big problem because (like RPG revenue) there are far more players than GMs.

Smiteworks will gain sales from GMs who use it to run demos or whose games encourage others to buy some sort of license of their own.

unerwünscht

December 15th, 2009, 19:16

Darkfaith

December 15th, 2009, 19:32

I have to say you can not be more wrong. The reason for this is your model of sale only allows for the existence of players playing under one DM. In that instance yes Smiteworks will not make very much money off of this. However you have to look at the bigger picture. Players do not just play in one game. They play the field, and not every DM is going to buy an unlimited license (Oh and if ever DM bought an unlimited license ... SmiteWorks would make a hell of a lot of money... btw.).

Lets say Zwolf starts a game with his unlimited license, and he brings 20 new players to his game. Well eventually he is going to get burned out running games for those 20 players, but some of those 20 players are going to want to keep playing. What are they to do? Well they have a few options. One of them could get an unlimited license and run games for the rest. Some of them could buy lite licenses and go looking through the forums for a new game to join. A few of them might even buy a full license and talk others into getting the lite license.

The bottom line is this new license is a good thing for not only SmiteWorks, but for the DM's and the players. Its a win for everyone.
I think my group will be a good example of that. I bought an Ultimate license, but I've already got a player that picked up a full license with an eye towards DMing, and my campaign doesn't even start until January. That's how impressed the players I've shown have been with FG. If he does decide to DM, then the players that join him will be picking up a lite license (or Full in some cases, I have two others in my group who DM frequently). I'm also going to use my Ultimate to expose people who have never played tabletop to this style of gaming. There's a ton of potential here, and I intend to spread FG around for all I'm worth ^.^ There will be others who won't, but it seems that most of us that have bought this so far have something similar in mind.

ddavison

December 15th, 2009, 19:53

unerwünscht

December 15th, 2009, 19:56

We will have to wait and see, but I will give props to Unerwünscht. Even though he originally greeted me by blasting some of my proposed directions for SmiteWorks (:hurt:) , he did probably the most to convince me that the floating license/ultimate license would be a good idea in its current form.

Oh Great now its my fault if it doesnt work out ;)

Thats ok... I am absolutely positive that this was an excellent move, both from the company point of view and the community point of view.

Oh and while we are on that subject sorry for the hostile greeting, you managed to acquire Fantasy Grounds at the end of a long 'fight' between myself and the original owners over their idea of good customer support.

Sakusammakko

December 15th, 2009, 22:33

I've been wanting something like this for a long time. Here's how I intend to use it in the new year.

I'd like to kick off an open, megadungeon campaign where the players decide what to explore, who to adventure with and when they want to play. I'm happy to have many different players coming and going as they wish. This option will help me pimp my game on a variety of forums to get the player numbers up.

However, I don't intend to carry my players for very long-- after 2-3 sessions, they'll know if they like my style, the campaign and FGII. If they do, I will encourage them to buy a Lite license to continue playing.

My goal is to bring new gamers to my game using FGII. To that end, I'm willing to pay some money upfront. I see it as a trust issue between GMs and players who don't know each other. As I said in another post:

If I look at the issue from the potential player's perspective, perhaps $24 is too much to pay for a program you're not sure you'll get much use out of. What if you can't find a game or group that suits you? What if some sweet-talking GM convinces you to buy the program and then you find out his game is awful?

At the end of the day, the $24 may not be the most important thing-- it's that nobody wants to feel like a fool by taking a flyer on a program or a person who doesn't pan out in the end.

This option allows me to build trust and potentially share my gaming experience with lots of new people.

Thank you for doing this.