Free To Play (with ads)

[Emrak]

Just want to throw this out there... Mentioned it a year or two ago buuuut... FG2 should be free to play (not GM) but should display ads. AdSense makes it so damn easy to incorporate ads into apps, so the dev overhead should be comparitively small.

It's always a hurdle getting new players to pony up the cash. :-/

[JohnD]

A lite license is only $24. No way I want an add for Brazzers or something popping up (so to speak) when I'm fighting the wizard on level 3.

[damned]

why would you make the person doing all the work (gm/dm) pay and not the person who just turns up for all the fun? problem with ads is its for such a nich product and niche audience. what advertiser selling rpgs or something else of interest will pay to advertise to someone who wont even pay for the original product?
i know it works for some models but i personally cant see it working for this one...

[Emrak]

I think there is some confusion as to what this would entail.

First, that it "works" for advertisers isn't debatable. It's an industry standard and used regularly in various ecosystems to great effect.

Second, a user would pay real money to get rid of the ads, otherwise, you get ads. So have no fear JohnD, you would never see ads. Only players who don't register and buy see ads. They would not be "pop up" style either, but standard industry ad bars, such as at the top or bottom or some such.

Perhaps, for the non-payers, have an ad-bar in place of the dice-macro buttons? It'd be a double-encouragement to pay. You don't get ads and you get added functionality as a full-blown user.

There will always be people who will simply not use a product if it costs money because they just don't care to pay for it (in this market, we call them Map Tool users). They will suffer through crappier service and greater personal hurdles because, hey, why pay? Answer: give the product to them free-with-ads, expand product audience, gain greater market share, deprive competitors those users, and make money from advertisers. Again, this is an industry standard model.

I'm a programmer by trade, and maybe I'm just more knowledgeable about this particular arena of life, but I'm surprised that people are even taking affront at this idea.

EDIT:
As an addendum, remember that an entire industry is built around this concept. Take Google's AdSense. Whether you program in Objective C, Java, .NET, or a web page (and presumably many other languages), if your app can reach the internet, you can use Google AdSense. It requires no effort. Google GIVES a developer the code. All the dev has to do is decide where he wants to put the ad boxes and how small/large he wants them to be, then sit back and collects a check every couple months. Google does everything else.

[unerwünscht]

I have been trying for several years now to get them to adopt an ad supported free version of Fantasy Grounds. But to keep things simple and short I will just answer the question of who would want to advertise to Fantasy Grounds users....

Well... For one, as a developer of an Indie RPG .... I would.

But beyond myself, I would say that just about every pizza or food delivery service would want to as well. Not to mention any place like coffee shops etc. that have wifi service. (Come get your coffee and play D&D in our relaxing environment.)

There are also gaming conventions, sure GenCon may be large enough to not need the advertising, but there are hundreds of smaller conventions every year all over the world that would love some exposure.

How about online computer parts stores? (Game running sluggish? Pictures taking along time to load? We have memory on sale!)

What about "Oh look they are using the WoD ruleset.... You guys might be interested in this Vampire movie that is about to come out, and no our vampires do not sparkle.

I can think of hundreds of other examples, but I would think these would be enough to show the potential. The real trick is to get ads that not only help the advertiser, but also help the end user. If your users actually want to use your ads, they are more effective.

[phantomwhale]

I'm also a programmer by trade.

I've not made up my mind if Ads are right for FGII or not (although where you put them on the software might not be too easy - rulesets have no standards on "which bit of the screen can be blocked without disabling some vital control" etc...)

BUT I did want to make the point that Ad's are NOT always the obvious choice that you might expect. One product I've worked on (a pay for product in a juicy retail space) is currently making great strides ahead of it's competition, despite us being a "pay only" option, and the competition being "free, with ads". People hated the ads, and despite being offered a "pay to remove ads" option, they chose a "pay for a totally different companies product" option instead - being ad free, the product I worked on was regarded as having a bit more quality. Conversely advert banners makes applications look cheaper than their actual level of quality.

Ads might annoy new users into paying. Or it might annoy new users into not trying the pay-for product. I'm honestly not sure.

[unerwünscht]

You know... in the end I have an Ultimate license, so honestly I could care less at this point. I don't typically attract my players from the community here, so having more players here really won't help me out in the long run. I have just been trying to help others in the community. But seeing as the user base is so apposed to the idea of including a free option regardless of what limitations it may or may not incorporate, I would suggest that Smiteworks continues on their current path.

Not everyone can afford the most expensive VTT on the market, but those who can... well we know what everyone else is missing.

[Leonal]

Having ads would not have an effect on me or my groups, as we are all paying players/GMs.

That said, whenever the topic of VTTs come up on the Paizo forums (which I frequent quite a bit), the VTTs that are free* almost always have stronger vocal support while FG is sometimes commented as costing too much.

Thus, FG might be able to create a larger userbase if it implements a free option with other methods of generating revenue.

Re rulesets and ad placement: One location for adds could be during the loading screen on connection, possibly identifying the name of the ruleset for more targeted ads (e.g. the ads on d20pfsrd.com often being directly related to the page one is viewing.)

*Map Tool or Roll20.

[unerwünscht]

If we want to talk about location, I would think that the top of the chat window would be an ideal location.

[JohnD]

People always want something for nothing until it their work going into something.

[JohnD]

It would be interesting to know how well this works in other products.

For example, you can buy a Kindle with or without advertising (Amazon calls them "special offers"... what a crock). The advertising version costs a few dollars less... I specifically paid more because I didn't want that garbage.

I guess my reaction is driven by a dislike of the constant bombardment of advertising, from the minute we wake up to the minute we go to sleep 365 days a year.

[unerwünscht]

Just bought my Kindle Fire HD a few days ago, and it is ad supported. For me it came down to I am inpatient and when I buy something I want it RIGHT NOW! so my choice was to goto Sears and buy it to get it right now. The only models they sell at sears come ad supported. I fully planned on spending the $15 to get rid of those ads, until I got the thing and the ads only come up on the lock screen. No point in getting rid of that, it is non intrusive.

Anyways, it appears to me that the majority of resistance falls into three categories.
Opposition to all forms of advertising period.
Opposition to change, and therefor this is bad.
and opposition to someone else getting something for less than me.

None of these are valid reasons to be opposed to something.

Also a good point has been brought up here....
Amazon and Google are both in on the advertising to reduce cost game.... Two of the largest most successful companies in the world... anyone else want to question if this business model works or not?

[Doswelk]

I do not think the adverts would work.... where would these adverts appear in FGII?

On the start screen where you'll ignore them and just click join-game?
On the VTT Desktop itself where it will use up screen space?

Secondly how do adverts make money for smiteworks when the first thing I could do it hack my hosts file and block all the adverts?

I have the Ultimate license so this thread is of no major problem for me, people can play for free with me.

With bulk-buy and ultimate license using FGII is not that expensive...

[unerwünscht]

Secondly how do adverts make money for smiteworks when the first thing I could do it hack my hosts file and block all the adverts?

I have the Ultimate license so this thread is of no major problem for me, people can play for free with me.

With bulk-buy and ultimate license using FGII is not that expensive...

If the advertisements come from the FGII server this wouldn't work. You block their server and portions of your program stop working.

Even with bulk-buy and the ultimate license FGII is still the most expensive VTT on the market. .... I could be wrong.. it has been a while since I have looked.... But no one has mentioned another that costs more yet.

[XpressO]

I'm not against the ad-powered FG, if it would be player only. If you could GM on an ad-powered FG, I would feel cheated out of my money. That said, I personally hate products with ads. I usually steer clear of them and choose an ad-free alternative.

How about a 30-day free trial -based FG that would have all the functionality - even the GM functionality?

[Emrak]

Ads might annoy new users into paying. Or it might annoy new users into not trying the pay-for product. I'm honestly not sure.

I'm not sure it matters.

Bottom line: they will game online. They will use a free option, if it is available. The only question is if Smiteworks wants that added revenue stream or not.

Additionally, I will point out that the fastest growing VTT on the market right now is Roll20 which uses a "free-to-use-with-ads" / "pay-and-don't-see-ads" model. Not only that, your campaign storage space is restricted, and you have a time counter delay (aka, when you start or join a game, you have to wait for 15-30 seconds before it'll even load). Currently it has 2581 Facebook followers as opposed to FG2's 587 followers. Obviously users are not that annoyed.

I want FG2 to continue to succeed for many reasons, but it won't if it doesn't evolve to contemporary business models.

[unerwünscht]

^ what Emrak said.

[Macgreine]

Wow. I was just asking if I could buy a few floating lite licenses and got shut down (I figured they don't want the extra revenue) This would be great too though.

[Emrak]

Timely interview of Sony Online Entertainment CEO John Smedley below. In it he talks about the trend of the free-to-play (F2P) business model in AAA games, and Sony's decision to go with F2P for their online games. He makes a fascinating point about how, in online games (which I think FG2 is), the players are part of the games content, just as much as the Big Bad Boss you have to slay.


And the way we see it is that the 90% of players who don’t pay are making the game fun for the 10% that do. So we look at the world in terms of how many people are playing the game, and not in terms of how many are paying. The players are content for one another, so the free players are just as important as the ones who are paying.

https://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/14/soe-president-john-smedley-on-planetside-2s-future-free-to-play-and-everquest-next/

Game on! :)

[Griogre]

Exactly - in a Free to Play game, the players that spend money are the game's customers. The other players are just setting for the paying customers who might become a customer. That's how it would work for a MORG or any GM-less game.

However, in a game with a GM that must work to create a game session the model would have to be different. In a Free to Play model for a RPG VTT, the customer base are the *players* while the free to play should be the GM's who create the games to draw in the players. The GM's fill the tables so the VTT can sell to the players. The current problem with Free to Play with a VTT is how do you give a limited license to a player to entice him into becoming either a customer or a GM?

[malvok]

MMOs need a large player base. My campaign doesn't. I run with a select group who have all purchased FG. I don't need pickup groups or guilds for raiding etc.

[unerwünscht]

That may be true, but you do need players, and they are not always easy to find. The more people the chose from, the better odds of finding a decent group to play with.

[Emrak]

Exactly - in a Free to Play game, the players that spend money are the game's customers. The other players are just setting for the paying customers who might become a customer. That's how it would work for a MORG or any GM-less game.

In some F2P games, yes. In many F2P games though (such as most games on my Android phone) they derive their income via ads.



However, in a game with a GM that must work to create a game session the model would have to be different. In a Free to Play model for a RPG VTT, the customer base are the *players* while the free to play should be the GM's who create the games to draw in the players. The GM's fill the tables so the VTT can sell to the players. The current problem with Free to Play with a VTT is how do you give a limited license to a player to entice him into becoming either a customer or a GM?

I understand that you believe that there must be a difference, but that is not supported by the facts. If you are looking for a VTT example of this, please see Roll20. I think there is no difference between FG2 and any other F2P game.

Another unspoken element of this equation BTW is that many games---probably FG2 as well---are more than capable (and probably are) of being pirated. Providing an ad-based F2P model neuters that.

Addendum: it must be remembered that making FG2 free to play wouldn't affect most of us one iota. We wouldn't even notice anything had changed, aside from the fact that the forums might rapidly have hundreds or thousands of new folks trying out FG2.

[ddavison]

This is a good discussion with strong points on both sides.

While adding an Ad based system might allow you to generate some income from non-buying users, what is the ROI for implementing a system to manage it, deploy them and bill it? You also have to advertise the ad system.

I know how much we pay each month for advertising and I don't know that it would reach the same level in FG to be worth the effort at this stage. For example, over half a million impressions costs us about $80. Let's say for arguments sake that we got that many each month combined for a handful of advertisers. Is it worth the extra time to develop and maintain just for 2 more Full licenses (equivalent) each month? Would the influx of free users who are less committed to ongoing games actually degrade the experience for paying users?

Roll20 has forum users (or downloads) but does it have revenue? I think they benefited from the Kickstarter and for the ease to join a game. Does this mean we should change our proven business model to match their model because it appear popular? We have a few free products available on RPGNow and they sell hundreds times more than other pay-to-play modules. If we used that approach, we'd focus more attention on Space-Pulp rules because we sold hundreds of free Space-pulp rule mods. The free mods didn't translate over to increases in space-pulp buy mods.

We will continue to evolve the product in new areas and we will continue to watch the competition. I by no means want to quell the discussion. I'm just not sold on it.

[GunnarGreybeard]

I understand that you believe that there must be a difference, but that is not supported by the facts. If you are looking for a VTT example of this, please see Roll20. I think there is no difference between FG2 and any other F2P game.
I'd need to see some kind of verifiable proof that the popularity of Roll20 is due to the included free to play sort of ads in the free version and not due to it being browser based and the included video chat feature. I'm not saying it's not a factor, I'm just saying there's more to it than that.

[unerwünscht]

I'd need to see some kind of verifiable proof that the popularity of Roll20 is due to the included free to play sort of ads in the free version and not due to it being browser based and the included video chat feature. I'm not saying it's not a factor, I'm just saying there's more to it than that.

And how exactly would one go about proving something like that to you? In the past few weeks I have been looking at other options for a VTT. I took a long hard look at Roll20 the reasons I considered it were because of the popularity and the free to play option. The reason I am not going to it, is because it is browser based, and webcam oriented. To me browser based =/= slow and clunky, and video = looking at people I don't honestly want to look at.

[GunnarGreybeard]

And how exactly would one go about proving something like that to you? In the past few weeks I have been looking at other options for a VTT. I took a long hard look at Roll20 the reasons I considered it were because of the popularity and the free to play option. The reason I am not going to it, is because it is browser based, and webcam oriented. To me browser based =/= slow and clunky, and video = looking at people I don't honestly want to look at. You can't really and that's part of my point. I don't think we can hold other games free ads models as the reason for the popularity or level of player interest. One because we don't have access to that type of information to conclude it and they also have added features that I personally think figure in more prominently (in roll20'a case, being browser based and the built in video).

I'm all for getting the word out there and increasing the player base, I just don't think an in-game, ad based method is the way to go. There is already a free version, without ads available and that is the unregistered version BUT its only really useful for connecting to those with an Ultimate License (iirc). I think reducing the Ultimate License cost and/or increasing the unregistered version functionality is where to focus, but that's just my 2 cents.

[damned]

some more thoughts on this:

a mmorpg doesnt need a gm/dm to spend many hours setting up games for ppl to play
a mmorpg is well suited to people dropping in and out
a mmorpg is very visual and satisfies many younger peoples "entertain me" need
a mmorpg is very anonymous your behaviour online may sh!t other people but who cares?

rpg's tend to require a gm who is willing to show up week in and week out
rpg's end to require a gm who is willing to put time and effort in week in and week out
rpg's tend to work well with the same group of people playing week in and week out
rpg's tend to require you to actually be on time and stay the whole session
rpg's tend to require you to play nice with your group
rpg's tend to require you to put some effort in - even if its just character creation - before you can start having fun

even "one shot" rpg's require most of the above - just not the week in, week out commitment.

the two crowds dont really have the desires or requirements or commitments. of course there are many who play both - they're not exclusive.

when someone new joins a mmorpg they just do their own thing until they are strong enough to interact. they can run around getting killed as often as they like - no problemo - start again.
when someone new joins a rpg everyone around them takes a risk. they invest time and effort and energy into the person and its really a little disheartening how often that person has already moved on by the end of the session... it can also be very rewarding too of course :)
even these forums are full of really helpful people going out of their way to assist people getting computes setup, explaining how things work, helping people find games etc

in real life i tend to find that people dont value things that are free nearly as much as when they have paid for them.

i really do think that charging people *something* reduces the amount of wear and tear on support, on fellow gamers etc.

do i think that perhaps licenses could be cheaper? yes and no. i think yes because i do think you would sell more - but if you halved the price would you sell 2.5x as many? i tend to think not, so SW would lose out here. i do wonder if the discounted bundles is the best way? why not reduce costs across the board - particularly lite - to help more players along. i do think there is a sweet spot at $10 and below that sees players more easily part with their cash - but again you really have t increase the volume. maybe you have the current model for perpetual licenses and you could have a $10/6month subscription and $20/6months for gm? price is low enough to get a few cold feet across the door and high enough not to cannibalise your full fee paying clients, and if they stay on subscription then SW wins :)

what i do think is obvious is that there is no obvious answer to this question.

p.s. somehow i dont think i even mentioned ads in all that!

[Emrak]

This is a good discussion with strong points on both sides.

While adding an Ad based system might allow you to generate some income from non-buying users, what is the ROI for implementing a system to manage it, deploy them and bill it? You also have to advertise the ad system.

Ah, I thought that Google AdSense was available for Windows apps. Just did a search though and it looks like it isn't. :-/ That does definitely increase the workload for you all if you went F2P-with-ads. Unless there were an easy way to embed a web control into FG2...in that case you could probably use AdSense with no ongoing work for you all.




I know how much we pay each month for advertising and I don't know that it would reach the same level in FG to be worth the effort at this stage. For example, over half a million impressions costs us about $80. Let's say for arguments sake that we got that many each month combined for a handful of advertisers. Is it worth the extra time to develop and maintain just for 2 more Full licenses (equivalent) each month? Would the influx of free users who are less committed to ongoing games actually degrade the experience for paying users?

That is a good point. The only caveat I would make is that the audience is a bit more captive than what you're paying for online.



Roll20 has forum users (or downloads) but does it have revenue? I think they benefited from the Kickstarter and for the ease to join a game. Does this mean we should change our proven business model to match their model because it appear popular? We have a few free products available on RPGNow and they sell hundreds times more than other pay-to-play modules. If we used that approach, we'd focus more attention on Space-Pulp rules because we sold hundreds of free Space-pulp rule mods. The free mods didn't translate over to increases in space-pulp buy mods.

We will continue to evolve the product in new areas and we will continue to watch the competition. I by no means want to quell the discussion. I'm just not sold on it.

Yeah, monetizing is always a tricky topic. I know that folks who enjoy a free app spend more than you might think, ala https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/06/10

I think we all know that the price point of FG2 is a huge hurdle for many groups because they don't know FG2 from Adam. There's got to be a way to get FG2 into players hands for a time to allow them to get "sold" on the product. Most people, once they use FG2, recognize it's value, but if they never use it...well...

[Dracones]

Roll20 isn't the best comparison to FG as Roll20 is an online web app while FG is a more feature rich downloaded desktop app. Roll20 is very easy to get into. Just point your browser at a website and register.

FG will always be harder to use. You have to download/install it, get it working with your firewall, setup an external voice app, and it has more features. However it's really more of a "premium" experience and is easier to keep more feature rich than a website(with comes with a lot of programming limitations).

Personally I think FG should keep focusing on the premium features. For example, for me I MUCH prefer Roll20's model where they're the always on server, but I stay with FG2 because for Savage Worlds there's zero contest between the two when it comes to features. When DDN ships if FG gives it the same treatment as SW, I'll stay around for that too.

[unerwünscht]

After stopping to think it over on a strictly cost level this is what I have come to. I really don't care, and none of you should either. Cost of the Ultimate license for FGII is $150. Cost of my kitchen table $400. In the end there is no reason for anyone to purchase any of the licensed other than the Ultimate license. I get it, I understand smiteworks is afraid of adapting to the current trends in the market. As long as FGII continues to be the most feature intensive product on the market I will not be displeased.

I would however like to point out that at my kitchen table any of us sitting there can GM and anyone can play. This is something that I think would be a good thing for smiteworks to look into. I have an ultimate license, I have payed to use the program, is there any reason that I must GM? Why can't I just host, and let one of the other people connected GM.

I think this would go a long way to helping the community here grow.

[Dracones]

I have an ultimate license, I have payed to use the program, is there any reason that I must GM? Why can't I just host, and let one of the other people connected GM.


Well part of the problem can be the limitations of the software. Frankly I'd love it if the software allowed for multiple GMs. That'd also solve your problem. I'd also love that because I could then run the software on a server(as a GM) and connect from home(as another GM) with my slower connection. I could then go giddy and host 500MB, absurdly large maps on my server and come to the forums asking why the game crashes when I load up 20 of them. :D

The problem though is I believe that the software was developed along a certain way of thinking(GM hosts the game) and because of that going back and changing it becomes a lot of work.

So the dev team has to balance between doing something like that and adding other features more people may be asking for.

[unerwünscht]

Agreed 100%. I was just tossing the idea out there as a way to help rationalize the premium only model of FGII and the concept that FGII emulates playing at your kitchen table better than any other software. There are quite a few things I can do at my kitchen table that I can not do with Fantasy Grounds, and addressing those short comings would go a long way to strengthening smiteworks position.

And you bring up an awesome point here, if they were to adopt this new model, they could then start a hosting company (or affiliate with a hosting company) and generate even more income. ;)

[JohnD]

Agreed 100%. I was just tossing the idea out there as a way to help rationalize the premium only model of FGII and the concept that FGII emulates playing at your kitchen table better than any other software. There are quite a few things I can do at my kitchen table that I can not do with Fantasy Grounds, and addressing those short comings would go a long way to strengthening smiteworks position.

And you bring up an awesome point here, if they were to adopt this new model, they could then start a hosting company (or affiliate with a hosting company) and generate even more income. ;)
The big bonus is you don't have someone freeload off your snacks and drinks, make a mess in your bathroom and the only gaseous clouds you need to endure are your own.

[unerwünscht]

The big bonus is you don't have someone freeload off your snacks and drinks, make a mess in your bathroom and the only gaseous clouds you need to endure are your own.

Yes, but I also don't have players trying to bribe me with snacks and drinks. :(

[JohnD]

Yes, but I also don't have players trying to bribe me with snacks and drinks. :(
Paypal works! :D

[GMTroll]

Advertising within a product may be an alternative revenue stream but it does not in itself increase product awareness.

Since I bought FG (Ultimate) a couple of years ago I am amazed at the amount of gamers I talk to that still have not heard of FG (or any VTT), especially those that reminisce of playing with old friends they can no longer play with because they have all moved away.

For me FG has a lot of things going for it over the competition, but then those here already get that. The biggest problem I see with converting interest to sales is the the perceived complexity and effort of setting up a campaign or even a one-shot. Yes there are some adventure modules available for some systems but they are limited and lacking blockbuster titles.

Affiliating with more major name game developers / publishers to deliver their content already packaged ready for purchase and download from Smite Works has potential to both increase product awareness and revenue.

Hero Lab, though not a VTT, would likely not have been as popular without official content from some of the biggest names in the rpg games industry. Granted there is likely to be more demand for character generators than VTTs. The reason I chose Hero Lab as an example is that it shares some very similar design philosophies as FG; rules agnostic, modular expansion, premium modules and content, community created modules and content.

Now imagine if you could purchase from Smite Works store a FG ready official version of a certain companies popular adventure paths as they are released complete with art, maps and tokens...

But again affiliations / licensing / partnerships etc come with their own set of challenges.

[ddavison]

There are a few (two) major companies that would go a long way towards helping with this. There hasn't been any lack in effort from our end to secure those but it hasn't happened yet. Both have gone through significant efforts to create their own version of a VTT and both have at multiple times been very friendly towards us about possible licensing. Time will tell.

[Starbridge]

Just want to throw this out there... Mentioned it a year or two ago buuuut... FG2 should be free to play (not GM) but should display ads. AdSense makes it so damn easy to incorporate ads into apps, so the dev overhead should be comparitively small.

It's always a hurdle getting new players to pony up the cash. :-/


I just bought the complete set so people can play on my games for free because I knew I couldnt get people to pay anything to play.

[Zeus]

I just bought the complete set so people can play on my games for free because I knew I couldnt get people to pay anything to play.

Thats interesting. I had assumed most GMs do what I do and ask for subs each week from each of their players. For my groups; its £3 fortnight/player but this helps fund supporting game materials, food+drink for the evening and ongoing costs (online campaign portal hosting etc. etc.)

In the case of purchasing FGII, in the beginning I gave my groups little or no choice. If they wanted to continue playing my campaigns they would have to spend the $24 for the Lite license. Having said that once they had seen a demo, 99% were keen to do so. At a later date I acquired an Ultimate license and so its a little easier to onboard new players these days.

[JohnD]

In my experience, players with at least a Lite license are far more reliable than those on the free demo.

After I spend probably 2-3 hours of my time corresponding via PMs and email and then putting together a PC, making changes, importing, making sure everything is where it is supposed to be, etc... to have the person;

a) not show up at all,
b) show up late,
c) drop inexplicably,
d) pull a "one and done" or,
e) act like a d-bag in game

...is generally not something that speaks in favour (in my opinion) of flooding the ranks of players with people who are frankly more work than they are worth in game.

I freely admit that not all "free/demo" players are like this... but enough are to be an aggrivation.

This might be an added income stream for SM... but come on $24 is less than one night out at the movies with a burger/fries thrown in.

[S Ferguson]

Is $24 really enough to cover all that? If you figure the movie costs $15 and burgers, fries and a soft drink about the same *and* concessionary items, I think the lite license is a lot cheaper (and doesn't give you indigestion or clogged arteries).

<<pensively scratches his head>>

S

[unerwünscht]

I don't even know where to begin with the 'Less than a burger and a movie' logic. It is simply flawed. First of all, I can't eat FGII, nor is there a limited number of cows in the world with what to create FGII. The cost of a burger or beef has nothing in any way to do with the cost of FGII. Simple supply and demand dictates that with a limited number of cattle (supply) and a relatively endless amount of hunger in the world (demand) that the cost of that burger will be comparatively high.

FGII on the other hand is a digital product distributed through an automatically replicating download application. That is an unlimited supply with a very limited demand.

Supply vs. Demand. It was one of the first things everyone should have learned in economics class.

The next issue is comparing the price of one thing to a completely unrelated thing is just asinine at best. It would be like saying "Oh well these cookies cost less than my xBox 360 controller" ... well duh! ... The proper way to compare price is to compare the price of movies to other movies, of food to other foods, of Virtual Table Tops to other Virtual Table Tops, and you will see that FGII has a disproportionate cost in comparison to other products of the same type.

The argument that most people will hop on there is that FGII has features no other VTT has, and that clearly justifies the cost. No it doesn't all those other VTTs have features that FGII doesn't have as well. What does or doesn't justify the cost of FGII is the number of people willing to buy it at the given price. I think there is a clear indication at this point that some people are willing to buy it at the current cost and other are not.

The proper question to as is by reducing (or eliminating) the cost of FGII can smiteworks make more money. For instance if you can sell 20,000 copies of a program at $25 a pop you make $500,000 and if you can sell 100,000 copies at $5 a pop you make $500,000. Or if you are really really greedy, you can sell for a few years at $25 a pop till you have sold all or most of what you can sell at that price and then drop your price to $5 and milk it for everything it is worth. Or if you are SUPER greedy you get a politician in your pocket and get laws passed saying no one else can make a competing product, or that everyone has to have your product by law.

Welcome to America, this is how things are done.

[S Ferguson]

I don't even know where to begin with the 'Less than a burger and a movie' logic. It is simply flawed. First of all, I can't eat FGII, nor is there a limited number of cows in the world with what to create FGII. The cost of a burger or beef has nothing in any way to do with the cost of FGII. Simple supply and demand dictates that with a limited number of cattle (supply) and a relatively endless amount of hunger in the world (demand) that the cost of that burger will be comparatively high.

FGII on the other hand is a digital product distributed through an automatically replicating download application. That is an unlimited supply with a very limited demand.

Supply vs. Demand. It was one of the first things everyone should have learned in economics class.

The next issue is comparing the price of one thing to a completely unrelated thing is just asinine at best. It would be like saying "Oh well these cookies cost less than my xBox 360 controller" ... well duh! ... The proper way to compare price is to compare the price of movies to other movies, of food to other foods, of Virtual Table Tops to other Virtual Table Tops, and you will see that FGII has a disproportionate cost in comparison to other products of the same type.

The argument that most people will hop on there is that FGII has features no other VTT has, and that clearly justifies the cost. No it doesn't all those other VTTs have features that FGII doesn't have as well. What does or doesn't justify the cost of FGII is the number of people willing to buy it at the given price. I think there is a clear indication at this point that some people are willing to buy it at the current cost and other are not.

The proper question to as is by reducing (or eliminating) the cost of FGII can smiteworks make more money. For instance if you can sell 20,000 copies of a program at $25 a pop you make $500,000 and if you can sell 100,000 copies at $5 a pop you make $500,000. Or if you are really really greedy, you can sell for a few years at $25 a pop till you have sold all or most of what you can sell at that price and then drop your price to $5 and milk it for everything it is worth. Or if you are SUPER greedy you get a politician in your pocket and get laws passed saying no one else can make a competing product, or that everyone has to have your product by law.

Welcome to America, this is how things are done.

The first thing I learned in economics was the *elasticity* of supply and demand. If the product is good enough and makes itself a "brand name" (examplia gratia I got to get something as good as FG2), then the demand goes up. Trademark case of the elasticity. The comment about the movie and a burger, I believe was aimed at the concept that when paying for an item, you tend to want to get your money's worth out of it.:)

[Mellock]

I sortta mentioned this a long time ago. It was a vague idea on my part, and it was kicked around a little before it faded back to the background: if there was a gift shop (me paying for stuff that ended up being tied to someone elses account/order history), I would quite probably end up using it. I think most items in the FG store are cheap enough to be considered for "chipping in".

I don't know if there are many people out there that would use it, versus the effort to put this in place and securing it. I'm in a fun group now and the DM has provided over a dozen pretty consistent sessions, giving me months of entertainment. In my mind that's worth something.

[unerwünscht]

I don't know if there are many people out there that would use it, versus the effort to put this in place and securing it. I'm in a fun group now and the DM has provided over a dozen pretty consistent sessions, giving me months of entertainment. In my mind that's worth something.

Great observation, but that effort put into running the game to make it worth something to you was mostly done by the GM who doesn't see any return at all for his/her effort. Moon is an excellent coder, and honestly deserves to make more money than I assume he is off of FGII. But I suspect some of the limit involved in what he is earning is based on the fact the FGII costs as much as it does.

I would promote the hell out of a free-to-play FGII license, but I honestly don't think this is the way to go. It creates more work for smiteworks to maintain interest in advertisers, than what the generated income would justify.

I honestly think the best option for them would be to reduce the cost of FGII licenses, and get a better hold over the extended content market (Rulesets, modules, tokens, extensions, etc.) Holding a complete monopoly over these things would be detrimental to their business as the community can legally release things for free that smiteworks can not release. BUT Smiteworks is well within their rights (and should exercise those rights) to say people are not allowed to make a free ruleset that competes with one of the premium rulesets.

[Mellock]

Great observation, but that effort put into running the game to make it worth something to you was mostly done by the GM who doesn't see any return at all for his/her effort. Moon is an excellent coder, and honestly deserves to make more money than I assume he is off of FGII. But I suspect some of the limit involved in what he is earning is based on the fact the FGII costs as much as it does.

Ah, yeah, but I meant giving the DM swag with me purchasing it for him via the store, and SmiteWorks making their percentage on the sale. My conscious is clear, the DM gets free swag, and the devs get revenue. win-win-win?

[JohnD]

I don't even know where to begin with the 'Less than a burger and a movie' logic.
You're taking my comments too literally.

Think of the choices as one method of "an evening of fun/entertainment" vs. another method of "an evening of fun/entertainment", where one of those methods gets you one evening, and the other gets you one evening +.

You can actually hurt the perceived value/quality of your product if you price it too low.

SM will make their decision one way or the other, based on what they think is the best avenue to travel down.

[S Ferguson]

Great observation, but that effort put into running the game to make it worth something to you was mostly done by the GM who doesn't see any return at all for his/her effort. Moon is an excellent coder, and honestly deserves to make more money than I assume he is off of FGII. But I suspect some of the limit involved in what he is earning is based on the fact the FGII costs as much as it does.

I would promote the hell out of a free-to-play FGII license, but I honestly don't think this is the way to go. It creates more work for smiteworks to maintain interest in advertisers, than what the generated income would justify.

I honestly think the best option for them would be to reduce the cost of FGII licenses, and get a better hold over the extended content market (Rulesets, modules, tokens, extensions, etc.) Holding a complete monopoly over these things would be detrimental to their business as the community can legally release things for free that smiteworks can not release. BUT Smiteworks is well within their rights (and should exercise those rights) to say people are not allowed to make a free ruleset that competes with one of the premium rulesets.

GM's do get a return in having as much fun as other players, and provideng that fun to the players. I think the licence prices are reasonable for small games, a full and some lite licenses being the only investment needed, And for those who hold an ultimate license, well they're there to pull the non-investors into purchasing the product. After all I heard about Hero Labs long after I heard about FG, simply because of the forum, and quick and expediant help with any issues. Now I own Hero Labs for the games I play most, and a cross-sale is made. This is, I believe, the only way to pull in new buyers. As for making rulesets, we're only allowed to publically distribute non-copywritten material. If you have made a ruleset for a game not licensed, you're asking for a world of legal trouble. Amonst a few friends, fine, but publically I wouldn't risk it. And (re)creating what has already been done. Isn't it just easier to pay for a "lifetime" subscription to updates, rather than reinvent the wheel and have to maintain it for yourself, by yourself? I think it's easier, at least from a programming point of view, would rather not reinvent the wheel, but add shiny chrome rims to them. Just MHO.

[unerwünscht]

I have no idea why people make free rulesets when a premium version of that ruleset exists, but I have seen it happen over the years. I do agree that it is a million times easier to just buy it from SW than it is to try and build one yourself.

Again, I really don't see what Hero labs has to do with this conversation, it isn't made by SW, SW didn't get any money from the sale, and it isn't a competing VTT (as far as I know).

As for the legality in creating unlicensed rulesets you are flat wrong. You can't legally make things like Library Modules, but you are more than legally allowed to create your own custom Character sheet and distribute that (and that is what a ruleset is at the core.) You would get into some touchy legal issues as you start adding automation to the ruleset, but there are plenty of other places where you can find my personal opinion of automation and the people who use it.

There are also plenty of examples of this already being done. NWoD, GURPS etc...
In fact I think I am the only person the ever receive a DMCA notice over a making a ruleset and the ONLY issue they had with it was the fact that I called it "Star Wars Saga Edition' they were quite easy to work with on the topic, and dropped all claims after I offered to rename it 'Space Wars Saga Edition' even tho it had the same abbreviation SWSE.

[unerwünscht]

Also as a quick side note on content for FGII there is the issue that SW is only trying to work with the big companies and games out there, and those companies have little incentive right now to work with SW. Where as there are plenty of us small time game developers that would LOVE to work with SW. I know off the top of my head that Outbreak Undead would love to work with SW, I would love for my game to be officially supported, I am betting that the guy who makes ZOMBIES! would love for some support, I can all but promise the people who make Battlestations would love to get in on it, but we are all little companies that won't initially bring in hundreds of sales on our own so SW has no interest in us.... it is a little heartbreaking honestly.

[S Ferguson]

I have no idea why people make free rulesets when a premium version of that ruleset exists, but I have seen it happen over the years. I do agree that it is a million times easier to just buy it from SW than it is to try and build one yourself.

Again, I really don't see what Hero labs has to do with this conversation, it isn't made by SW, SW didn't get any money from the sale, and it isn't a competing VTT (as far as I know).

As for the legality in creating unlicensed rulesets you are flat wrong. You can't legally make things like Library Modules, but you are more than legally allowed to create your own custom Character sheet and distribute that (and that is what a ruleset is at the core.) You would get into some touchy legal issues as you start adding automation to the ruleset, but there are plenty of other places where you can find my personal opinion of automation and the people who use it.

There are also plenty of examples of this already being done. NWoD, GURPS etc...
In fact I think I am the only person the ever receive a DMCA notice over a making a ruleset and the ONLY issue they had with it was the fact that I called it "Star Wars Saga Edition' they were quite easy to work with on the topic, and dropped all claims after I offered to rename it 'Space Wars Saga Edition' even tho it had the same abbreviation SWSE.

GURPS has an "open" license that has to be adhered to. You cannot automate the rules. Everything SW puts out is under the WoTC Open License 1.0a. White Wolf I can't be certain about, but I'm sure they need all the exposure they can get right now. It's up to the copyright holder to nail you for infringement. And it's still not something I would risk, both for legal reasons, and for the damage it could do to the VTT industry in general.

As for the Hero Labs comment: If I bought Hero Labs, yeah, they made money off of it but likewise, someone on their site sees an add for FG and notes that Hero Labs is fg comptible. Given that Hero Labs uses a combat resolution system, why would you by FG? Because it does what Hero Labs doesn't provide, and vice versa. Both companies make a profit. You're reading waaaay too literally.;)

[unerwünscht]

At this point there is no further conversation that you and I can have. You need to learn the laws as they stand before you engage in your current conversation. You can NOT copyright game mechanics, you can NOT trademark game mechanics, copyright and trademark do not apply to rulesets in anyway, as it would be impossible for you to make an exact duplicate of any character record sheet inside of Fantasy Grounds.

There is a small snag with patent laws and automation as you could patent the individual mechanics of a game one at a time, but you would be hard pressed to get a valid patent as it would require you to be the first to use that mechanic, and I can pretty much assure you every individual mechanic has been used for 1000 years. What makes the game systems unique is the way they combine the mechanics.

You can't infringe upon the branding of another product, so (as an example) you couldn't call your ruleset 'Dungeons and Dragons' or 'D&D' as these names are registered trademarks, but this wouldn't limit you on making the ruleset itself only on what you can name it.

For more see https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

[Griogre]

I'm much more like DrZ as well. I had a online group before moving over to FG and that group was so upset with the software we had been using they were begging me to try anything else after a really bad session. I've never had a problem getting someone to buy a lite license and I personally like the buy-in, since I feel if someone drops a twenty to play they are more likely to actually show up.

[Griogre]

Also as a quick side note on content for FGII there is the issue that SW is only trying to work with the big companies and games out there, and those companies have little incentive right now to work with SW. Where as there are plenty of us small time game developers that would LOVE to work with SW. I know off the top of my head that Outbreak Undead would love to work with SW, I would love for my game to be officially supported, I am betting that the guy who makes ZOMBIES! would love for some support, I can all but promise the people who make Battlestations would love to get in on it, but we are all little companies that won't initially bring in hundreds of sales on our own so SW has no interest in us.... it is a little heartbreaking honestly.

Personally, I feel this issue would be best solved by an easy to use ruleset maker. It would help the indies get rulesets published in a timely fashion. Right now the there's just not that many people that have the time and skill to make new rulesets. Smiteworks is moving in this direction with the modulization of various ruleset parts but it probably won't happen for a while.

[unerwünscht]

Personally, I feel this issue would be best solved by an easy to use ruleset maker. It would help the indies get rulesets published in a timely fashion. Right now the there's just not that many people that have the time and skill to make new rulesets. Smiteworks is moving in this direction with the modulization of various ruleset parts but it probably won't happen for a while.

Yes but where is my incentive to work with SmiteWorks if I have to build the ruleset myself, and the modules etc? If I have to do all of the work, I will just publish it myself and keep all the money for me.

[Dakadin]

Yes but where is my incentive to work with SmiteWorks if I have to build the ruleset myself, and the modules etc? If I have to do all of the work, I will just publish it myself and keep all the money for me.

Good point but the problem I see for Smiteworks is the level of effort required to create a ruleset. I don't think they would make enough money compared to the time spent creating the rulesets.

[unerwünscht]

I agree 100%, it isn't cost effective for them, that is why they are focused on only getting the larger companies. But the larger companies honestly won't see the benefit of it until they see it work for smaller companies first.

With that said, if the ruleset editor is capable of building decent rulesets without having to learn a new programming language (I am horrid with LUA) I have no issue with Smite Works making a portion of the sales, as the ruleset editor contributed significantly to the workload. For D20 based systems I see it working out well, but I don't honestly see it working overly well for non-D20 based games.

[Griogre]

Yes but where is my incentive to work with SmiteWorks if I have to build the ruleset myself, and the modules etc? If I have to do all of the work, I will just publish it myself and keep all the money for me.

As you pointed out earlier, anyone can legally make a character sheet ruleset - so lets let them. The publisher would then sell library modules for the ruleset. An advantage of a ruleset builder would be that the library module format would be the same whomever build the ruleset. Sure, a publisher could sell the library modules without going through Smiteworks but it would be a hassel to set up a store for such a small number of sales. There's also the exposure factor in having the produce in Smitwork's store that I think is similar to self published e-books on Amazon. Those authors can sell from their own sites, and some do, but getting the e-book in the Amazon store gives them exposure to the people most likely to actually buy an e-book.

Edit: Forgot to mention the publisher could also sell an "official" skin for the ruleset as well.

[damned]

Anyone catching this email that hasnt been on the boards for a while - there are still seats available at the Virtual Con running this weekend at www.fg-con.com
Want to get on for a free one shot gaming session - sign up now.

[sakmerlin37]

I'm also a programmer by trade.

I've not made up my mind if Ads are right for FGII or not (although where you put them on the software might not be too easy - rulesets have no standards on "which bit of the screen can be blocked without disabling some vital control" etc...)

BUT I did want to make the point that Ad's are NOT always the obvious choice that you might expect. One product I've worked on (a pay for product in a juicy retail space) is currently making great strides ahead of it's competition, despite us being a "pay only" option, and the competition being "free, with ads". People hated the ads, and despite being offered a "pay to remove ads" option, they chose a "pay for a totally different companies product" option instead - being ad free, the product I worked on was regarded as having a bit more quality. Conversely advert banners makes applications look cheaper than their actual level of quality.

Ads might annoy new users into paying. Or it might annoy new users into not trying the pay-for product. I'm honestly not sure.

I, too, program & develop as both a profession and a hobby and agree with you 100%. The sites, apps, or whatever I've developed before do not have ads simply because I and my clients think they make the end-product "seem" cheap and of low-quality; regardless if whether or not the product is actually low-quality, perception is, in this case, reality.

As a new user (and I have purchased 4 licenses with another 2 or 3 next paycheck), I am glad that FGII does not contain ads. I will happily pay $24 US for a friend or serious gamer to have fun! Heck, a couple of nights out at the movies costs more than the purchase of my 4 licenses and the rule settings/adventures/supporting material I have purchased, and the FGII items are more permanent than a movie :).

[S Ferguson]

I, too, program & develop as both a profession and a hobby and agree with you 100%. The sites, apps, or whatever I've developed before do not have ads simply because I and my clients think they make the end-product "seem" cheap and of low-quality; regardless if whether or not the product is actually low-quality, perception is, in this case, reality.

As a new user (and I have purchased 4 licenses with another 2 or 3 next paycheck), I am glad that FGII does not contain ads. I will happily pay $24 US for a friend or serious gamer to have fun! Heck, a couple of nights out at the movies costs more than the purchase of my 4 licenses and the rule settings/adventures/supporting material I have purchased, and the FGII items are more permanent than a movie :).

Hear, Hear! It's a cheaper option than a lot of other forms of entertainment (although you might need one night out at the pub). And the memories last a lifetime

[sakmerlin37]

I don't even know where to begin with the 'Less than a burger and a movie' logic. It is simply flawed. First of all, I can't eat FGII, nor is there a limited number of cows in the world with what to create FGII. The cost of a burger or beef has nothing in any way to do with the cost of FGII. Simple supply and demand dictates that with a limited number of cattle (supply) and a relatively endless amount of hunger in the world (demand) that the cost of that burger will be comparatively high.

FGII on the other hand is a digital product distributed through an automatically replicating download application. That is an unlimited supply with a very limited demand.

Supply vs. Demand. It was one of the first things everyone should have learned in economics class.

The next issue is comparing the price of one thing to a completely unrelated thing is just asinine at best. It would be like saying "Oh well these cookies cost less than my xBox 360 controller" ... well duh! ... The proper way to compare price is to compare the price of movies to other movies, of food to other foods, of Virtual Table Tops to other Virtual Table Tops, and you will see that FGII has a disproportionate cost in comparison to other products of the same type.

The argument that most people will hop on there is that FGII has features no other VTT has, and that clearly justifies the cost. No it doesn't all those other VTTs have features that FGII doesn't have as well. What does or doesn't justify the cost of FGII is the number of people willing to buy it at the given price. I think there is a clear indication at this point that some people are willing to buy it at the current cost and other are not.

The proper question to as is by reducing (or eliminating) the cost of FGII can smiteworks make more money. For instance if you can sell 20,000 copies of a program at $25 a pop you make $500,000 and if you can sell 100,000 copies at $5 a pop you make $500,000. Or if you are really really greedy, you can sell for a few years at $25 a pop till you have sold all or most of what you can sell at that price and then drop your price to $5 and milk it for everything it is worth. Or if you are SUPER greedy you get a politician in your pocket and get laws passed saying no one else can make a competing product, or that everyone has to have your product by law.

Welcome to America, this is how things are done.

I can only speak for me, but what I think is meant is:

I have X dollars to spend on items (food, clothing, utilities, mortgage... and fun activities, the important part to this thought process); IF my wife and I, with my two children and their significant others, go to the movies, we do NOT have the wherewithall to now buy FGII licenses or products.

While movies and digital products are completely different market sectors, my funds dedicated to purchasing these services or products come from the same pool; thus, I can easily justify the comparison between movies and FGII.

Math:

4 people x $14.99 (current price of matinee movie in my hometown) = $59.96 *
4 people x $15.00 median on food & drinks (popcorn, sodas, candy, hotdogs, etc.) = $60,00

That is roughly $120.00 US.

2 x GM licenses = (39 x 2) = $78.00
2 x Player licenses = (24 x 2) = $48.00

Total = $126.00

I had just over $100 to invest in "fun" at the time I bought my 4 licenses, "borrowing" $26 from food stuffs to cover the rest; I could have gone to the movies, but it is a one-shot deal; instead, I bought a gaming system with which I hope to engage my family and friends over the course of many months or years.

Thus, the logic of comparing FGII to going to see a movie is not flawed, it is simply logistical planning based upon how to allocate limited resources and income to which goods or services may be purchased.

[sakmerlin37]

Hear, Hear! It's a cheaper option than a lot of other forms of entertainment (although you might need one night out at the pub). And the memories last a lifetime

@S_Ferguson

We usually bring the pub to us :P Both my wife & I enjoy a good pint of Guiness or pick a good micro-brewery and invite our friends over to play games. We have a few friends that love to play the more complicated games AND like a good ale, too, so everybody wins.

[S Ferguson]

@S_Ferguson

We usually bring the pub to us :P Both my wife & I enjoy a good pint of Guiness or pick a good micro-brewery and invite our friends over to play games. We have a few friends that love to play the more complicated games AND like a good ale, too, so everybody wins.

I do the same. Ale and Gaming just seem to fit together. Gets the roleplaying juices flowing. I've actually been looking for a pub that will le us play there! Now that's Ideal. Guiness on tap and dice on the table.

[Doswelk]

I had just over $100 to invest in "fun" at the time I bought my 4 licenses, "borrowing" $26 from food stuffs to cover the rest; I could have gone to the movies, but it is a one-shot deal; instead, I bought a gaming system with which I hope to engage my family and friends over the course of many months or years.

Thus, the logic of comparing FGII to going to see a movie is not flawed, it is simply logistical planning based upon how to allocate limited resources and income to which goods or services may be purchased.
Given that I joined this forum in July 2005 (which means I would have bought FG1 around then) and have been using my copy of Fantasy nearly every week since I could not agree more!

[Mellock]

Not to mention that the company here is entirely more enjoyable than the base sort that frequents our local tavern, the lost and found ****tail bar.

[S Ferguson]

Not to mention that the company here is entirely more enjoyable than the base sort that frequents our local tavern, the lost and found ****tail bar.

I don't find it much different than the pubs I frequent, albeit here people are much more helpful and caring and kind :)

[Sharpevil]

I'd just like to throw my two cents in, even if it is a slight forum rez.

First and foremost, I'd like to say that I like fantasy grounds more than roll20. But I play games on roll20 a hell of a lot more than fantasy grounds, simply because it's difficult to argue against free. Roll20 may not have all the features one might want, but it has all the features one needs to play almost any RPG.

I'd love to play all my games on fantasy grounds, but I can't, because of the barrier to entry. I can't afford an ultimate license. Even if I could, I don't DM every game I play in.

Another point I'd like to make: Phantomwhale gave a binary choice as to what ads do: They either annoy people into buying, or annoy them into quitting. I don't think this is the case. In the vast majority of cases, I believe the player will scarcely notice the ads, and not be swayed to buy or to leave. I know that's how I feel about roll20.

Anyway, those are just my feelings on the subject. I'm strongly for an ad-supported version of Fantasy Grounds. I'd love to play with some friends who don't have the cash to pony up, or even some friends who aren't necessarily that into RPGs yet.

[Macgreine]

Hey Sharp,
You mentioned roll20 and I have yet to see an advertisement there. As far as I know they are funded by community support and not ads. Please correct me if I am wrong. The lesson to be learned in this is if a community believes in your product they will support it as long as you dont make jump through hoops to discover it. You know what I mean?

It seems like in the day and age we live in developers have an option of caging up their creation and making you buy the key to discover it or just making it accessible to everyone knowing their product is worthy of support. If its deemed worthy it will have all the support it needs. Of this I am sure and I have no doubt FG2 is worthy.

"re positions soap box so that others hear the call"

[ddavison]

No need to apologize for the thread rez, I keep an eye on it even when I don't always jump in and comment. It's helpful to keep a pulse on things and we use that to help us prioritize changes and feature updates -- in addition to the wishlist.

[Sharpevil]

Hey Sharp,
You mentioned roll20 and I have yet to see an advertisement there. As far as I know they are funded by community support and not ads. Please correct me if I am wrong. The lesson to be learned in this is if a community believes in your product they will support it as long as you dont make them jump through hoops to discover it. You know what I mean?

"re positions soap box so that others hear the call"

Ah, you're a bit off, there. Maybe you have adblockplus enabled? Before you can enter any game, it shows you an ad. That's all the in-game advertisement there is, though. Just an ad you have to see before it lets you enter.

[ddavison]

I've noticed that the Roll20 user count continues to grow on the home page but their forum views and postings don't ever look even remotely large enough for that many users. It is encouraging if the community really is that large, because it means there are lots of untapped prospects who are interested in virtual tabletops. It does make me wonder though.

[Sharpevil]

If we could somehow push FG through steam greenlight, that would likely help a lot, too. Doesn't seem like that's happening, though.

[Macgreine]

I've noticed that the Roll20 user count continues to grow on the home page but their forum views and postings don't ever look even remotely large enough for that many users. It is encouraging if the community really is that large, because it means there are lots of untapped prospects who are interested in virtual tabletops. It does make me wonder though.

That might be true but perhaps those postings dont reflect the community at large seeing as though people have found groups to play in and no longer post.

[damned]

im one of those user counts but ive never played the product... nothing against the product - i just have no need or time to use it as my gaming fix is being met here.

[Macgreine]

Ah, you're a bit off, there. Maybe you have adblockplus enabled? Before you can enter any game, it shows you an ad. That's all the in-game advertisement there is, though. Just an ad you have to see before it lets you enter.

My bad I have never actually joined a campaigned there. If what you are saying is true though having to endure one ad for hours of fun RP is well worth it.

[Moon Wizard]

I've noticed that the trend on Roll20 has been to add lots of new features that are only accessible to annual subscription members (anywhere from $50-100 per year).

It seems to me that it would be the same as if we gave out a free version that only loaded a basic map and tokens generic ruleset. However, I haven't played on Roll20 yet, so I can't say what the difference is. I just like more automation and customization when I want it, which is what brought me to FG originally.

Cheers,
JPG

[Layander]

Are you forgetting the decline in ultimate license sales? Who would buy that if anyone could play for free, it's not worth 100 dollars to me to make sure you don't have adds.

[JohnD]

I'd just like to throw my two cents in, even if it is a slight forum rez.

I'd love to play all my games on fantasy grounds, but I can't, because of the barrier to entry. I can't afford an ultimate license. Even if I could, I don't DM every game I play in.
Why would Ultimate be the only option? Full is a lot cheaper.

As for Lite version, compare that cost to any time you or your friends have gone to a movie for 2 hours. I'll bet it actually comes out cheaper, even before you take into account 2 hours of entertainment vs. vast multiples of that time.

Still, to each their own I suppose.

[damned]

i never used to be able to afford $140 for a game but i could find it to go out drinking :)
now i can only drink $15 worth so i can afford to buy my games...

[Blackfoot]

I've noticed that the Roll20 user count continues to grow on the home page but their forum views and postings don't ever look even remotely large enough for that many users. It is encouraging if the community really is that large, because it means there are lots of untapped prospects who are interested in virtual tabletops. It does make me wonder though.
I'm sure a lot of people, like myself, have created an account to check it out and then never used it again... are those part of those numbers you are talking about here?