New Idea for Fantasy Grounds revenue

[Ardem]

I know the developers are working on pieces and throwing them up with constant updates and relying on new members to increase the various attributes for FG, however this cost model will require adjustment in time or we will see little further development.

But I had a thought that could work for the developers and FG player base, which is a pay for development scenario similar to kickstarter.

Currently there is a vote on development ideas, to help the devs in work out some of the stuff this wish to include, my concept is taking this a little further where the developers set a cost of development and the users can fund this, however once funded there is an expectation these piece of work get coded in a reasonable or stated time

There are some of us that say no no I do not want to pay anymore, cause they want to extract the maximum amount out of FG and the developers are been more then generous in there time and development, but this is not a sustainable model.

There are some of us that realize that we pay for what we get, for example the great icons that people have received via Smiteworks from Raymond, was due to a number member so this community contributing to it, and smiteworks also contributing. I for one would have no trouble contributing to features I would love to see in Fantasy Grounds. For example included sound, I would love to hear those dice rolls, or ability to send play sound.

Anyway a thought look forward to the discussion

[jh79]

I suggested that here, and Doug gave me a like on it, so I know he saw it.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?22024-Yesterday-(roll20)-passed-600-000-total-players-having-signed-up-in-Roll20!/page8

If we want to get the things we want sooner, as in months to years sooner, then a kickstarter for each of them would work so they could hire extra devs. It is the only feasible way I can see for them to get out of the corner they are currently backed into.

Then the kickstarter supporters of that particular feature get it in a special update just for them. So you pay for the features you want basically, and we get them much sooner. I hope they go kickstarter. Like you said, they have given way more then anyone else and we can't expect them to develop for free until the end of time.

[Mask_of_winter]

This all sounds good in theory. In practice, many people wanted a ruleset editor, yet the kicksarter for the ruleset wizard last year did not get funded. Very few people put their money where their mouth is.

If I'm Smiteworks I'm going to think twice before going down that route.
Just Sayin'

[jh79]

This all sounds good in theory. In practice, many people wanted a ruleset editor, yet the kicksarter for the ruleset wizard last year did not get funded. Very few people put their money where their mouth is.

If I'm Smiteworks I'm going to think twice before going down that route.
Just Sayin'

I don't agree the majority want a ruleset editor with fantasy grounds, I think the majority want features to play the games they love... The gist of the suggestion made is only people that fund a (kickstarter) for a particular feature get that feature.

So you don't have to support that feature if you don't want to, or support the features you do want and don't fund the ones you don't. Or don't support at all but then you stay with what you got now, which is plenty good, but WOW features cost money, and I'd rather have them sooner then years from now.

An alternative could be Ultimate Licence Holders get all the kickstarter install features. 150 bucks is having some good skin in the game towards development. Getting free kickstarter features would drive Ultimate Licence sales way up. Either way I'm personally good with.

This is just my opinion and they can do what they want, but I personally don't expect a free ride forever.

[Valarian]

This all sounds good in theory. In practice, many people wanted a ruleset editor, yet the kicksarter for the ruleset wizard last year did not get funded. Very few people put their money where their mouth is.
It wasn't a Kickstarter. It was on a funding site that, I'd certainly, never heard of. I was in two minds about funding it for that reason alone. I did in the end, but it was with misgivings. I think a Kickstarter project would do a lot better, in terms of visibility, trust, and funding. It also wasn't a Smiteworks project. It was an independent project. This didn't exactly give confidence that ruleset development was a priority for Smiteworks.

[Mask_of_winter]

It wasn't a Kickstarter. It was on a funding site that, I'd certainly, never heard of. I was in two minds about funding it for that reason alone. I did in the end, but it was with misgivings. I think a Kickstarter project would do a lot better, in terms of visibility, trust, and funding. It also wasn't a Smiteworks project. It was an independent project. This didn't exactly give confidence that ruleset development was a priority for Smiteworks.

I know it was Verkami. I used kickstarter like Canadians use ski-doo to designate a snowmobile :)

People tend to believe crowd funding is the answer to all problems. With Zeph working on graphics, John on coding and Doug running the business and customer service, who's gonna run the Kicstarter? These are a lot of work.

That said I would gladly give my money to a Fantasy Grounds Kickstarter.

[dulux-oz]

The trouble, as I see it - and, let's be frank, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here - is that in my experience people who aren't coders have, in general, no practical idea of just what is required to actual develop a "cool idea" into a working piece of code - hence they have no idea of what it costs to implement the "cool idea" - hence the amount of money required generally in no way matches the non-coders' expectations.

For example: it would seem relatively easy to implement Exploding Dice and therefore shouldn't "cost" that much, yet how long have I, JPG, Obereton and others worked on this and we still haven't gotten it to the point its ready to be released.

People who are coders, on the other hand, do realise what it takes to develop a "cool idea" and so we either (a) do it ourselves because we feel the functionality it will give us is worth the effort, or (b) don't do it because the effort is not worth it.

Let me put it another way: for those of you who have used either my Locations or Weather Extensions: how much do you think they're worth?

Having said all that, the thread's premises is a good idea, so I'm not trying to poo-poo it at all - I'm just pointing out a few of the expectation management issues.

Cheers

[damned]

....and the developers are been more then generous in there time and development, but this is not a sustainable model.

i agree - i am personally not a fan of the subscription model but it is one that makes far better commercial sense - the business knows pretty much what their revenue will be next month, next quarter etc and can plan accordingly. id pay a subscription if required or would support paying for some new features - for me I would like to see better dice mechanics and easier ruleset (or at the least character sheet) development...


I don't agree the majority want a ruleset editor with fantasy grounds...

It is #1 on the Wish List and has been for a long time...
So its #1 from those who chose to vote on the wish list...

Currently there are no feature gaps between the two license models other than the support for unlicensed/demo clients.

I wonder how hard it would be to have features available to some *individuals* and not others? If the features came as DLC then they already have a system that supports it.


It wasn't a Kickstarter. It was on a funding site that, I'd certainly, never heard of.

Kickstarter was for a long time only accessible to Americans - even Canadians couldnt easily launch a Kickstarter. Today there are a *few* more countries - US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Sweden - but that still excludes a lot of people including psicodelix.

Another option might be to halt development of FG 3 at or soon after 3.0.10 (maybe a 3.1.0 release) and concentrate only on FG 4 (Unity). Launch 4 as an upgrade. FG 3 will continue to work and continue to support whatever it supports today but version 4 requires a new license - or maybe an upgrade option for existing license holders - subscribers will get access to both as part of their (ongoing) subscription. It might annoy some, nah, it will annoy some, but I think its a reality that new features require investment. Not many other companies give you new versions for free for ever...

[dulux-oz]

Another option might be to halt development of FG 3 at or soon after 3.0.10 (maybe a 3.1.0 release) and concentrate only on FG 4 (Unity). Launch 4 as an upgrade. FG 3 will continue to work and continue to support whatever it supports today but version 4 requires a new license - or maybe an upgrade option for existing license holders - subscribers will get access to both as part of their (ongoing) subscription. It might annoy some, nah, it will annoy some, but I think its a reality that new features require investment. Not many other companies give you new versions for free for ever...

Devil's Advocate again - and what about the on-going "discussions" around Roll20 and how its "free" - you put another price point on FG and it will only strengthen the anti-FG arguments - which is counter to what has been said in other Threads about making FG "more competitive".

No, if you're going to go down the road of trying to get more features then I think the idea of this thread is the better way to go.

Of course, another option is learn to code and do it yourself - but most people don't want to do that, do they :p
(Runs for cover while he puts on his asbestos suit)

Cheers

[Ardem]

My opinion is go not great leaps but moderate changes at reasonable prices and not kick-starter just something localized to the FG and Steam FG community. Longer end dates for the pledges, six months perhaps more. $3K here $3K there for tangible changes.

As for coding expectations I know enough across project planning in IT, code based development it a difficult task to budget. This is why the developers need to prices tag a feature the can be crashed. Currently they are implementing or not implementing based on current new membership renewal, or limitations with what they can do with budgeting.

As a community this might be a way we can implement some of the changes we would like to see and perhaps remove some of those financial constraints to development.

Yes there might be a little website development to set up and pledges would need to go through store somehow, but I see possibly a longer term development strategy.

JH79 is getting the very jist I am at, smaller features but the possibility with enough money for them to be fast tracked. I am confident based on what I see about Smiteworks, they give as much as they possibly can but are limited. The product is more of a passion for them then a get rich scheme. This is why I would like the community back the game as much as the developers. Again just my personal thoughts and very much respect all other points of view.

[Ardem]

On a side note is Roll20 really free. I hate that form of model that pretends to be what it is not. It definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If not a kickstarter style option, then a subscriber type model that has influence on development and gets all major updates free e.g. Version 4 (to a degree, Smite-works are still the owners and have final say on direction, but they opening to listen intently n desire from the subscribers, why cause they are providing that extra funding for development)

Also if Roll20 continue is development FG might lose it technical edge and I love FG and Smiteworks enough to not want to see that happen.

Dulux-0z: I am no coder but released enough to say i am doing my part in that extreme but not everyone can code it still takes an element of skill that not everyone can do, or even learn to do. For instance as much as I try I will never be able to draw the mona lisa, stick figures are as far as I go.

[damned]

Devil's Advocate again - and what about the on-going "discussions" around Roll20 and how its "free" - you put another price point on FG and it will only strengthen the anti-FG arguments - which is counter to what has been said in other Threads about making FG "more competitive".

No, if you're going to go down the road of trying to get more features then I think the idea of this thread is the better way to go.

Of course, another option is learn to code and do it yourself - but most people don't want to do that, do they :p
(Runs for cover while he puts on his asbestos suit)

Cheers

Heres the rub.
The players looking for free arent coming here and they ultimately are not contributing to ongoing sustainability of either product - except by boosting the products presence in the market. Personally I think the free rank robs sales from both products.
An upgrade charge to go to FG 4 would not cost a new purchaser any more if they bought in at FG 4.
If half of the current license holders said - a) im not using it anymore, b) me and my group are happy to stay on FG 3, c) screw you Im not paying you any more - you'd still collect somewhere around $200k for a half price upgrade and no one is really disadvantaged - everything you paid for still works. And $200k is a sh!t load more than I think SmiteWorks can get from a kickstarter. That lets you build a great new version and gets you new customers along the way. Sure the numbers might work out differently - maybe only 25% of people upgrade within 3 months, maybe it costs more or less than a 50% upgrade - someone smarter than me will work out the sweet spot they are aiming for.
Many people are willing to pay for the ongoing development of their hobby. How many editions of our favourite RPG have most of us bought? I spend way more than my ultimate license each year on RPG products - most of which I dont use - so Ill back it either way.

[damned]

On a side note is Roll20 really free. I hate that form of model that pretends to be what it is not. It definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I feel that the free roll20 users mean that the paying roll20 users have to pay more... so its free for some and more expensive for others.


Dulux-0z: I am no coder but released enough to say i am doing my part in that extreme but not everyone can code it still takes an element of skill that not everyone can do, or even learn to do. For instance as much as I try I will never be able to draw the mona lisa, stick figures are as far as I go.

I agree - its hard freaking work for a non-coder - and that means I lean more in those that are too!

[dulux-oz]

Don't disagree with anything I've read here - just pointing out some counter-arguments/some other things to consider :)

What SW really needs is a professional marketer and a professional business manager - or at least someone they can consult with. The boys are good, but not everyone is a Management Consultant (well, at least one worth knowing). Problem is those people cost money - its a little bit of a catch-22 - you need the money to hire the people to help you make money.

In the meantime, those of us who can code will do so, and hopefully help out those who can't but are willing to learn.

Cheers

[damned]

In the meantime, those of us who can code will do so, and hopefully help out those who can't but are willing to learn.

So - Im working on my Maelstrom ruleset conversion and Im working on the NPCs but Ive borked a link somewhere and when I drag an NPC into the Combat Tracker their name doesnt show and I cant delete them!

[dulux-oz]

So - Im working on my Maelstrom ruleset conversion and Im working on the NPCs but Ive borked a link somewhere and when I drag an NPC into the Combat Tracker their name doesnt show and I cant delete them!

Need some help, do we?

You other coders - backstop me on this, please.

OK, when you drag something the object that is dropped is a dragdata object. Unless you specify otherwise, the simplest thing I've discovered to deal with one of these is use the defaults with something like the following (in the object you'll be dropping the dragdata object onto):


function onDrop(nXPos,nYPos,oDragData)
local sDraggedWindowClass,sDraggedNodeName = oDragData.getShortcutData();
local oDraggedNode = oDragData.getDatabaseNode();
--Other Code--
end

Now, once I've got that information (in the three variables) I can pretty much manipulate what the DB contains (via oDraggedNode.getChild() functions) and therefore the windows at will.

So, my question to you is how are you manipulating the CT windowlist window's objects - ie what's your code?

And sorry to everyone else for hijacking the thread. :)

[Mellock]

I've seem "prestige" stuff sold on other sites, like custom titles, forum badges, portraits,... sort of like the extras you get with kickstarters.

It doesn't involve overhauls of the sales model we have today, it's a way to funnel money into FG, and you get something back you may enjoy. Even if it's "technically" useless.

Would there be a demand for it here?

[Blacky]

I've seem "prestige" stuff sold on other sites, like custom titles, forum badges, portraits,... sort of like the extras you get with kickstarters.

That's not prestige at all, that's taking the clients for morons.

Like videogame producers selling the soundtrack when it's already in the game (and thus, already paid for).

As for the ruleset helper crowdfunding failure, it failed mainly for two reason: lack of communication/publicity, and price: it was extremely expensive, iirc half of it would not go to the developer… that might explain part of it.

[JohnD]

I've seem "prestige" stuff sold on other sites, like custom titles, forum badges, portraits,... sort of like the extras you get with kickstarters.

It doesn't involve overhauls of the sales model we have today, it's a way to funnel money into FG, and you get something back you may enjoy. Even if it's "technically" useless.

Would there be a demand for it here?
That wouldn't interest me.

[ddavison]

The subscription model definitely makes the most sense from a business standpoint. Those of you who remember when I first bought the company in 2009 know that I suggested it as the best model then. Our competitive info tells us that it's still the best model today. Ultimately, I decided I'd rather provide people with the option to do a one-time purchase instead of a subscription since doing right by our customers is more important to me than money. With the move to Unity, we'll probably look at doing an upgrade fee for the first time ever. We plan to be very cautious on how this looks for people who have already bought an Ultimate license or recently purchased a regular license. I don't know that we'll get 100% buy-in, but I'm sure we can come up with something that satisfies most of our users.

The move to Unity will also be visible on Kickstarter. It's a great form of advertisement. After we've gone through that stage, we'll see whether or not it makes sense to do smaller, targeted kickstarters for other features. The company is doing pretty good lately. Revenues have doubled over 2013, which is good since I'm now doing it full-time and walked away from my other ridiculous salary. For me, it doesn't have to replace what I left as long as I can afford to live. I enjoy this much better. If it brings in more than that base level, I won't complain though. :D

We have some very cool things waiting in the wings that we hope to roll out this year.

[Blacky]

With the move to Unity, we'll probably look at doing an upgrade fee for the first time ever.
Make sense to me, and is quite fair especially if on top of what we have right now there's one visible feature added to help convince people.


We plan to be very cautious on how this looks for people who have already bought an Ultimate license or recently purchased a regular license. I don't know that we'll get 100% buy-in, but I'm sure we can come up with something that satisfies most of our users.
I hope there's very serious consideration about people who bought FG recently (as in less then a year, maybe more). Otherwise, there will be blowback unfortunately. Maybe something like for free if bought within a year, and from 100% discount to 0% discount if bought the year before (i.e. full price for 2+ years).


The move to Unity will also be visible on Kickstarter. It's a great form of advertisement. After we've gone through that stage, we'll see whether or not it makes sense to do smaller, targeted kickstarters for other features.
Apart from advertisement, you might want to consider doing future smaller crowdfunding in house. KS takes a hefty %. I would not put money on that type of in-house crowdfunding for anyone, but Smiteworks is quite serious and could explain it very well.


The company is doing pretty good lately. Revenues have doubled over 2013
Good to hear, congrats. Was it solely Steam?


I enjoy this much better. If it brings in more than that base level, I won't complain though. :D
Money is just a tool for discovering and allowing happiness in, doing a job that make us happy you can't put a price on that :)

[ddavison]

It's primarily Steam. Revenue from our site pretty much held steady and Steam just added in an entirely new stream. The problem with Steam is that you get a huge boost up front and then struggle to get back into visibility again. It only launched in May, so we'll have a full year in 2015 compared to a partial year, but without the initial boost.

I think we're on the same page regarding the recent purchases.

[Ardem]

Great work, looking forward to the changes in unity.

My opinion if the changes in Unity are good enough, with enough good feature most people will not mind repurchasing. What you could do on purchasing once you get within 6 months of Unity. You can put in a preorder and get a free copy of current fantasy grounds, this should eliviate those people who come late to the party.

[Mask_of_winter]

What if users would have to pay a fee to use FG with Unity but it was still possible to use FG as it is right now? The current platform would no longer be developed by Smiteworks yet fully functional. Is that something Smiteworks has considered?

[GunnarGreybeard]

What if users would have to pay a fee to use FG with Unity but it was still possible to use FG as it is right now? The current platform would no longer be developed by Smiteworks yet fully functional. Is that something Smiteworks has considered?
I was thinking about this too? I am working on a pretty big project that may not be done for some time and I would hate for all that work to be rendered useless shortly after it's completion.

[JohnD]

Personally I am very content/happy to use the existing version. I'd guess that I would need to be won over / blown away by the new version. If I lost my ability to use what I already have, I wouldn't be happy about that... nor would I if I'd lost all the work burnt into my campaigns, but I understand that shouldn't happen.

[Blacky]

What if users would have to pay a fee to use FG with Unity but it was still possible to use FG as it is right now? The current platform would no longer be developed by Smiteworks yet fully functional. Is that something Smiteworks has considered?
That would be a nightmare, retrofitting new ruleset and API features into the old platform. Not to mention supporting two separates version. And that could cripple the new version, stopping it from getting modern network features such as ipv6, p2p, smart qos, transparent background download and resume, etc.

[Mask_of_winter]

That would be a nightmare, retrofitting new ruleset and API features into the old platform. Not to mention supporting two separates version. And that could cripple the new version, stopping it from getting modern network features such as ipv6, p2p, smart qos, transparent background download and resume, etc.

Read my post again.
You pay the upgrade = you get to use FG on the Unity platform and get all the support and new features
You don't pay = you use this NON Unity FG we're using today and this would NOT be developed by Smiteworks

[hawkwind]

i'm not that unhappy with the state of Fantasy Grounds, the only thing I want are dynamic lighting effects and a 5e licence. With a 5e licence i suspect there will be a bit more money to spend on development

[Oberoten]

The big question here is HOW BIG will the upgrade fee be? If it is a fraction of original or even the same as for the full version I am game. If it is the same cost once again I will be quite cross as I got a Ultimate license last year.

- Obe

[ddavison]

The big question here is HOW BIG will the upgrade fee be? If it is a fraction of original or even the same as for the full version I am game. If it is the same cost once again I will be quite cross as I got a Ultimate license last year.

- Obe

We'll be trying to find that happy balance and the upgrade prices will almost assuredly be tiered based on how long you've had the license. The more people who choose to upgrade, the more features we'll be able to fund. The one thing we discussed internally would be setting recommended upgrade fees based on your current license and how long you've owned the product. The value to each person is different. Even if a person had the license for 2 years, they may have been deployed overseas and unable to use it for 1.5 of those years. For that person, they might self-select the cheaper upgrade option because it feels like the best fit for them. Someone who had it right around a year but has been gaming with it once or twice a week since might decide to back us at a slightly higher level so that it has a greater chance of unlocking more stretch goals.

Whatever we finally settle on, it has to result in a win-win situation to be really successful.

[VenomousFiligree]

Sounds like your letting the customer decide their upgrade discount, via Kickstarter (or similar), interesting....

[Oberoten]

So are we going to land somewhere close to a full rebuy or is it going to be closer to say $20-30 for the ultimate?

- Obe

[ddavison]

So are we going to land somewhere close to a full rebuy or is it going to be closer to say $20-30 for the ultimate?

- Obe

We haven't decided fully yet. There will probably be an option for around that price for Ultimate licenses. There will likely always be some discount as well, even for people that have had it since it was first available. I could see there being tiers set at $10/$30/$60/$90. The bottom tier might be even lower and maybe even free for people that just bought. Take this all with a grain of salt at this stage since we haven't seriously figured out what the pricing will look like yet.

[primarch]

Hi!

For what it is worth ddavison, I belong to a group of Fantasy Grounds users about a dozen or so users in size. We have never bought an Ultimate License because we require prospective players to show they have an investment in the game and Fantasy Grounds, by buying a players license.

All of the members of the group are in agreement that a version 4 of Fantasy Grounds needs to be paid for and have no problem in doing so. We not only view it as fair, but necessary in order to add the remaining features we would like (some kind of rule set builder and dynamic lighting).

All of our licenses are old (4-5 years) and we expect to pay full price for such an upgrade. We will do so as soon as the new version is available.

I believe in the product (having used all others available) and consider it the best out there. Therefore I will gladly pay any upgrade fee to receive the benefits of an improved platform.

Primarch

[ddavison]

Thanks Primarch. We appreciate your support and feel blessed that we have such strong support from the community.

[Nylanfs]

I suppose since I bought mine back WAY back when I'm okay with a full upgrade price too. :-)

[VenomousFiligree]

It could be argued that early adopters should be looked after too! Either way, if it's Kickstarted i'll likely be throwing money at it... :)

[AstaSyneri]

Truth be told I have only been able to use my Ultimate license three times or so. I'd be peeved if I had to buy it all over. I'd rather spend my money on setting files.

If FG Unity provides a lot of additional features (which is hard to imagine, because the Savage Worlds ruleset is already pretty darn good) I'd be happy to pay some more money, but I'd rather do that through a Kickstarter.

[Kelendor]

So what's in store for ultimate license holders?

[Ardem]

Well finally something the Danes are good at then. <evil grin> Because it is definitely not football.

[Nylanfs]

I wonder if Doug has a metric to see what licenses have been used the most and the ones that haven't been used as often a discount?

[ddavison]

I'm definitely not planning to do that. That sounds like a PITA even if I could find a way to do it. Again, I'm leaning very heavily towards clear-ish guidelines and then self-categorization by people doing the upgrade. Our experience with Pay-what-you-want style options so far doesn't look that promising, but I suspect it will work okay in this situation. So far, we only have the FATE ruleset as a guide.