Making Lite licenses Free or very cheap [Archive] - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

ddavison

December 14th, 2013, 21:16

Qai

December 14th, 2013, 21:36

Hi Doug,

As an Ultimate License holder, I would be fine with the following: right beside the Settings button on the main menu add a Credits button and throw our names in there.

If you want to give us extra goodies, that's cool too, but unnecessary. I'm glad to support you guys and the amount of fun I've had with FG more than makes up for what I paid.

Cheers.

feral1

December 14th, 2013, 22:10

I've got 2xLite and a Full License. Before FG, my group of friends would get together once or twice a year to play. No we can do it whenever our schedules permit. As far as I'm concerned, I've already reaped full value for what I've invested. You should do whatever is best for you to keep FG financially viable for you.

Doswelk

December 15th, 2013, 01:03

I did not pay for my Ultimate license so I cannot comment on that, but with regard to making the lite license free, if that is what it takes to increase your sales, then so be it.

To be honest I think technically I've never made you any money from my purchases :P I bought FG1 and have been enjoying free upgrades ever since, I will not abandon FGII and will keep making modules/rulesets for you to sell as that funds my RPGing habits these days :D

malvok

December 15th, 2013, 01:04

Maybe you could give out a free copy of that ruleset wizard that's in production to ultimate license holders.

ddavison

December 15th, 2013, 01:42

Maybe you could give out a free copy of that ruleset wizard that's in production to ultimate license holders.

Malvok, I like that idea and that is something we've considered so far. It makes sense.

dulux-oz

December 15th, 2013, 02:34

Hi Guys,

I hold an Ultimate License. If you check through the forums for the relevant posts you'll note that I'm quite AOK with the pricing structure "as is" and don't believe it to be a burden on the (serious) players who game with me - however, if you feel you need to change things then its your right to do so. My impression of the people who post here (and especially the GM's) are committed to FG2 so I doubt you'll loose anyone if you do change things.

A bit of official "kudos" on the front page of the website for Ultimate License holders would probably go down very well, along with some "kudos" for those who are helping out the community: those who develop rulesets, are the go-to-guys for help and problems and those who develop Tutorials and Ruleset Creators, etc.

Just my $0.02. :)

Bidmaron

December 15th, 2013, 03:53

OK, here's a different idea. Since making the kites free will lose you revenue, charge a nominal upgrade fee when you do the next major bump, and let us ultimate license holders get the first upgrade for free.

However, as with everyone else who posted, I feel I've had a great value for my money, and it won't matter to me if new users get a relatively better deal. We need Smiteworks to be prosperous, and that's worth more than the few dollars you are talking about to me.

hawkwind

December 15th, 2013, 07:47

I'm with the rule set editor idea but then I have a full license. Maybe you could charge for some new features like proper lighting effects or game hosting services so players could have access to the GM's maps and handouts while GM is off line and you could do a short of play by post play which I notice a few people doing on Roll20.net

SLB

December 15th, 2013, 07:50

To be honest, I've never really understood the complaint about cost - it's about the cost of a core rulebook for most major game systems and it's a one time cost for life. That said, despite my not understanding it, it does appear to be a real issue with some gamers. I guess the real question is, are there GMs who are not purchasing the system because their players won't pay for it.

I'm only a full license holder and my players all own lite copies so while the change would make it less expensive for any future players joining my campaign, it's of relatively little impact to me. That said, I think it is best to view it through the lens of the early adapter - those who purchase early always run the risk that the technology they are purchasing will be better and less expensive in the future. So personally, I would not hold a grudge if prices change after purchase, with the possible except of a very recent purchase.

As for rewards, here's a thought: I'm not sure if the kickstarter idea is still about - if so, then what if ultimate license holders are included as kickstarters at a certain level regardless of what they pledge (even if it is nothing). This allows those FG supporters to pledge what they want to the kickstarter campaign to support the company - and those ultimate license holders who are unhappy with the pricing structure change can choose to donate less to the kickstarter while others who aren't particularly concerned can pledge more to help smiteworks meet their goal. That lets the ultimate license holders decide what they each think is a fair compensation for the impact (to the level at which you include them).

Trenloe

December 15th, 2013, 08:05

How would giving Lite licenses away for free affect each license type?
1) Full Licenses - these all get bumped up to Ultimate licenses essentially. Should the price point go up and what would be a fair price? Will the higher GM cost, but the lower group cost grow or shrink the number of GMs coming to FG?
What we see with each FG Con is that there is a relatively small number of FG GMs available to run games for others - even with the full-to-ultimate upgrade for the convention, which is essentially what you are suggesting here. Would new GMs come to FG if the cost for the "full everything players don't need to pay" license being more than the full is now? There would certainly be no excuse for players not coming over and playing and the usual comments on other forums of "I don't play it because it costs money" would now be a moot point. But, would there be enough GMs coming over to FG and paying more than the current full license to be able to GM for players not paying a cent. I'm sure there'd be a few sign up and it would certainly aid a few people who have posted on these forums about struggling to get players because they don't own an ultimate license and players aren't willing to pay for a lite license. It would also aid gaming groups a little - but it might also block some gaming groups where GMs rotate; it might now end up that a group of 6 players who all want to GM have to buy a much more expensive "all in one" license compared to buying 6 full licenses (with bulk purchase discounts).

As usual, you're never going to get a perfect solution and never going to please everyone. A way of attracting new players is a very desirable goal, but if new GMs are alienated then it may be a catch-22 situation.

Mellock

December 15th, 2013, 08:10

I have an ultimate license, and I've gotten my gaming buxx worth out of it at least twofold. I wouldn't mind a different revenue model. All I really care about is:
1. Is it sustainable enough for FG to get the love and attention it gets now?
2. Will the community stay friendly?

Do player licenses have to be free to become more attractive, btw? Is there a psychological "point" at which someone says "I'll try this anyway" like $9.99? All I want is for those free players to become friendly, reliable parts of the community, while keeping the FG ship afloat. Would this be a good time to mention the "gift store" idea again? So players can get their DMs a copy of something?

Besides the actual licenses, everything in the store is pretty much geared towards DMs anyway, innit?

Mellock

December 15th, 2013, 08:13

Oh, and will the next complaint be "How is it possible this is not free for DM's, the lifeblood of gaming?"

Weltengeist

December 15th, 2013, 09:13

Oh, and will the next complaint be "How is it possible this is not free for DM's, the lifeblood of gaming?"

I'm pretty sure it will. Even if player licenses were free and GM licenses (aka the new ultimate) cost 5$, there will be some that complain.

But concerning the OP, as Storm P. said: It's hard to make predictions, especially of the future.

Personally, I will of course feel a bit stupid for spending 115$ on an upgrade to ultimate license in September when the update becomes free half a year later. But in the end, I can afford it; I wouldn't be pissed and would certainly see the greater good in this. Can't promise the same holds for everyone, though.

I'm wondering, however, how you would manage the shift financially. If 115$ were what you had to charge for an ultimate license to get by, how can you now get by when giving it away for significantly less and removing the Lite licenses altogether? Economically, this sounds like a bet on a lot of new buyers - what if those don't come?

Having said that, I personally feel that the current Lite and Full license prices are okay, just the Ultimate (and Ultimate upgrade) price is inappropriate, since it only pays out if you have a group of GM and 5 players, none of which has a Lite or GM license. So at the moment, Ultimate license is only attractive to GMs who play several online campaigns with many different players. Thus, I'm wondering whether a strategy might be to keep Lite and Full prices as they are, but decreasing Ultimate (and Ultimate upgrade) price to a reasonable level. You may even want to do this only for a limited time. Combining this with as much advertising in social media as possible, this would give you an indication of how many people are actually interested.

But it's hard to make predictions without numbers. How about doing a poll in forums where online players meet, asking them what prices would motivate them to buy, if any? If you want, I can post such a poll in the German online player forums and relay the results to this threat. The question is just: What questions do you want me to ask?

Valarian

December 15th, 2013, 11:24

As another Ultimate license holder, I can too say that I don't mind if Full licenses get bumped to Ultimate functionality and the Lite licenses disappear. I've got my money's worth from the gaming I've done over the years, even with the number of licenses I've purchased over the years. A credit's page for Ultimate supporters, or a forum title would be nice.

You may wish to bump up the price of new Full licenses a little, say to $50. This is still the price of a larger hardback game book or console game (at least the Sterling equivalent in the UK is). Part of me doesn't like the lack of buy-in by players but, if that's what is needed to compete with other VTTs, then it's got to be done. <rant mode>The younger generation (grumpy old man isn't down to age but state of mind) seems to want everything at no cost and no effort. The world doesn't work like that. What's even more surprising are the number of endeavours / companies that pander to the attitude. </rant mode>

Will full to full/ultimate connections still work if the alias server is down? This isn't going down a fully server-dependent route is it?

Valarian

December 15th, 2013, 11:31

Would players take the $5 a month subscription route I wonder? This could be a way to separate the Full from Ultimate. Full licenses accept the "Lite" subscription priced license but Ultimate licenses can run for the free Unregistered license. People seem to be trained in to paying low, regular, amounts through phones and things now - instead of a larger up-front cost. Probably as companies like the regular income stream and it ends up costing the customer more in the long run.

damned

December 15th, 2013, 12:15

ultimate license holder: i want you to do what is best for the company. ive got my value from the product and i knew what i was paying for when i got it. things are often cheaper later on. thats ok with me.
free lite licenses: i just dont see how this helps your revenue stream. i see how it helps bring people thru the door but they still gotta find a game somewhere. free and short attention spans seem to also be quite common. if its free many people dont value it - certainly no real loyalty to it. look there's another new free product over there! and there... and there...
ruleset builder: its no small task. if it was it would have been done before. ill happily contribute to it. i dont think you ought to go giving it away.
steam: so many possibilities - it seems steam does support subscrition models. perhaps you can you have a "new" license model on steam? maybe 2 new models? player license for $1-3/month. price it at whatever you want but make it cheap and get numbers thru the door. maybe you gotta work with existing GM base and try and get a few extra games running for the month when you launch to keep things happening. the other license could be a $5-10/month ultimate license. if someone wants to try FG and not just a one on one demo version but wants to do some real prep and run 2 or 3 sessions with their players to experience its goodness and they can do that for $7.99 they can just do it.
id be concentrating on steam imho because you want to increase the user base and you need to grow the revenue base. subscription model is the best way to do that i think. if you let steam handle all the billing details etc and they just drop you a monthly cheque you can concentrate on product and perhaps events (like fg-cons or tournaments or something). people can still buy their licenses outright from you or they can buy the subscription from steam. you can tweak the pricing as you see fit. especially the steam stuff - have discount weekends around rpg events etc.
you could also do stuff like give one month free with their first month purchase on the steam GM/Ultimate license to really give new GMs and their groups the time they need to get hooked while you still get your $5 or whatever is left after steam take their bite.
moving everyone to subscription: wouldnt overly bother me but i think that many longer time license holders have expressed strong opposition to this. might be more hassle than its worth. chase the new users on steam and let them incrementally increase your monthly revenue.

Blacky

December 15th, 2013, 17:15

The debate about Fantasy Grounds versus other VTTs often comes down to price.
<snip>
First it's good that you address this, and think about it.

Second, I would guess there's two aspects to this. Gaming and Business.

The Business side wants to maximize income, meaning a mix of number of sales, unit prices, size of the client base, etc. It's hard to advise on these, because we have no metrics. But you could get those. Do your clients tend to move around a lot, or do they tend to stick to the same gaming group (or groups) for example.

One thing I would say, is to market it based on usage. Steam sells computer games, and most computer games are both expensive and played out very fast. Pay $40, play 30 hours, then move on to the next game. I would advise to find some hard data or nice studies proving this point, and then showing the usage of FG. My educated guess is that even for someone not playing a lot, when it comes down to price per hour of play, FG is incredibly cheaper than most computer games (which isn't difficult, most computer games are sold at outrageous prices).

As for the Gaming side, I need to strongly voice what seems to be here a minority opinion (other online rpg communities have a different take on this): the GM needs to stop paying for everything! He buys the rulebook, the sourcebooks, the campaign books, he currently pays the most expensive FG license, and he invest much more time in each gaming sessions than the players. And I say this as a gamer who can be a GM but largely prefers to be a player.

Another point to make, is motivation. I sometimes hear that people don't want to pay for a software, or this software. I encountered several people using or trying to use pirated version of FG. In almost every case, it's pure bullshit. Large, hot, smelly, lingering bullshit. At every virtual table I play (as a GM or as a player, doesn't matter) I personally don't want a player who bitch about this. If he doesn't have the motivation to pay $24 (which is not nothing, but these days it's closing fast on one theater ticket, it's also the price of a sourcebook, or the price of a discounted videogame, it's also cheaper than three dead trees books, and so on) he most certainly doesn't have the motivation to be there each week, not to be late, not watching Youtube while we play, and so on. I find the price a good way to weed out the lazy and some of the morons.

But, those people bitching about price do exist. So one thing to consider, is that the size of the user base impact everyone. A bigger user base means more people using rulesets (without ruleset, FG is very very basic and isn't worth its price) meaning a bigger ask for these meaning more people motivated to make and maintain ruleset.

One thing though, it's the demo version. Beside the fact that the FG website if bullshit, one needs to dig deep into the forum to find exactly how it works, it's not very useful in its current state. It works for a GM wanting to try it out, see if he moves his campaign and gaming table unto FG. But my guess would be that's a minority of your client base, most sales would be by players being asked to buy FG by their GM. And when a player enter a new campaign, a new gaming table with people he doesn't know, the first few gaming sessions aren't very much to test FG but to test the gaming table itself (is the GM good? Are the other players asses? And so on). So a slightly more relax policy on demo usage, maybe even something controlled by the FG server (I'm against all things hosted by experience and principle, but for a free demo that's fine), might be nice.

Third and last aspect of this. Since you're talking about the FG Business, you might think about the third party remuneration. How much you pay people who make things that sells. I worked in the gaming industry, I know the prices of rpg licenses, and it seems that you pay creators pretty much nothing. I think in those deals, between SmiteWorks, a Gaming Publisher and an Author, from whatever is left after the Gaming Publisher get its cut the author should get over half at least. Might encourage people to create more things (ruleset, graphics packs, whatever) and maintain them.

Valarian

December 15th, 2013, 18:44

How much you pay people who make things that sells. I worked in the gaming industry, I know the prices of rpg licenses, and it seems that you pay creators pretty much nothing. I think in those deals, between SmiteWorks, a Gaming Publisher and an Author, from whatever is left after the Gaming Publisher get its cut the author should get over half at least. Might encourage people to create more things (ruleset, graphics packs, whatever) and maintain them.
In the defence of Smiteworks: the standard deal is 15% for the Ruleset Developer, which I don't consider "pretty much nothing". The administrative and licensing costs come out of the rest. If it's original work, then the percentage is higher IIRC.

Honken

December 15th, 2013, 18:50

I am a Full license holder, and I don't mind if you do make Full license the new Ultimate! ;) This has nothing to do with me not being an Ultimate license holder. I have considered upgrading to the Ultimate, but my friends has lite licenses (and one has bought his own Full) I actually don't need it.

I have not been all that active in this community, other then checking in on the forums from time to time, and posting even less frequent. I have just now applied to my first FG II game, and I am looking forward too it.

Maybe you guys should just make the demo version a little more open. Maybe letting the one that has the Dionor adventure loaded letting them accept 2 - 4 connections. Making it so that so that there will be a limit on how many items they can do, maps/pictures they can load... and so on.

Anyway, I just figured I would share my thoughts on the matter.

/H

ddavison

December 15th, 2013, 19:22

Thanks for all the great feedback so far. At the current rate of purchases, it makes no sense to drop the Lite licenses to free and increase the functionality of the Fulls at the expense of the Ultimate licenses. It would be a calculated risk that making that change would bring in significantly more users than we have today and that those users would eventually upgrade to a Full license and begin buying the various add-ons. It would also be an attempt to make our price a no-brainer for users once it goes onto Steam. I'm personally pretty hesitant about the idea. Roll20 is touted as a success with large numbers of users, but I really have no idea if they are successful from a financial standpoint. 500K users (if that number is accurate) who all pay nothing is worse than 27K users who actually paid for product.

Subscriptions (as suggested) would be another good option that we may be able to include side-by-side with lifetime purchases at our current rates. Would $3 a month for Lite licenses, $5 for Full and $10 for Ultimate licenses attract people that don't want to buy the licenses out-right?

dr_venture

December 15th, 2013, 19:41

I have a Full License and a couple Lites, so of course I would benefit and enjoy the upgrade in functionality. I don't mind losing the money/value on the Lites, as overall I'd come out ahead, I think.

As to my opinion on the business benefits of the change: on one hand, the move to a free client would encourage players I know personally outside of the FG community to try out one of my online games. Getting them to pop for a Lite License has been difficult in the past, as they have enough face-to-face games to keep them happy - why bother spending money on something they might not like? On the other hand, I agree with a previous comment that a free client is likely to increase the flaky players... whether this is a reflection of the over-all increase in players in general, both flaky and reliable, I don't know. But I do think that a free client would be a good way for people using FG to encourage their RW gaming friends to migrate to the FG platform... thus increasing the potential revenue there. That comment comes with a really big "IMO," there.

On the subject of increasing the cost of a Full License: I'm a bit wary there. Speaking on behalf of the income-challenged out there, I had enough trouble affording the Full License when I bought it. I might have been especially hesitant to drop the money on it if it was that much more expensive. FG functionality/usability is just plain weird compared to the standard UI in most other programs, and without any good end user documentation, it took a while to figure out how to really use it. Now it seems trivially easy, but the demo campaign that came with the game was of marginal use in really teaching me how to use the game, how important the radial menu was, what the heck the difference is between running a game and rolling a character locally, etc. In summary, I don't know if I would have been willing to pop the money for the Full version just based on the demo campaign if the Full version went up. That said, a really well-done, professional-quality walk through video of how to use the demo campaign, embedded right in the FG web site where it was easy to find, might have sold me on the value and usability.

Just some ideas...

Coverchrg

December 15th, 2013, 19:48

When my Steam group decided to try a little tabletop gaming, we initially looked at Fantasy Grounds as one option, and we were excited when we saw that we could get a trial version to test. But when we saw that we actually couldn't all play using it, we moved on since the trial version wouldn't be useful for the three or four of us. Being an old DM, I liked the idea of Fantasy Grounds and kept researching it to see exactly what it could do, and after reading reviews and watching videos I went straight for the ultimate license because I know that my group wouldn't pay to try it out (they're all poor bastards), and that I'd need to be able to have several free accounts in the game before they'd be convinced to buy it. I know that once they see how good it really is, they'll pick it up.

My suggestion would be to keep the pricing but change the way the licenses work, just a bit. Give the ability to run a game with a single free license player to the Lite license owner by using a sample adventure. Increase the number of free account players that a Full license owner can have in the game by an additional one or two. Give the Ultimate license owners the additional ability to use play-by-post with Lite license owners (this was my only disappointment with Fantasy Grounds).

I know that in my own group, if we'd had the ability for more of us to actually try the system without a big expense up front (especially without knowing the abilities of the system) that we'd all likely be licensed players already. We likely would have been able to get one person to purchase a Lite or even Full license from the outset in order to play, then the rest would have purchased a license of their own later (we like to support the things we use and only use free trials as just that).

On Steam, I find that my group usually only purchases games when they go on sale (I'm the exception since I have money), so you may want to keep that in mind when deciding what to do. Also, don't forget that many Steam games will also offer free weekends for players to try their games. I don't know if that's possible for Fantasy Grounds but thought it worth mentioning. Whatever you do, know that I love my Ultimate license and tell every person I find that plays games about Fantasy Grounds. If people could see how awesome the system is, even with the learning curve, they'd be converts too.

ddavison

December 15th, 2013, 19:55

I'm researching Paypal's subscription service and it sounds like we'd be able to give a fully working trial version that we limit to X days/weeks/months. It's unclear whether or not we'd need to charge a minimum of $1 for it or if it can be completely free. From several of these posts, it sounds like that would have helped encourage their groups to try it sooner. I agree that we also need to work on improving the first time users' experience with a better walk-through and/or demo.

For those who have players that were not willing to buy something in order to try it out, do you think a free or $1 trial for 30 days followed by a low monthly subscription would have enticed them? I think the key is to make it easy to unsubscribe so you don't tick anyone off. I always hate when the unsubscribe is buried away somewhere.

dr_venture

December 15th, 2013, 19:55

Ah - I just saw your most recent post, Doug - I think a very inexpensive subscription or pay-by-the-session fee might be a good alternative way to bring in folks who just want to try out a few sessions. I think once folks get their feet wet they'll be much more likely to spring for the full software... especially if you could apply the subscription or session fee towards their purchase (well, say if the purchase within the next 10 days or something - give some incentive to converting quickly). Just an idea.

malvok

December 15th, 2013, 20:14

I hate anything subscription based. Even if a program subscription is dirt cheap, I avoid subbing. I don't mind paying more for a product if I can use it when and as I wish.

ddavison

December 15th, 2013, 20:24

Malvok,

I think that sentiment is shared by many of our current users. I'm thinking this would be an alternative option.

malvok

December 15th, 2013, 20:28

Have you considered an ad based free lite client? Yeah ads suck, but ad based apps are very common on mobile platforms.

cscase

December 15th, 2013, 20:32

I upgraded to ultimate about 3 months ago. Like someone else said, I might feel like a bit of a dope for having done that, but ultimately, I'd still be getting the agreed upon functionality for the agreed upon price, so I don't see any reason for me to complain. And, as others have said, I want to see FG succeed and grow.

One question I think might be interesting to think about is this: Which of these scenarios do you think more often applies for new customers to FG?

A) Someone reads about FG online and decides to try it out, not knowing any DMs but hoping he can get into a game with people online. In this scenario, the big appeal of FG is that you don't necessarily have to have a group of people interested in playing, because the community supplies that.

B) A pre-existing group of people is playing a game, or wants to, and investigates FG as an option. They don't care about the availability of DMs or groups online. In this scenario, the biggest appeal of FG is that people who find it hard to schedule a night out, or who live in different parts of the world, can still get together online for a game that might otherwise be impossible.

And as a followup question, do you expect that this ratio will shift as a result of FG being on Steam?

It seems like the answer to these questions might affect decision making. Who is the target market? Is it possible to market to more than one group? Is there any way to get more hard data about who the current stream of incoming customers are, and who potential customers are, so that decisions could be made based on that? I wonder how many players are out there that are happily using FG and never come to these forums, and how can you capture data from them, too?

damned

December 15th, 2013, 20:57

Doug - i think those numbers are good - but go for something odd like $2.88/$4.77/$9.76 or something - it feels like you have sharpened the pencil as much as you can, it feels less than $3/5/10 and really its the second and successive months where you actually make some money. the free weekends could coincide with Cons to ensure there are some games to be found, you could give bonuses to GMs on 3rd and 6th and 12th months etc - small things like an extra 6/12 tokens, a small but quality adventure, unlock a new ruleset, encourages people to be sticky. costly when you have 25 subscribers, easy when you have 25,000 and easy to finance when you have 125,000 :) getting people in by low subscription and then keeping them sticky by growing the subscriptions value at the same price point keeps them happy.
I would also consider dropping the middle license tier - just have player and ultimate license subscriptions - and of course keep your current outright purchase options because many people still prefer this and you get your 6-16months of revenue up front.

Qai

December 15th, 2013, 22:06

Personally, I shy away from anything subscription-based with regards to software/games. There is an all-too-familiar sentiment that anything that is subscription-based is really just "renting". I remember back in my Super Nintendo days renting games for a 24 or 48 hour period. I would cram in as much gaming as possible with that little time I had that I wasn't able to thoroughly enjoy the actual gaming. I can recall occasions where I would get a guide for a game and just whiz through it will all the tips and hints so that my rental period wasn't spent on trying to figure out how to play and whatnot. On the other hand, when you purchase the product, you play when you want for how long you want.

Reading through all the comments, the sentiment I'm feeling is there is the worry of alienating Ultimate license holders. My first comment notwithstanding, I'll just throw out some ideas how to accommodate Ultimate license holders. I don't necessarily agree or want these implementations, but just brainstorming for things to consider that might help resolve the issue:

- Ultimate license permits custom rulesets. All other licenses are limited to D&D, Pathfinder, CoreRPG, and Numenera as defaults with additional rulesets having to be purchased. In other words, custom rulesets and modding are disabled for non-Ultimate license holders;

- Ultimate license permits unlimited custom tokens, maps, and story boards. All other licenses are limited to a set number;

- Ultimate license permits unlimited campaigns. All other licenses are limited to a set number per ruleset;

- Ultimate license permits unlimited number of players. All other licenses are limited to GM + 4 players;

- Ultimate license holders can host sessions on dedicated servers provided by SmiteWorks...

Blacky

December 16th, 2013, 02:19

I don't like subscriptions, and certainly hate this for software. But, some people disagree, and it's also a good way to do in depth trial. If there's an appeal to this, why not.

$3/$5/$10 seems quite ok to me.

And yes, a less steep curve to learn FG would be quite useful. Great contextual help ingame seems like a first step. A player needs to be able to find something he wants to do, and to find what's something doing, in a handful of seconds top.

Increasing the quality of community ruleset for trendy or major games would be also helpful. That's not only the ruleset itself, it's also what is it, where is it, where can one report bug or ask for help with it, and so on. I'm using FG one to three times a week for several years now, I still don't know what game is really covered (meaning by a decent ruleset, without bugs, maintained for compatibility, etc.) It's all exploded between these forums, the website, the wiki (which was at time incredibly slow, or down, or moving URL, or something else too), some blogs, some websites, and other community (mainly non English speaking ones).

And, it's a business decision, but there's also the matter of localization. Right now, to be blunt, it feels like “go screw yourself you non English speaking heathens” because of the non-ascii filename and/or path very old bug still not corrected, not to mention no Unicode. But even if it were corrected, there's a market for people who don't read or don't want to read English or use a software in a foreign language. The question is, would the money invested in this pay off? You have the metrics, we don't.

Although, this would be a perfect crowdfunding feature. Estimate the cost, crowdfund it with people who can deliver on the localization, and handle the future costs (localizing new features and such).

One comment on the brainstorming of limiting features. I'm against it. Ferociously against it. It's restricting purely to restrict, it's artificially increasing the price without increasing the value. I know it's just brainstorming, but when I read Qai's suggestions I'm jumping out of my chair and going for a flamethrower.

ddavison

December 16th, 2013, 02:30

One comment on the brainstorming of limiting features. I'm against it. Ferociously against it. It's restricting purely to restrict, it's artificially increasing the price without increasing the value. I know it's just brainstorming, but when I read Qai's suggestions I'm jumping out of my chair and going for a flamethrower.

While we appreciate the suggestion, that doesn't fit our style.

As for the non-English crowd, we would like to expand the functionality for our non-English speaking users one day. We have people from all different countries here and a large contingent from Germany, France and Brazil. If we had better support for non-English languages, we would probably have a lot more users from there and from the many other countries that we sell into.

Qai

December 16th, 2013, 02:45

I completely understand the sentiments expressed with regards to the list of limiting features. As I wrote, I don't necessarily agree or want those things implemented myself. At least now it's a little bit clearer as to what kinds of things are on and off the table. Also, Blacky, please unleash the flamethrower at the list and not me!

dulux-oz

December 16th, 2013, 03:57

The topic of documentation for new Players/GM's has come up a couple of times in this thread and (obviously) in other threads as well, sooooo....

In another one of my blatant self-interest plugs, I encourage people to view the wonderful Tutorial Videos that yours truly has created and which can be found by clicking on the link in the signature below. ;)

Maybe as part of initial FG2 installation these (or others - nah, just these :p ) can be included - or at least a link to them.

"Give it a rest!" I hear some of you say - fair enough, but people seem to like and value them, people tell me they find them useful, and people need to know that they are there. This is called, wait for it, "Advertising".

And as a practical point, how much Advertising does SmiteWorks do? Maybe that's the answer to increasing the user-base and the revenue stream?

Again, just my 2nd lot of $0.02. :D

Dr0W

December 16th, 2013, 04:20

Mgrancey

December 16th, 2013, 05:41

My Ultimate license was a gift as well, and truthfully so long as I don't have to go to a subscription model for its use I doubt I will be much irritated. As another suggestion, though this may be more work than you might want to add: have you thought about how some of the Free to Play MMO game models for unlicensed/licensed versions of play? In particular I mean like DnD Online or Neverwinter, not a big MMO guy, where you can only have X characters or only connect with X number of Full licenses for Unlicensed players and have unlimited characters or connections with Lite Licenses? Ultimate licenses wouldn't be effected or count against the unlicensed limits. This would keep the benefits and rewards about the same, while still giving more incentive to players to purchase at least a lite license.

They could of course hack the list of characters or connections probably, but that would also run the risk of getting booted from Steam so they probably wouldn't; as that could really hurt.

Weltengeist

December 16th, 2013, 09:20

I hate anything subscription based. Even if a program subscription is dirt cheap, I avoid subbing. I don't mind paying more for a product if I can use it when and as I wish.

Just to rub it in a bit more: I'm completely with you (and everyone else who expressed their aversion to subscriptions)!

If FG2 would have been subscription-based back in 2010 when I first came in contact with it, I would never have used it. Matter of fact.

Btw:

27K users who actually paid for product.

Is that the actual number for FG2 at the moment?

damned

December 16th, 2013, 10:12

guys - doug has said multiple times that, if offered, a subscription model would be in addition to the current outright license model.
obviously targeting the people who have bought a license already is pretty pointless - the aim is to try to encourage that reluctant group of potential players/gm's who arent ready to part with $100 to get their group gaming. if they could do it for $10 for a month and get to experience the kool-aid they might turn into long term users either on the subscription model or by becoming purchasers.
passion is good but dont waste it on fights that dont exist :)
more users means more games which is good for all of us and more financial users means a healthy smiteworks which is also good for all of us :)

damned

December 16th, 2013, 10:21

I've bought my full license back in 2010. So far I haven't successfully convinced a single player to buy a Lite license so I could DM. After 3 years I've finally upgraded my Full to Ultimate in this last Black Friday and I'm yet to run my very first game in FG2. So, yea, I wish I could go back in time and not upgrading it to Ultimate. If I was offered the option to get a refund for the ultimate upgrade I've just purchased, I'd even take it as credit in store so I could purchase lots of stuff I'd love to.

But I agree that pricing in FG2 is a big problem at least for me and people in my country. I'm really happy that you plan on putting the prices down.

Dr0w - you have double the challenge - the product is an English Language product and its expensive for your part of the world. lets make sure we get coordinated better on the next Virtual Con and we can hopefully get your first game running (if not before). Apologies for taking this thread in another direction but - you should also try to recruit players in other forums/mediums. most of my players do not come from the existing fantasy grounds pool of players - many come from a local D&D meetup.com group, some have come from penandpapergames.com and recently (hangs his head in shame) one came from facebook. ive also tried enworld.org (to no result but that doesnt means others wont be successful there) and ive been unsuccessful at even getting on the trolllord.com forums but hopefully that will happen once day. anyway - point is - sometimes you gotta look far and wide to find your players - dont give up.

Ingalf

December 16th, 2013, 11:42

Personally, I'm also very happy with the current pricing. The value for money is excellent, though I do have to admit that the ultimate price doesn't seem in line with the other prices when considering volume discount. I suppose it does make sense if you're a GM of 3 or more groups but otherwise the volume discounts make it all but useless in my view. The current sale of lite licenses of course makes it even more extreme, where you can buy one full and SEVEN lite licenses for less than the cost of an ultimate license.

There is however another point that I would really like to see addressed in the licensing model. I'm playing in two groups at the moment, one online with FG and one RL. Now in both of these groups we use alternating GMs. In FG you have two options then I guess. Either everyone buys a full license (which seems to defy the point of having a separate lite license) or people keep swapping back and forth licenses so that the full license is always with the current GM (which I haven't tried but it seems extremely awkward to me). This could be addressed in three ways I could think of:
1. Allow the GM position to be assigned to someone other than the person hosting the server (I think I've seen this suggested elsewhere)
2. Allow a lite license to OPEN a server but "Full" functionality is only activated if at least one person with a full license connects
3. (Which I think might be the best option because it doesn't have the drawback that if the person with the full license can't make it for session you can't run the game) You separate the GM license completely from the player license. This could also be done optionally in addition to the current model because it does create a little bit of extra work which fixed-GM groups might not want to do. This way a group could buy lite licenses for everyone and then a single GM license that is entered when a server is opened and therefore can easilly be passed to the person in the group who is GMing at the time.

GMTroll

December 16th, 2013, 13:11

I have an Ultimate license and for the time an enjoyment I have had gaming I have squeezed so much value out of it and it still keeps giving. Prices change, that's the nature of the commercial world, whilst I would not expect or want remuneration on my UL purchase more recent purchasers might and so some suitable rewards for those folks who purchased within a given time period to cut over to any new pricing model would be nice for them.

I am not against subscriptions as an option alongside the traditional full ownership option. Some discount options for buying say 3/6/12 months sub, but I guess that would depend on pricing compared with the full ownership route. A possible option to convert sub-licenses to an equivalent full ownership licenses after a fixed length of continuous subscription (i.e. no breaks).

Having looked at the PayPal recurring payments (admittedly not in great detail) this could possibly be used as a spread payment option, e.g. lite license $3 a month for 6 months. The amount and period tailored to each license level. On final payment you own the licenses out right just as if you stumped up the full amount in a single transaction. Cancel early and your license reverts to unregistered. As this is more admin for SmiteWorks there might be a small admin charge applied on top of the license cost.

Officially supported FG demo games scheduled periodically to promote FG to perspective new customers with with a discount for participants (possibly time limited). This could also be extended to participants in the FG-Con along with a GM incentive for running official demo / fg-con games.

JohnD

December 16th, 2013, 16:40

Going to burn a few minutes of my alloted on-line time here but what if... someone buys a bundle - 1 Full and 'x' Lite licenses.

Is there a way to "link" the licenses included in that bundle sale such that the Full one could float among just those license codes. This would do away with an established group having more than one person who would like to DM facing the burden of extra purchases, and may be a bit of an incentive.

As soon as you go beyond the bundled group of license codes (i.e. say someone new joins who wasn't part of that original purchase, either the Full license stops floating or perhaps it could remain floating as long as at least one of the players connecting is using a license code from among the bundled purchase.

Does this make any sense at all?

Beyond this, I think Doug you guys probably know your business metrics better than any of us.

A business that doesn't re-evaluate it's model on a regular basis, and continues to do what they've always done simply because it's always been done that way, is a business that doesn't adapt to changing realities and soon becomes a former business.

I think going on Steam pretty well means you need to re-evaluate the model, which it seems you're doing. As an Ultimate license holder, I don't begrudge a change if that is what is needed to keep FG moving forward and healthy. Just as long as my "perks" of the Ultimate license don't change (what I paid for after all), even if perhaps new people pay less than I did for them.

Pricing is tricky because unlike most programs/games on Steam, FG isn't just something you can boot up and start playing in the common sense of the term; it relies on a DM to provide a game... this may present a challenge and I would say when FG hits Steam, that would be a really good time to have another FGCon; get new people involved with games right off the bat and show them there's a reason to pop for a Lite version (or whatever you end up calling it).

Trenloe

December 16th, 2013, 17:09

There is however another point that I would really like to see addressed in the licensing model. I'm playing in two groups at the moment, one online with FG and one RL. Now in both of these groups we use alternating GMs. In FG you have two options then I guess. Either everyone buys a full license (which seems to defy the point of having a separate lite license) or people keep swapping back and forth licenses so that the full license is always with the current GM (which I haven't tried but it seems extremely awkward to me).
Just as an FYI for people reading this thread who think that swapping licenses is "OK" - swapping licenses violates the software agreement for using Fantasy Grounds, the license is a user license (i.e. it is assigned to one user only on purchase and cannot be swapped) they are not floating licenses.

Interesting ideas on the options you list as ways of addressing alternating GMs. :)

Dracones

December 17th, 2013, 03:00

Subscriptions (as suggested) would be another good option that we may be able to include side-by-side with lifetime purchases at our current rates. Would $3 a month for Lite licenses, $5 for Full and $10 for Ultimate licenses attract people that don't want to buy the licenses out-right?

I think those rates would end up with most people just grabbing an ultimate sub on the GM side. I think $10 a month(9.99 really) for ultimate is fair, that's $120 a year or nearly buying an ultimate outright. But the other licenses feel high per month compared to the full purchase prices($10 vs 149 is good, $3 vs 24 and $5 vs 39 not so). I think lite/full would be closer to 1.99/2.99 per month, and even then ultimate is still the steal of the bunch.

On the ultimate to full switch idea:

I personally don't care if my ultimate went away(though it was a gift) and full was made the new ultimate. What I really care about is that there's a lot of people running/playing FG games and that Smiteworks is rolling in cash so they can afford to improve the product.

Like you though I'd worry that more people != more money and switching to that sort of system seems like one of those irreversible gut rolling decisions. One idea could be to float the idea as a promotion. Turn full licenses into ultimates for a time as a sort of Steam/FG3 launch promotion, but I don't know if that'd be a little bait and switchy(people pay $40 on Steam now only to have the product not work the same when the promotion ends). Maybe if it was marketed properly? I dunno.

The subscription idea feels very safe business-wise IMO. A person on a sub for a year has basically paid for a license and I'd bet that people that go on the sub tend stay on it vs buying a permanent upgrade. It's kind of win/win. People get an easy to handle pay per month version of FG, Smiteworks gets steady recurring revenue from them, and everyone can buy in permanently if they want to. The old model still exists and current users should be happy with their permanent licenses with a new pool of per month subscriber peeps to play with.

To me that feels safer, I bet it'll grow the base and as the base grows you can get a feel if the larger base means more buy-in on the side products. My bet would be on the subs themselves becoming the $$ addiction though because reliable recurring steady revenue is king. The only downside would be that no one buys enough licenses this way to offset the cost in developing the server code to support it. But that feels low risk.

ddavison

December 17th, 2013, 03:03

Is that the actual number for FG2 at the moment?

Yes. We have a little over 27K licensed users currently. We seem to be growing steadily at a rate of 2-3K a year -- although I'm sure we lose some as well. Obviously, not all of those users have a forum account, but our forum user count tracks fairly close with our actual -- as opposed to Roll20, which lists insanely high user counts and has very little activity on the forums.

dulux-oz

December 17th, 2013, 03:07

damned

December 17th, 2013, 04:40

I think those rates would end up with most people just grabbing an ultimate sub on the GM side. I think $10 a month(9.99 really) for ultimate is fair, that's $120 a year or nearly buying an ultimate outright. But the other licenses feel high per month compared to the full purchase prices($10 vs 149 is good, $3 vs 24 and $5 vs 39 not so). I think lite/full would be closer to 1.99/2.99 per month, and even then ultimate is still the steal of the bunch.

its possible that is the plan :) encourage the use of the ultimate license. it seems far and away the majority of FG users play in their own groups and dont play pick up games. the people sub'ing a $10 ultimate license are most likely to bring their own group which sollves the challenge of having a bunch of $3 lites turning up and not finding a game to play. also the transaction costs (both from steam/paypal/other and in terms of issuing of licenses) probably shrink a little as a % of the total sub on the higher amounts.

the more i think on this topic - once you have someone signing up for a sub creating stickiness is the next challenge and most important one - keeping a customer is a much lower cost than getting a new customer. providing "monthly bonuses" to subs would be quite easy and if you can gain some numbers the cost would be easy to manage. i previously mentioned token packs (we all love quality tokens) you could also do maps (we all love quality maps) or the kicker would be one shot adventures. i say this would be the kicker because it makes it easier for new GMs to run a 3hr session (4hrs with some learning), it would make it easier for GMs to run one-shots letting all those new lite subs experience the magic of FG, it would show new GMs (and the rest of us) how to put together quality modules.

if you were getting $2k/month from subs then spending $100 on a map or tokens could be achievable, if you were getting $10k/month then spending $200 on a well prepped one-shot could be achievable. these things would encourage content creation. if you were getting $25k/month more things become possible. ultimately these things are designed to keep on showing your subs the love so they keep forking over some coffee money each month. the numbers of course have been pulled out of my backside - you know your own numbers.

at 2-3k new licenses a year i think you really want to try to kick start some new growth. with steams user base a lot of things become possible. many of the big internet players out there today are content providers. by adding these bonuses you would be partially becoming a content provider but you would still only be selling your subs and the content are just bonuses to keep the masses happy. if you are adding 2-3k users via the standard licensing i reckon you could easily match that again for subs based on the anecdotal evidence of people not wanting to cough up the whole amount.

i think im rambling here so im gonna stop now...

ddavison

December 17th, 2013, 04:46

And what's the license breakdown of that? ie how many Ultimate, Full, and Lite Licenses?

From these forums (and especially this thread) it seems that most of the posters are Ultimate holders with a fairly decent whack of Fulls as well.

Sorry for the raw data dump, but here goes...
SWK01 Full License (GM and/or Player) OK 0 13191
SWK02 Lite License (Player Only) OK 0 12651
SWK02U Lite to Full License Upgrade OK 0 530
SWK03 Ultimate License (Players connect and Play for Fre... OK 0 1182
SWK03-UPGRADE Full to Ultimate License Upgrade OK 0 64

ddavison

December 17th, 2013, 04:56

Damned,

The more we're discussing, I'm thinking that the subscriptions are sounding better and better (as a 2nd way to buy.) Content does come become possible with more subscribers and we could always sell stand-alone add-ons as well. The key would be to cater to subscribers and non-subscribers.

Someone asked about advertising. We typically spend several thousand dollars a year on advertising. We mostly do online advertising, but we also sponsor blogs, events and charities, ran television ads for a while, hired online marketing specialists, run a booth at Gen Con and other conventions, post on popular gaming forums and basically anything that sounds like a good way to get the word out. We still have a bunch of people that tell us they've never heard of us before they "find us" and decide we're the greatest thing since sliced bread. I've talked with at least one of our competitors and found that they spent more on advertising than they made in a year. That is definitely not the approach we want to take, but we are always open to more suggestions.

Blacky

December 17th, 2013, 05:33

Even if I have no personal use for it, subscription seems interesting. It allows for in depth trial of the software, it allows a player to join a table using FG to see if all is well before buying, and so on and so on.

Dracones

December 17th, 2013, 06:52

the more i think on this topic - once you have someone signing up for a sub creating stickiness is the next challenge and most important one - keeping a customer is a much lower cost than getting a new customer. providing "monthly bonuses" to subs would be quite easy and if you can gain some numbers the cost would be easy to manage. i previously mentioned token packs (we all love quality tokens) you could also do maps (we all love quality maps) or the kicker would be one shot adventures. i say this would be the kicker because it makes it easier for new GMs to run a 3hr session (4hrs with some learning), it would make it easier for GMs to run one-shots letting all those new lite subs experience the magic of FG, it would show new GMs (and the rest of us) how to put together quality modules.

One shots would be really cool, especially if they could be released on a regular basis and provide a sort of library of content. Sort of like how Paizo has Pathfinder Society or how you can sub to their module and AP lines. Stuff like that would also add energy to the community as the one shot of the month comes out and people play/run/anticipate those. Some could even be sort of a ongoing story line that's unique to Fantasy Grounds.

JohnD

December 17th, 2013, 09:36

Insomnia is da bomb.

Perhaps with subscribers you will need to do something to guarantee game content. Set games at specific times perhaps based on time zone data you should be able to get from purchase information.

Stordyr

December 17th, 2013, 16:58

Subscriptions suck... to be honest. A subscription is totally not in my budget and as much as I love FGII I'd really think of kicking it.
I also do not necessaryly see that you upgrade all full guys to ultimate at no cost. But I see the point why lite users should be free. The total amount of groups, using FGII would rise significally.
What I would suggest:
- upgrade the full guys to the "new full" (aka ultimate) at a small fee
- grant the ultimate guys a GC from your shop... some ruleset, some adventure, whatever....
- create a ruleset editing sandbox tool for which ultimates get a better price (former fulls pay normal price => I'd actually do this).

But stay away from subscriptions.
Oh...
Price for new full => 50$-60$

Qai

December 17th, 2013, 17:17

The more I think about the transition to Steam, the more I'm starting to have doubts about the viability of the approaches being proposed.

To future-proof the business model, has any consideration been given to how FG would be affected if other VTTs also go on Steam?

The main contender I would see is EpicTable. The licensing in-effect essentially works like FG Ultimate: someone buys a license for ET, and it is a "table" license, i.e., you invite whoever you want to come to the "table", and they don't have to pay. Kind of like inviting someone over to your home for dinner. The current price at $60 is 40% of the FG Ultimate. Now, granted I think FG has more functionality and is robust, for a lot of people that want more than something like Roll20 but don't necessarily want all the bells and whistles of FG, ET is a really good deal. If something like ET gets on Steam, and then hits Steam sales, then that could be a serious problem for FG and any subscription-based model.

However, the biggest threat to consider is that another VTT comes along and is priced just like a game: no GM license, no player license - you are buying the VTT that includes capabilities for GMing and playing, just like any multiplayer game on the market. Once something like that hits Steam sales... Right now, ET is probably the closest to fit such a business model.

I think it would be very short-sighted to assume that no other VTTs will ever appear on Steam. When they do, they will most likely play a tune to specifically counter FG's business model. The only way to surely future-proof FG will perhaps be to get rid of the GM and player license distinctions. You have a VTT that everyone has access to equally and is priced equally for everyone. Just think of the future VTT built on such a model and that will go one step further to use Steam "match-making" for hosting, posting, and finding games. Rather than developing FG further, resources will have to be expended to catch up, at which point the damage will have already been done.

Griogre

December 17th, 2013, 21:19

Here's my 2 cents:

Ultimate licenses: I don't have one so don't have much to say on them other than when you go on Steam I would change the license's name. I'd call it the "Friends Play Free License" because in the game industry "Ultimate" means more features and the FG Ultimate doesn't really have any more features than the FG Full license.

Full License: This is the license I have. If you did decide to up these to like an Ultimate it wouldn't matter to me, but you would lose money on each additional player you could have sold a lite to.

Lites: Personally I think it is important for you to continue to sell them. There will always be more players than DMs and you need to be able to get some return on the players, even if it doesn't have to be a lite license. There is a reason for all the splat books in RPGs.

First to get this out of the way I don't like subscriptions. I also think its telling that most online games have moved away from a subscription model. However, I think Steam/Paypal does offer you a chance to try them in a non risky way for new users and see if there is a market.

On changing your pricing in general, I would advise going slow. Steam has massive sales twice a year, and you can look at the data from them or from a week long sale before making a decision. One advantage Steam does have is it's easy to gift people licenses. I'm of the opinion that your current prices are fine value-wise.

I think the hesitation to spend money on a VTT (assuming one has the money), is based on two things:

Does the software work well?
Can I find a group to play with that will be fun? This is particularly true for new players.

I think the first question is currently answered by the demo and the excellent video tutorials that have been done. I think its the second question that is the real issue. I'd suggest you might try a variation on some of the other suggestions and the subscription model to help over come point 2.

How about on Steam you introduce "Try Before You Buy" license versions to address the "Can I find a group to play with that will be fun?" question? These licenses would sell for a nominal price like at about the same price as what you are thinking for your monthly subscription prices and only be good for a month or five weeks. If someone decides to buy a regular license then you would deduct the cost of the "Try Before You Buy" license. I think this would solve a lot of the price anxiety of new users since they would really get a chance to try out the software. This would help existing groups or groups of friends thinking about using a VTT and help some players looking for a group.

damned

December 17th, 2013, 23:06

@Qai - how many FPS games are there on Steam? there is probably a new FPS game go up on steam every week. they are not inhibited by their competition. they also vary in price wildly. bought Left For Dead licenses $15/4 licenses whilst Call Of Duty is $90. there is room for multiple price points and multiple platforms. definitely there is an early mover advantage (you can still buy and play Counter Strike).
Your EpicTable license is basically the Ultimate License or an Ultimate License Sub. Having the option of choosing Lite Subs or Ultimate Subs will appeal to different buyers - one is going to be aimed at players LFG and the the other for existing groups. I think having the options for outright purchase and subs is going to give you the best shot (barring free licenses) at growing the installed base.
Looking at Dougs numbers and excluding discounts and freebies it would be suicide to give away lite licenses.
https://www.fg-con.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/fg-licenses.png

Nickademus

December 17th, 2013, 23:17

damned

December 18th, 2013, 00:32

I'm a bit confused at that pie. Shouldn't Full and Ultimate be grouped together in the second one, since they will essentially be the same thing? The Lite license will be free but it will still be its own slice of the pie.

i think you are jumping the gun. it was a suggestion on p1 that doing away with lites (or making them free) would essentially make full and ultimate the same thing. there is a later quote:

At the current rate of purchases, it makes no sense to drop the Lite licenses to free and increase the functionality of the Fulls at the expense of the Ultimate licenses. It would be a calculated risk that making that change would bring in significantly more users than we have today and that those users would eventually upgrade to a Full license and begin buying the various add-ons. It would also be an attempt to make our price a no-brainer for users once it goes onto Steam. I'm personally pretty hesitant about the idea. Roll20 is touted as a success with large numbers of users, but I really have no idea if they are successful from a financial standpoint. 500K users (if that number is accurate) who all pay nothing is worse than 27K users who actually paid for product.

cut the numbers anyway you like - immediate impact on the current numbers would be approx 1/3rd less revenue straight off the bat.

it is an interesting discussion - and one that seems to have a lot of polarizing views :bandit: glad its not me having to make the decisions.

Bidmaron

December 18th, 2013, 00:50

As ddavison has said over and over, subscriptions won't be required, so I'm not sure why people are still so viscerally opposed to the option. If it helps Smiteworks get revenue and improve the program more rapidly, why would you oppose it? If there's content involved, I might subscribe (or might not).

Blacky

December 18th, 2013, 01:02

If something like ET gets on Steam, and then hits Steam sales, then that could be a serious problem for FG and any subscription-based model.
I think in the extreme majority of cases, the GM decides. The table will use whatever the GM wants to use, unless there's serious issue (like not supporting Apple or Unix if a player doesn't have Windows, or being too resources hungry if someone has an old or small computer).

So it's all about convincing the GM, helping him, giving him the tools he needs.

Price and notoriety enter the equation at first when the GM is looking for a virtual table software, but I do think if prices are reasonable and the software is known or heard about, it's all about power, features, and ease of use.

On my opinion, if SmieWorks wants to invest to grow, it needs to invest in these area before commercial/marketing/sales ones. In pure FG and ruleset features, but also in ease of use and the learning curve. Things like this Feature request (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=75039) asking for a better documentation, with comments on each page (pretty much like the PHP documentation for example) would down the road help tremendously.

Nickademus

December 18th, 2013, 02:30

would essentially make full and ultimate the same thing

That's what I'm saying. The pie has full and lite grouped together, not full and ultimate.

damned

December 18th, 2013, 02:52

That's what I'm saying. The pie has full and lite grouped together, not full and ultimate.

so you want me to post info to support a suggestion that SW has suggested they have already moved on from? im looking at this 1st from the perspective of revenue stream and 2nd from increasing the player base - increasing the player base without increasing the revenue stream doesnt make much sense to me. eliminating something that isnt bringing in revenue - go for it - but when nearly 1/3rd of revenue has come from lite licenses i think it is hard to drop that.

Thats what I'm saying.

Nickademus

December 18th, 2013, 03:12

Okay, I have no clue what your pie charts were for then. I assumed they went with the statement directly above them, "Looking at Dougs numbers and excluding discounts and freebies it would be suicide to give away lite licenses." If you're not talking about how bad free Lite licences are, then I don't know what that's all about. I was just saying that the pie didn't match the statement. That's all.

I'm not jumping any gun, making any assumptions about Smite Works or offering any opinion on this topic, let alone suggesting what you should present. You are reading way to far into my statement. Just didn't think the pie had the right pieces for what I thought you made it for.

SLB

December 18th, 2013, 05:16

I don't believe that I or my players would have purchased licenses if it were a subscription base - simply because it is more expensive in the long run. That said, I do agree that I think the main inhibitor to purchasing the software is an uncertainty if it will be put to good use.

For that reason, I think that the earlier suggestion of a payment plan type option would be ideal, if it is possible. The idea that the license is a free trial for the first month, then $5/month until the license is paid - sort of a limited subscription model. That allows the gaming groups to try the software, see if they like it - if they get their campaign off the ground, then the monthly payments are easily achieved and both the players and GM know that it is a worthwhile investment at that point because their game is running.

I think for many the deterrent isn't necessarily the software, it's the chance of their game getting off the ground.

Qai

December 18th, 2013, 06:37

How exactly do you reconcile a subscription-based model (or alternative to outright purchasing) with a Steam sale?

Scenario 1.
Say the license costs $50. I start paying $5/month merrily trying the software out and decide to progressively apply subsequent monthly subscriptions against the final purchase. Let's say I subscribe for 8 months, that's $40. Then, at the end of 8 months, there's a Steam sale where the license is sold at half-price for $25. I have now overpaid by $15.

Scenario 2.
If the subscription is time-limited, i.e., say you have 1 month to apply that subscription amount towards a license purchase after which your money is lost should you choose not to buy the license for the difference remaining, then you get into another potential problem: my 1-month term just ended and the day after Steam has a sale for a reduced price which I would have felt more comfortable applying my subscription against.

I really think the subscription approach, even if it is just an alternative, is just going to end up being a nightmare to sort out. People already have to keep track of two license distinctions, then on top of that you throw price differences based on outright purchase vs subscription, then on top of that you throw on differemt subscription rates, then on top of that you throw on time limits, then on top of all that you throw Steam sales.

Figuring out how to purchase FG without getting "screwed" by temporary devaluation of the product is approaching the complexity of an RPG. It shouldn't be difficult to understand what you're buying, how much you're buying it for, and what it's value is. A product is on the shelf, it has a price tag, you either buy it or you don't. You don't take out a mortgage to go grocery shopping.

Dracones

December 18th, 2013, 15:22

I personally wouldn't have it so the subscription would go towards the permanent license cost. I don't really see the point in it as it'd just complicate things.

Myrmidion

December 18th, 2013, 16:18

My Question with the subscription model is: what happens when people bought their license a few years ago? I personally don´t like the idea subscribing to something I´ve allready bought ;)

Ingalf

December 18th, 2013, 17:56

My Question with the subscription model is: what happens when people bought their license a few years ago? I personally don´t like the idea subscribing to something I´ve allready bought ;)

I am repeating what has been said already several times here, but I think they have made it quite clear that the subscription model would be in parallel with buying. So of course if you have bought it, whether 3 years ago or yesterday, you wouldn't have to subscribe.

Griogre

December 18th, 2013, 18:00

The subscription model would be for some new purchasers, they would keep the old license model as well. On the Steam sales, companies have to opt into the Steam sales, so they would just never opt into a sale for subscriptions. This is just a brainstorming thread, if you have any suggestions makes sure you give them.

Edit: Ninja'd by Ingalf :p

malvok

December 19th, 2013, 00:11

I mentioned this in another post, but maybe placing ads in a free lite player client might be a possibility. I don't know anything about the kind of money that can be generated through serving ads, but you can show quite a number of them if a player has his VTT running for 6 hours at a time. I'd also guess that if the ads were RPG related that you'd get a pretty good rate of click-throughs, I'm a sucker for new and interesting RPG related stuff.

Blacky

December 19th, 2013, 00:29

Ads may damage FG's reputation.

Bidmaron

December 19th, 2013, 04:52

Ads would spoil the immersion FG is going for and is the whole reason for its success relative to d20pro (for those looking for a more immersive experience).

Griogre

December 19th, 2013, 19:21

Even ignoring the whole immersion/reputation question, ads wouldn't come anywhere near close to replacing income lost from Lite license sales. You get paid almost nothing for those type of ads and you need numbers 100 times FG's *entire* current license base to even think about it financially.

Crowley72

December 21st, 2013, 01:35

What I have to say, some may not like.. but here goes.

1) Alienating existing users?

----- How would you do that sir - Steam is THE premier platform for people to SEE, BUY and INSTALL PC games and software - including patches and updates! It doesn't get any easier. You make it easier for us and for newcomers.

2) De-valuing what people already bought?

----- Don't change the price. Again, you put Fantasy Grounds on Steam and you get instant visibility. Computer magazines will sing your praise. MMORPG.COM might even call Fantasy Grounds an MMO. Heck, 15 vs 15 PVP games qualify for the MMO title now and days for some reason.

3) Hurting our revenue potential?

----- Again, please see #2 - Going on Steam is instant revenue. You have already hurt your revenue potential by doing "not much" so far. You will hurt yourself if you lower the prices of each client package because Steam has sales ALL THE TIME in which Smite Works can participate.

Price point shouldn't be lowered until you see incoming numbers from Steam once you go live there. It's a LOT easier to discount your software then to mark it up because sales are booming.

I am an avid gamer - I have a LOT of games on Steam. What affects my purchase decisions are game ratings and user reviews. I am totally disillusioned by today's fail releases by some of the top companies out there.

If Fantasy Grounds is a game that beats all others in polish, user word-of-mouth and perhaps some kind words from the IPs that license their products to you (that you can publish on a Steam store page), then why not put it up for full price there?

~

Now for the icky part... Because FG doesn't update much AND because Smite Works is so small they sign contracts and then don't make rules sets...

... I have researched other VTT's. For a long time I have wanted to find a better VTT. One that is updated often. One that is so easy to use that I can play any of my RPGs that I have in print or PDF.

Guess what, they all suck compared to Fantasy Grounds. So I haven't switched. And there is my loss. Everyone on the VTT front so far is a HUGE FAIL.

Just my opinion, but do yourself a favor - List on Steam with your current prices and ride the wave. Hire rules set developers so you can come through on things (like L5R for one).

Make me feel better about Fantasy Grounds.

Note: Steam = 65+ million accounts. In Dec.2013 Steam surpassed over 7.1 million concurrent players (those that are logged in). It is estimated that 75% of all digital games purchased for the PC are through Steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28software%29

(Sorry if I have offended anyone with comments in this post)

Blacky

December 21st, 2013, 02:05

VenomousFiligree

December 21st, 2013, 08:22

Yeah, some people don't like Steam at all. Steam is a DRM, and Valve have all power control over everything in it. They don't like you, or one of their robot makes a mistake, say goodbye to everything you have bought through Steam.

I agree it's easy to use. I agree having FG greenlighted was a good thing. But it's not the silver bullet, far from it.

I'm one of those that won't use Steam. I had an account, however when i bought an upgrade to Civilisation V, it broke the whole game and they wouldn't listen to my complaints. I went through paypal for a refund and when I got the refund from paypal, Steam blocked my account for 'fraudulent activity'...

Blacky

December 21st, 2013, 08:53

And if you had $500 worth of software in your account, you can kiss them goodbye. One example why people why not like Steam.

Besides, Valve takes a commission. So yes more visibility for FG, but less money on each sale for SmiteWorks.

Qai

December 21st, 2013, 16:07

And if you had $500 worth of software in your account, you can kiss them goodbye.
I don't want to derail this thread, but 1) very unlikely that Valve is going out of business any time soon, 2) it is on public record that in the event that Valve ceases operations, then it will release patches for all Steam games removing authentication, and 3) consumer laws protecting users.

As far as I know, every time you load up FG it connects to SW's servers and players joining get authenticated against that. If I'm not mistaken, there is no way for GMs and players to use FG without connecting to SW's servers first. In principle, that is no different to how Steam games work.

Steam is the next logical choice for SmiteWorks, not only to expand visibility but also to expand functionality. It would be great if FG could have a built-in Steam lobby section where GMs can advertise their games and through which players can join.

Nonetheless, it would still be nice to have a parallel non-Steam exe provided. There are companies that actually do provide alternate non-Steam exe files for their games that can be used on the Steam version of the game (X3: Albion Prelude comes to mind, but I know there are others, just can't remember which ones).

Blacky

December 21st, 2013, 17:23

very unlikely that Valve is going out of business any time soon
You might want to tell that to the people who bought music from Microsoft some time in the past. One day, their music just disappeared. Or to people who have bought digital books or videos from Amazon. And so on.

But, that wasn't my and MurghBpurn's point. My point was, Valve deactivate account sometimes because of what a robot says, and bot can get it wrong. Most of the time they aren't, and most of the people complaining of that (Google is your friend) are actually liars who tried to cheat in an online game and got caught. But one is enough to make it an issue.

Again, I'm not against Steam per se. I use it myself. It's a good move for SmiteWorks and for Fantasy Grounds. Just remember that some people will not want to use Steam, for good reasons.

Valarian

December 21st, 2013, 17:46

FG will connect without the Smiteworks servers if you use IP address connection insteas of alias. Unregistered licensed users can't connect, but all others can.

Valarian

December 21st, 2013, 17:49

I think Crowley makes some very good points that ought to be considered. Prices can easily be discounted but only raised within reasonable boundaries. Even then you will get complaints about the increase.

damned

December 21st, 2013, 23:21

FG will connect without the Smiteworks servers if you use IP address connection insteas of alias. Unregistered licensed users can't connect, but all others can.

ultimate license needs to connect to SW server to use. it only requires connection at either startup or when loading game (cant remember which) but without that connection Ultimate license holders are left without a game...

Prices can easily be discounted but only raised within reasonable boundaries. Even then you will get complaints about the increase.

People will complain whether you raise or lower prices. IMO people tend to complain more when you lower prices if they just paid more :(

Trenloe

December 22nd, 2013, 02:48

As far as I know, every time you load up FG it connects to SW's servers and players joining get authenticated against that.
I think you're getting confused with either the alias functionality (allows players to connect to a GM by using a 4 word string rather than an IP address that could change from game to game) or the unlicensed-to-ultimate connection which does require the unlicensed client to check in with the FG servers to see if the ultimate license it is connecting to is valid.

If I'm not mistaken, there is no way for GMs and players to use FG without connecting to SW's servers first. In principle, that is no different to how Steam games work.
If all of the players have at least a lite license then there is no need at all for a connection to the Smiteworks server. If Smiteworks went out of business tomorrow everyone who has purchased a license will be able to continue to use the software to game online for as long as it would still work on their PCs.

Trenloe

December 22nd, 2013, 03:08

ultimate license needs to connect to SW server to use. it only requires connection at either startup or when loading game (cant remember which) but without that connection Ultimate license holders are left without a game...
This has changed - it is the unlicensed (free) client when it connects to an ultimate game that now needs to connect to the SW server to verify the ultimate license. In the event of the SW servers being unavailable for any reason the ultimate license essentially acts like a full - all people who have a lite license or higher can connect and play.

Valarian

December 22nd, 2013, 09:10

ultimate license needs to connect to SW server to use. it only requires connection at either startup or when loading game (cant remember which) but without that connection Ultimate license holders are left without a game...
(
Only if you have unregistered players only attending. The Ultimate license only needs the alias server for registering the alias/ip connection for unregistered players. Otherwise it acts as the Full license. I've had to fall back on the ip address for a couple of sessions over this last year, due to loss of alias server connectivity, and I've only had problems with unregistered players connecting. Everyone else has managed to connect with the ip.

ddavison

December 23rd, 2013, 23:01

Sorry, I've been a little quiet on here lately. Getting on Steam should definitely help. I'm mostly in favor of doing side-by-side subscriptions and one-time purchases. The subscriptions wouldn't reduce any one-time purchases down the road. That would add too much complexity. The subscriptions would probably give a 1-month free trial to anyone so they can fully test the game with other subscribers, other trial users or other permanent purchase people. It probably does make sense to keep the costs for permanent prices nearly the same or the same for our initial launch on Steam and then try out different options via regular sales through Steam.

Sunspoticus

December 30th, 2013, 01:07

Straight up, I think the player client should be FREE (no ads, no "subscription", just the basic player client). FG is losing a whole class of VTT gamer based entirely around the notion that players have gotta play-to-play. Thats the ONLY flaw in your current pricing model as far as I'm concerned. Bump the price of the (GM) full client. (bundle it with a ruleset of the GMs choice on purchase and I think you'd have a gold mine)

If Fantasy Grounds switches to a fee+subscription model the only long term customer's you'll have are the same schmucks that rip on FG for being pay, but pay $10/mo to Roll20.net and other subscription-based tables. Jack the prices if you gotta, but switch over to subscriptions?? Bad idea.

Nickademus

December 30th, 2013, 01:26

Straight up, I think the player client should be FREE (no ads, no "subscription", just the basic player client). ... Bump the price of the (GM) full client.

Kinda describes the Ultimate license...

jasonthelamb

December 30th, 2013, 14:34

As someone with very little experience with this, I agree with Sunspoticus. The lite license should be free, simply to encourage people to play. It seems like the userbase (maybe it's just the forumbase) is relatively small. Maybe offer some sort of subscription plan like the new video games are doing, where if you're a subscriber ($15 a month?) you get new content monthly or something of that sort?

VenomousFiligree

December 30th, 2013, 14:40

I'm not sure why people keep complaining about 'switching' to subscription. Time and time again the devs have said they won't 'switch' they will run the two side by side. Even though there are many vocal opponents to subscription, there are those that will subscribe and that is good, as it is an increase in players...

JohnD

December 30th, 2013, 16:25

If DMs are the only ones who have to pay, somehow that doesn't seem right.

DM_BK

December 31st, 2013, 03:41

I gave Roll20 a hard look the other day and I think it's going to continue to climb in popularity because of two aspects: Tablet support and free for players. I also think they have a smart business model in general.

I think it's time Fantasy Grounds changed with the times. Tablet support, in Fantasy Grounds, by all appearances, is a distant (if ever) feature but free for players can be done quickly.

That said, I think FG is way better and if I were to switch to Roll20 I'd ultimately pay more for less. Really only gaining tablet support but losing a whole lot more.

I don't have all the sales data to really say which way is best but my gut tells me that free for players is going to draw the lion share of the market over better product. That seems to be the nature of the beast.

As someone whom has purchased multiple copies of full, light, and one ultimate... I don't have any problems with light being made free. The purchases were never intended to be investments aside from investments in my entertainment ;)

While I'm not saying that I need or care if you make any perks available to former ultimate license holders, here are a few suggestions:
-Make the ability to switch to the "test/dev" build limited to ultimate license holders.
-Have a special forum area with restricted access limited to "founders" (stealing the term and concept from Roll20 here). Where in the perception is that product feedback is more valued from this group....which doesn't mean it actually is. Combined with the first item, future FG releases would essentially become closed betas (which may not be desirable).
-Special titles and general forum appearance upgrades for "founders". Example: slightly different background color for their posts. Limited to what ever your forum software will allow. This would generally made these elite few feel extra special and loved.

That's all inexpensive, quick, and many people place value on such things.

Blacky

December 31st, 2013, 04:08

Some truly atrocious ideas:

While I'm not saying that I need or care if you make any perks available to former ultimate license holders, here are a few suggestions:
-Make the ability to switch to the "test/dev" build limited to ultimate license holders.
-Have a special forum area with restricted access limited to "founders" (stealing the term and concept from Roll20 here). Where in the perception is that product feedback is more valued from this group....which doesn't mean it actually is. Combined with the first item, future FG releases would essentially become closed betas (which may not be desirable).
Both are a good way to destroy a software and a community. I impose on my player to buy a license, because I pay for the books, invest more time than probably all of them combined, and most importantly because if they don't want to pay up $20 they don't have the commitment I look for players at my table.

Meaning, in my several years of virtual tabletop rpg gaming, I made more money this way for SmiteWorks than an ultimate license holder. And now when 99.99% of the license holders don't test the alpha/beta version and I do when I can, well now I wouldn't be able to? And the value of the feedback is dependent upon money, and not the argument itself?

Terrible, terrible ideas.

-Special titles and general forum appearance upgrades for "founders". Example: slightly different background color for their posts. Limited to what ever your forum software will allow. This would generally made these elite few feel extra special and loved.
That's fine, doesn't do any harm.

That's all inexpensive, quick, and many people place value on such things.
Oh no, those two first ideas (and any ideas creating artificial rarity and limitations to artificially increase cost without really increasing value) are both very expensive and yes would be very quick to move people away and to other softwares.

Trenloe

December 31st, 2013, 11:27

If DMs are the only ones who have to pay, somehow that doesn't seem right.
Yeah, most of the discussion in this thread has been regarding making FG free for players, which would undoubtedly get players looking at Fantasy Grounds. But, without GMs there aren't going to be games for them to play. Of course free licenses for players will help GMs who struggle to get their friends to play on FG because of the current cost, and will help in doing demos to attract people to Fantasy Grounds.

Free licenses for players will get more players looking for games on Fantasy Grounds, but if potential new FG GMs aren't willing to stump up cash to get a licence then there won't be too many games for the "no-fee" players to play. We have seen this at FG Con 2 and 3 - free to play was enabled, but we still have a finite limit on GMs running games - getting between 25 and 30 sessions over a 3 day period. Of course, this is looking at things from a GM running public games for all-comers - "free for players" might make it easier for friends playing a "home game" as the GM doesn't need to convince their friends to buy a license to play, which is what we've heard from a few GMs on this forums - they struggle to get friends to buy a license to play.

If there was an obvious, simple, commercial solution to this chicken-and-egg situation then it would have already been carried out by Smiteworks. Personally, I don't like subscriptions, but I'm fine with Smiteworks going that direction in addition to the current (or a similar) model to see how that works.

I'll say it again (sorry for labouring the point), GMs are needed to run games - in order to attract more than a handful of new GMs (and keep them) there needs to be something for them; other than FG being an awesome VTT that will enable running their online games easier (once they get up-to-speed).

damned

December 31st, 2013, 12:05

I'll say it again (sorry for labouring the point), GMs are needed to run games - in order to attract more than a handful of new GMs (and keep them) there needs to be something for them; other than FG being an awesome VTT that will enable running their online games easier (once they get up-to-speed).

i think one of the potential benefits of a subscription model is the ability to provide ongoing goodies to subscribers - eg 6 new tokens, a new battlemap, a new one shot adventure, a series of short adventures released monthly forming a longer story/campaign etc. of course this could only work long term if there were sufficient subscribers. but these ongoing goodies help create stickiness and they can also make it easier for new GMs to get up and running or just to provide demos/one-shots for new players. they're just my thoughts but i think that a subscription model helps SW determine ongoing/future revenue and also lowers the barrier for entry. keeping them subscribed then becomes your challenge - hence the ongoing goodies (small, low cost, useful items). getting the pricing right is always a challenge. i thnk there is probably only 2 levels of subscription - $10 license allowing Ultimate-like use and an individual license. i would think that for many the $10/month GM license would keep most groups pretty happy - its the individual license I struggle to price - $2 is probably the value point vs the existing lite license but how much gets chewed by fees/transaction costs but you could also give it the ability to host games and charge $3 which is great value vs the current full license. too many permutations!

Sunspoticus

December 31st, 2013, 16:56

Subscription-based software is a just a way for an operation to attach themselves to a constant revenue stream. What value does a subscription model bring to the consumer? NONE. Its all to the providers benefit, not the end user. All this lofty crap about additional features and new content is alotta hoo-hah. Turning what is an otherwise outstanding example of a SMART virtual tabletop into a "software-as-a-service" would kill the product.

You cannot compare Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds realistically other than to say Roll20 is a dumb table (it doesn't know anything about the game you're playing) and you can achieve the same thing with Go2meeting or WebEx and be on a much more stable platform. The fact they chase it up with this freemium subscription and whacky content rules..

To say I'm heavily invested in this product would be an understatement and I've had no problem BUYING the stuff needed for me and my group. Rent it to me in a subscription format? LOL Value drops to zero.

(yuck, typed out on a tablet, sorry)

Qai

December 31st, 2013, 17:56

Since Roll20 seems to keep getting mentioned, I think it should be reiterated what was posted by someone some time ago to the effect of comparing membership numbers vs active community involvement or even active use of the platform.

Giving away software or access to software for free might spike the numbers up, but how many of the new users will actually stick around in the long run? How many registered users actually use Roll20? I'm just guessing here, but I would think that proportionally there are more active users of FG than Roll20 when considering each respective user-base.

I would think that in addition to addressing the barrier for entry into FG, consideration on how to hold onto the user base will be the harder part, a lot more harder than getting new people to try out the software. Yes, FG has lots of bells and whistles and is magnitudes better than everything else out there. That's why we use it. But a big part of the equation is also we use it for another, more simple reason: because we invested money into it. People who don't have any money invested will not hesitate to just walk away.

Another thing that I think needs to be considered is the case where the number of free / subscription-based users grows at a much higher rate than the available GMs. This is a serious problem. People will simply move away if they repeatedly have trouble finding games.

Also, there is the philosophy prompting the subscription approach. I think subscribers on Roll20 subscribe because of the whole Kickstarter idea and philosophy driving the continuing development of Roll20. Contrary to this, FG subscriptions will be seen as just another avenue to be commercially exploited.

Griogre

December 31st, 2013, 18:33

I largely agree with Sunspoticus on subscription services. DDI's game table could have pulled it off with Dungeon content in game table. For this type of subscription to be viable you need constant new content, which I don't think would work for FG. Unlike DDI FG's game base is fractured, so it would be difficult to offer content to most of the base that they would actually want and there is the not so small problem of who would make the content.

I do think subscription licenses with a low monthly fee (or a one month duration), in addition to and matching the current license structure, might be a good way to introduce FG to new GMs/players on Steam by giving them a low risk/cost option to check out the software. Something like 10% of the cost of the current licenses per month (or once) and give them a 10% discount on buying the non subscription version of a license if you have a subscription license.

I totally agree with Trenloe that for FG's long term health, Smiteworks *must* attract GM's as well as players.

damned

December 31st, 2013, 23:49

I've had no problem BUYING the stuff needed for me and my group. Rent it to me in a subscription format? LOL Value drops to zero.

Its bizarre - no matter how many times its said, or who says it - it doesnt seem to register that SW have declared their intention is not to replace your current licenses with a subscription. Anyway - I wont say it again because its been said before.

What value does a subscription model bring to the consumer? NONE. Its all to the providers benefit, not the end user. All this lofty crap about additional features and new content is alotta hoo-hah.

What a load of crap. Sorry, but it is. SW continue to release new versions containing improvements, new features and bug fixes. Advantage is yours.

This costs money. You dont need to pay a cent more once you have bought your product today but SW do. They continue to update and develop the product. Far and away most commercial software does not do this - they require you to either buy a whole new version or pay an ongoing maintenance fee. Continuing to provide free updates to one time purchasers in a niche market is not sustainable - my opinion only but you can do your own math.

A subscription allows you to use the product today at a low cost with out any other restriction. Like it you can keep paying the subscription or you can do the math and go and buy an outright license. Advantage is yours. Cant get your group to commit? Shell out $10 and play with it for a month (maybe 2 if as has been suggested you get a bonus month with your first sub) and you remove any real barriers to using the product. If people still wont pay the $10 then they are probably never going to be a customer that adds value.

Reality is - the subscription model is not aimed at you or me or anyone else who has responded to this thread - its aimed at people who havent bought FG today for one reason or another - its aimed at the huge chunk of the market who FG hasnt captured. There are no losers here.

DDI's game table could have pulled it off with Dungeon content in game table. For this type of subscription to be viable you need constant new content, which I don't think would work for FG. Unlike DDI FG's game base is fractured, so it would be difficult to offer content to most of the base that they would actually want and there is the not so small problem of who would make the content.

I do think subscription licenses with a low monthly fee (or a one month duration), in addition to and matching the current license structure, might be a good way to introduce FG to new GMs/players on Steam by giving them a low risk/cost option to check out the software. Something like 10% of the cost of the current licenses per month (or once) and give them a 10% discount on buying the non subscription version of a license if you have a subscription license.

I totally agree with Trenloe that for FG's long term health, Smiteworks *must* attract GM's as well as players.

In my business we rent several applications that have totally improved our business. The cost is not insignificant but it is when compared to how it improved my business. The subscription model also ensures we are always able to use the latest and newest versions and bugs get dealt with. Sure - this is a business so priorities etc are different, but the core remains the same - for SW to continue to develop the product they need to continue to develop the revenue stream.

Content creation is simply a suggestion and there are plenty of models that could work. It is only a sweetner - the actual product you are buying is the ability to play the game - the bonus content is in my opinion one way to improve stickiness.

Providing things like tokens and maps are pretty generic. Providing content is a bonus - if a module doesnt appeal to me it might to you or to another - thats ok. Who would create content? A couple of options I can think of - If you have 100 subscribers at an average of $5 each thats $500/month - you could afford to pay $100 towards new content especially if that was helping to grow subscribers. What if that was 1000 subscribers paying $5,000 - you dont need to spend 10x the money on content - maybe you spend $250. What if you earning an extra $10,000/month and spending $500-1000 on new content - you could probably produce 2 or 3 pieces of content - or a good piece of content and release it for 3.5/PF/4.0/CC/SW to broaden its appeal. Another way this might work an aspiring content creator might provide a one-shot module for his/her favourite ruleset to SW for free in the hopes that either SW will pay them for #2 and #3 or that those who played it and loved it might be willing to fork over a couple of dollars thru the store for #2 and #3 now that they know how good it is. How many of us here backed Devin Knights and/or Raymonds token/mapping kickstarters? People are willing to buy content - not everyone. Increase the user base (by way of subscriptions) and there are more people willing to buy content.

We definitely need more GM's. I personally think putting the financial burden on GMs and only on GMs is foolhardy. With a subscription model the GM of an established group could collect $10 once every 4 or 5 months from each of his players and the subscription is paid for and no one feels out of pocket. Its such a cheap way to get the product. I dont see any down side to having a second option for purchasing the product. If numbers never eventuate and costs are too high scrap the option and give people a discount on buying an outright license - still no losers.

I have an ultimate license and I have always thought that from a business model perspective SW needed to change to a "sustainable" model. I understand man existing license holders dont agree - you dont have to - at this stage there is no threat to your current licenses - best of both worlds.

Happy New Year to all you excellent people!

VenomousFiligree

January 1st, 2014, 00:16

This forum needs a +1 button, well said damned.

DM_BK

January 1st, 2014, 02:30

My suggestion to close off test/dev builds to non-ultimate user was just a thought and likely not a great one given how the lifecycle of this product works. The 2nd suggestion (a restricted forum area) wasn't a bad idea though...it's a fairly meaningless gesture as we all know that SW listens to everyone generally speaking so it doesn't really matter but could matter to a few people perception wise (I certainly don't believe it would destroy the community). All 3 of my suggestions are completely meaningless to me - I don't care either way, I will continue to use this product as I always have.

I have used various VTT's over the years and I've liked most of them. I think the last one I seriously used for many years was Klooge Werks. In those days it was better then Fantasy Grounds (I couldn't say if it still is) but it suffered from a lack of player base. FG, because it had some match making features on it's web site, it was easier to deal with the process of attracting new players to a new game. So I eventually moved over to FG and have been here for years because the players are here.

But times are changing and the moment it becomes a burden to get new players is the day I move to where the players are. It doesn't matter a lick how great a product is if it fails to retain enough players to conveniently form a new game. I love how easy is it to put material together for a game with FG, that's a huge time saver but it's meaningless if there is no one to play it.

Adding a subscription model isn't going to fix this, the number of people that that would attract isn't going to be all that many. Additionally it's going to complicate an already fairly complex license model. Consumer confusion is best avoided no matter what your selling.

RPG games have been around for decades and it's always unfairly burdened GMs on costs and time. I would think by now everyone would have accepted that as the nature of this hobby. A lot of things in life aren't fair, accept that fact and move on. If you opt to pick up the mantel of GM its part of the package, thus there are so few and charging or not charging players really doesn't change what a GM pays or has to go through to have a successful game.

The only valid point in my not-so-humble opinion is that charging people tends to weed out the undesirables that you get more frequently with the free to players model. It's true, your going to get that and your going to have to deal with it. But I think having people to weed out is better then not having enough people to get a game off the ground. It's like a garden, a fertile one is going to need to be weeded but if nothing is growing at all you don't have anything more then a patch of bare ground, certainly not a garden.

Sunspoticus

January 1st, 2014, 04:50

LOL you have a lot to learn about subscription-based software. PT Barnum warned us about people like you...

Long winded posts aside, if it was easier for PLAYERS to make it on to the table I think the GMs would come based on the strength of the core product.

Leave the subscription notion to the millenials who think there's value there.

Qai

January 1st, 2014, 07:05

If I remember correctly, SW have stated that their *current* business model with its associated revenue stream is financially viable; there is no pressing issue to restructure. So... why change what's working? Why is so much effort being put into catering to people that are looking for handouts? I honestly don't buy the BS that people can't "afford" FG. What people can't afford is a Bugatti Veyron. The current pricing of FG is more than reasonable for what you get in return.

FG is a damn good product and SW should stand behind it rather than peddle it. What FG needs is a bit more exposure, advertising, in-your-face marketing, pre-packaged tutorials (not just weblinks), pre-packaged content (tokens, campaigns, etc.). If people still don't want to purchase a license, then they are a lost cause, plain and simple.

As for subscriptions, why in the world would anyone subscribe to a system that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to find a suitable game and that requires so much planning to execute? When a game is found, everyone agrees on a time, you show up eagerly waiting to play, your subscription times is counting down, and alas, not enough players show up and the session is cancelled for that week. When you subscribe to online games / MMO's, you can play whenever you want for however long you want. You can't do that with something like FG. You'll be lucky if you can get 4 games in your monthly subscription assuming you're going to play 1 session a week. Subscriptions just don't make sense.

Lundgren

February 4th, 2014, 15:39

Some thoughts from a new guy...

I bought a full license of Fantasy Ground yesterday. That is an evaluation license for me. If I find I can tweak FG to do what I want, I will probably upgrade to Ultimate.

The reason I will go for an Ultimate is that if/when I find a group of player I think I will want to game with, I don't want to have a license fee be an extra hurdle. I don't currently have a group to game with, so if they not already have licenses, they would have to invest in one just to try gaming with me. I will try to weed out incompatible players before game start. But some will be weeded out in retrospect. So I don't want there to be any associated monetary cost for people to join in. If I wasn't a picky grumpy old guy, with a narrow window of what is compatible, I would already be busy with a couple of face to face group; not bothering with an online tool.

I think the limited/full/ultimate structure is fine. I think Limited could win by being a bit cheaper. But as I'm aiming at an Unlimited, it doesn't bother me at all if the prices stays as it is.

Now I know there might be a price change; it might go to a free "Limited" and a cheaper "Full/Unlimited". Would it piss me off if that change happened the day after I upgrade to Unlimited? Nah. I might wait a bit longer before upgrading. But as soon I have decided if I want that upgrade, I will do it at the current price.

xKrisx

February 4th, 2014, 22:49

If the prices were like this $15 for Lite, $45 for Full and $75 for Ultimate, I could see a lot more people wanting to use and purchase this with the pricing lowered. Upgrade of $30 to full and $30 from full to Ultimate. $150 is a lot of money for a VTT you will most likely use once a week with a group of people. More people is more better for the community. Which means more user created content that might be shared. I think that there could be more Items in the store as well. There's no Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 tokens? Create more adventure modules or add in some more purchasable store items to generate extra income. I think sub based is wrong and will only hurt FG as I've read and a lot of people also feel that way.

Valarian

February 5th, 2014, 07:02

The $75 price tag wouldn't make up for the loss of lite license sales. Plus, it's a one-time cost. $150 is just under $3 a week in the first year. Even if not playing every week, the cost is only going to be $5 to $10 a wek. The more you play, the cheaper that Ultimate license gets in terms of value return.

As for tokens, check out Devin Night's site:
https://immortalnights.com/tokensite/

Trenloe

February 5th, 2014, 10:23

There's no Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 tokens?
The link Valarian has provided above to Devin Night's site is good - the Kickstarter set covers all of the creatures from the d20 SRD.

There are also a bunch of tokens provided free with Fantasy Grounds, they should already be installed - open the Creatures, Monsters or Characters token modules. The Monster tokens are very 3.5e/Pathfinder relevant.

xKrisx

February 5th, 2014, 18:39

JohnD

February 5th, 2014, 19:03

I'm just saying $150 is quite a bit of money to say a teenager who needs to ask his parents to buy it with their CC or something.

I know that there are free tokens that come with it. I's not in your store for people to purchase. More stuff in your store = $ for FGs right?

I don't see why a teenager would be bellying up to the bar for an Ultimate license - assuming there's a group of friends, I'd think the message would be for everyone to get their own Lite, or at most, Full version for whoever the DM is. If there's only one DM it makes the choice even easier, and maybe the players could be expected to pony up and extra couple of dollars since the DM bears the brunt of the work for gaming as well.

graphil

February 5th, 2014, 19:53

Sorry if this has already come up since I haven't read through all the pages. What about an approach somewhere in the middle and give away 2 copies of lite with every purchase of a full license?

br0k30n3

February 5th, 2014, 21:35

The debate about Fantasy Grounds versus other VTTs often comes down to price. We also find that the price discussion sometimes turns out differently depending on whether or not you are a GM. GM's typically seem to be more willing to invest in a tool to make their life easier or to give them the level of immersion that they want. This also means that GMs typically spend much more than the players -- fair or not.

As we prepare for a launch on Steam and as we look at the competitive landscape for VTTs in todays market, we are trying to find the best route forward without 1) alienating any of our existing users, 2) de-valuing what people already bought and 3) hurting our revenue potential. That's a pretty steep and somewhat contradictory set of goals but we're hoping to hear from enough of you that we can make a good decision going forward.

How would giving Lite licenses away for free affect each license type?
1) Full Licenses - these all get bumped up to Ultimate licenses essentially. Should the price point go up and what would be a fair price? Will the higher GM cost, but the lower group cost grow or shrink the number of GMs coming to FG?
2) Ultimate Licenses - this is a big issue. It basically means that every Ultimate user loses value since they overpaid for what people with a Full license now get for free. We might be able to patch this by giving some other material to help even the score. We have to pay royalties and commissions on most of our add-ons, so this complicates things for us some and carries a potential negative.

Our store doesn't currently support check outs for free products today, so we'd have to either change that or charge a nominal fee like $1-$5. Would that still have the same affect.

The other option is to basically keep everything as-is. We still get a steady stream of new users each year and we are financially sound. Just moving to Steam alone is probably going to greatly expand our user base.

We are not interested in a poll at this time. We just want to hear gut reactions and things to consider. If you can tell us what license you currently have today, that will help us determine the impact on our current community of each choice.

Thanks,

Doug

As a Full License owner I would love a free upgrade to Ultimate, But I don't think it would be wise from a business perspective. I love FG but it is the first VTT I have ever bothered with so I am probably ignorant when it comes to this market niche.

"2) Ultimate Licenses - this is a big issue. It basically means that every Ultimate user loses value since they overpaid for what people with a Full license now get for free. We might be able to patch this by giving some other material to help even the score. We have to pay royalties and commissions on most of our add-ons, so this complicates things for us some and carries a potential negative."

The consideration of your customers here is something to be praised. Although, buying a software product license doesn't usually cover a lifetime of free upgrades. Example is your 2.+ to 3.0 would usually be considered a new release rather than and update, commonly any license that is purchased usually entitles the end user a year that would cover any New releases within a year of purchase and maybe a life time of updates for the the release version they purchased. I applaud you guys for looking out for your customers but if your worried about future revenue this might be something to consider. You might want to consider keeping the same licensing model and tweaking it. I would grandfather all ultimate license holders up to this date.

I think some people made some great points about expansion. Especially in the age of tablets. Maybe you should consider branching out the brand, offer FGOnline as a separate subscription based service, possible include a 1 to 2 year subscription to FG license holders and a reduced rate for subscribing after that. Maybe compensate your current Ultimate Users with lifetime Subscription. Another feature to consider with FG and FGOnline is the ability to save and edit campaigns hosted on a cloud server or maybe SQL. You might even be able to work out a way that a Ultimate license holder can assign temporary access or a subuser under his license for those who are in a group and change GM's out to give the GM a break.

I think that you guys should consider paid plugins that may be rule set system specific ( character generators , D&D Compendium Parser ( or account link), Module Wizard or Development Toolbox, Map Creator) Some people have been doing a great job contributing some tools
I mean some of the greatest points to FG are given to us by the great members that share their work with the community, but I am sure that people would pay for a plugin that works seamlessly within FG.

There is already a free version out (demo), I would keep that as it is , as it is all they need is someone with an Ultimate License to host the game and they are good. Don't go with add supported , but it wouldn't hurt your to have a splash screen with new content and plugins that is out or that is coming out.

Look at changing your licensing practices when it comes to updates verses Releases ( Set a Date , grandfather everyone before that date) Example you set it for tomorrow everyone today has lifetime of upgrades , other after have to buy a new license for example FG4 when it comes out but get all the update ( fixes).

Look at expanding the brand, adjusting your niche, and expanding your target market demographic.

But hey, if you want to upgrade me to Ultimate, I would surely appreciate that.

I think that you guys are great in that you are thinking about your customers and the community and that you welcome our input. Says a lot about your organizational culture and corporate identity.

::Edit::
I just wanted to add that if your expecting a increase in exposure that you might want to consider FG as a " Engine " and increase production and focus unto content development, and plugins. That being said , if you are not going to drop
the retail price of content to deploy regular discounts on the products. You will probably make more money through volume rather than markup. But that all depends on your market demographic only you know those stats.