Is it time to throw down the gauntlet?

[Thete]

Having recently listened to the tomb show podcast and seen comments regarding the price point for DnD4+FG, what do people think of a price plan that includes 6 months free subscription to Ultimate for people buying the core Dnd 4 packs? My thinking is the feedback seems to be those that have purchased the physical products are discourage from leaping into FG due to price. I know about the incremental purchases etc but thinking of the completists

[Hastur]

[sorry for my bad language skill]
I am not the first one to say this, but I think that's something that is not considered most of the time when talking about the price model: You don't need the core packs to play the game - the mechanics are all there and the core rules are available for 3$! The packs make things much easier but they are not a must to play the game. I run Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords in FG from the physical book on my desk. Just threw some maps into FG. I am happy that most of the monsters and NPC are prepared by great community members (I would not have hesitated to pay for a pathfinder monster pack, but as it's OGL - good for me :-). The leveling of the PCs is done by my players withe their rulebooks between sessions, and transfered into FG. There are two options for every user: Invest more time in preparing and do things more like you do it on the table or you pay someone who made the prep-work for you.

[damned]

Thats an interesting idea. Long term the Subscription model is much better for SmiteWorks than the outright purchase so perhaps if someone buys the $100 (or would it be the $150?) they got the 6 months subscription and then its much easier for them to stay on the $10/month from then on....?

One other option you have when buying here on the FG Store - if you are in North America - is to buy on PayPal Credit and you pay any purchase over $99 off over 6 months. lets call it the $250 for the 2 rulebooks and Ultimate - cost you approx $40/month for 6 months...

[Dakadin]

Not that is a bad idea, but one thing to consider is what happens if someone already owns a license for FG and buys the core packs.

[Thete]

Not that is a bad idea, but one thing to consider is what happens if someone already owns a license for FG and buys the core packs.

If they were standard licence perhaps they could be upgraded ultimate for 6 months?.
If already ultimate, I wouldn't consider them the target of this option, as they have already taken the leap to purchase FG. But perhaps they could gift the Ultimate sub via Steam?

[Dakadin]

Those are good solutions for that issue.

[kavaliro]

Look, this is about economics. The optimal spot on the demand curve for this kind of good is between $50 and $60, with no tiers. How do we know? Look at every video game out there. How do we know we've missed the mark tragically? Because everybody who sees the price tag for Fantasy Grounds goes into convulsions. They instantly hate it before they even look at it, because the sticker price forces them to.

Why is that bad? Several reasons.
1. Those sticker-shocked individuals are the ones who should be purchasing it. They clearly have interest. Instead they leave with a sour taste in their mouths.
2. That negative word-of-mouth lasts literally decades in the rpg industry. There's no affording it.
3. Had they purchased Fantasy Grounds at a reasonable price and liked it, positive word-of-mouth would have occurred. This is a missed opportunity, no matter how you slice it.
4. Ok: this is the big one: If you are hitting the optimal price point, maximum sales happen. Right now, at $150 (anything less than Ultimate is a wasted effort) sales are not optimal. For every one person who can/will bite off on it and justify the price to their SO, there's probably close to a hundred who cannot/won't. But if the price were $50, you'd get maybe 30% of that 100 nibbles to turn into sales. Simple math:

$150 * 1 = $150.00
whereas:
$50 * 30 = $1500.00

But wait, there's more! That 30 then plays with their group, and the cascade effect takes place. Many of their friends want to run games, too. Now you're looking at that 30 turning into another 100-150 new sales, because the price is right. Splitting the difference:

$50 * 125 (word of mouth) + 30 (original) = $7750.

In this scenario, SmiteWorks lost the opportunity to make $7600 because they are improperly priced. Even if the numbers are fictional, the concept is very real. Whoever suggested a $150 pricetag did not do proper research. It simply does not make good business sense.

I get that it's deemed worth $150 by people who already love it. But you're not selling to those guys. You're selling to the guy who hasn't bought it yet, who will then tell all his buddies about it. And that guy says it's not worth more than $60. He's the only guy that matters.

Keeping the price at 150 seems to me to be about pride. Business is not about proving a point. Business is about making money. Sell it at the right price, and sell a lot of it. Nothing else makes sense.

</free, but logically sound, business advice>

[JohnD]

What's wrong with the $39 license?

[Thete]

What's wrong with the $39 license?

Nothing, I love the value of the ultimate licence I purchased. The specific price point isn't really what I'm thinking about, I'm thinking of a buy-in option that would appeal to those that, as kavaliro describes are 'sticker shocked'. I'm also suggesting something that doesn't really impact on the current pricing model, nor impacts on sales of products by those who opt to stick with FG beyond 6 months.


. That negative word-of-mouth lasts literally decades in the rpg industry. There's no affording it.

Perhaps, but maybe not, FG has already been around long enough that there is a spectrum of opinions on it, gaining official DnD4 is testament to its reputation and I think a change in buy in options can mitigate sticker shock quickly. The key is it has to be a simple or familiar model, the crazy good value to be discovered in the current buy in options are a little complex (Subscription with select DLC/user added content).

[Nylanfs]

I'm also curious as to why you don't think the $39 license matters.

[Thete]

I'm also curious as to why you don't think the $39 license matters.

Myself or kavaliro?

I think $39 is fine, I think a group all pitching in for x$39 licences or 1xUltimate are both great options as are subscriptions. But what would I know? other than it sounds like FG needs a little more "Bait on the hook" when it comes to such an expensive line as DnD4.

[kavaliro]

I'm also curious as to why you don't think the $39 license matters.

It's a hassle making everyone buy in to play your game. That makes it crippleware. If you're the only dog in the junkyard, then you get to set the barking cadence. But that's not how it is in this case because Roll20 exists. So if your players can't connect for free, you'll have a hard time pulling in players. Fantasy Grounds has nothing like market saturation. Roll20 does. And that's where players will end up. That's absolutely the worst case scenario for SmiteWorks, because players learn things about the system and then become GMs. Those new GMs need to be settled in with Fantasy Grounds rather than Roll20, or else there's another missed opportunity.

In short, it's one of those things that seems like a good idea, but in practice just isn't. The $39 license matters, but it matters in a way that is detrimental to SmiteWorks.

Also: imho, the existence of the "full license" is clouding the issue and making it hard for Doug and crew to make the smart call and drop the price on the "ultimate license" to where it should be. There's a logical fallacy reference in there somewhere. "Sunk Costs" isn't quite right, but it's the closest fallacy I can think of at the moment.

[Dakadin]

GMs rarely have trouble filling their games so a lack of players isn't the issue. Getting GMs is the real issue. That is where the license for 5E really helps. A GM can test the system for as little as $7 (full subscription and basic rules) or as much as $250 (ultimate license and the 2 core packs). They can pick their comfort zone. The modules really make running games a breeze compared to not having them so they can choose how much time or money they want to invest. The problem is when people misrepresent the actual cost to find out how it works from a GM perspective. They throw around the $250 total like that is the only way it is possible. Just educating them that their group can try it for $13 (ultimate subscription and basic rules) can go a long way.

[JohnD]

I have an Ultimate license and consider it great value. I recently looked at the number of hours I've gotten out of FG vs my cost including all the extra DLC I bought over the last three years... my cost/hour is currently just under $0.24.

I bought the Ultimate because I wanted a few friends who were old gaming buddies to get the old group back together. Nobody was interested but in the last three years I've had at various stages five different campaigns going, all full with seven or eight players, and could have gone up to ten if I wanted. So I don't think there's a problem attracting players... but Dakadin is right; getting DMs is the hard part. Cost and time commitment are the big issues, but it's always been like that in this hobby, regardless of your medium of play.

Missing here are contractual obligations to WotC - that may tie their hands for alternate pricing models where the 5E stuff is specifically concerned.

[Nikkadaem]

I have to tell you that I came really close to passing up FG based on the overall pricing. I agree that we essentially pay twice for the same information; once in the books, then again for the modules. From my perspective, its about convenience. I can certainly just purchase the ruleset and then spend hours entering data before I ever actually build an adventure. Or, I can value my time with a dollar figure.

I am with the folks that think a subscription service is the best model for FGs. Lets face it, we are gamers, therefore w are fickle about what our interests are today. I like the idea of being able to stop my subscription if I know I'm not going to be playing for a while. Example being that for two months during the summer I'm going to be doing a lot of traveling and camping with my kids.

As to the idea of paying double...I could see where FG could do something along the lines of selling the hard copy manuals and then offering a discounted price for the modules. Another option would be to include 1-3 months of free Ultimate subscription if you purchased a bundle, say book and module. At any rate, I'm sure there is at least one person in the company that has the sense to see the value of becoming a retailer.

[damned]

As to the idea of paying double...I could see where FG could do something along the lines of selling the hard copy manuals and then offering a discounted price for the modules. Another option would be to include 1-3 months of free Ultimate subscription if you purchased a bundle, say book and module. At any rate, I'm sure there is at least one person in the company that has the sense to see the value of becoming a retailer.

Challenges to this - Fantasy Grounds have the rights to sell THIS 5e product. Not any other.
And why, why, why would you try and compete with Amazon on making a $1/book, turning over $89billion dollars a year and not making a cent of profit more often than not?

[damned]

It's a hassle making everyone buy in to play your game. That makes it crippleware. If you're the only dog in the junkyard, then you get to set the barking cadence. But that's not how it is in this case because Roll20 exists. So if your players can't connect for free, you'll have a hard time pulling in players. Fantasy Grounds has nothing like market saturation. Roll20 does. And that's where players will end up. That's absolutely the worst case scenario for SmiteWorks, because players learn things about the system and then become GMs. Those new GMs need to be settled in with Fantasy Grounds rather than Roll20, or else there's another missed opportunity.

In short, it's one of those things that seems like a good idea, but in practice just isn't. The $39 license matters, but it matters in a way that is detrimental to SmiteWorks.

Also: imho, the existence of the "full license" is clouding the issue and making it hard for Doug and crew to make the smart call and drop the price on the "ultimate license" to where it should be. There's a logical fallacy reference in there somewhere. "Sunk Costs" isn't quite right, but it's the closest fallacy I can think of at the moment.

Kavaliro - from where Im sitting... your telling a company who has been doing what its been doing successfully and growing year on year that they dont know what they are doing. I like where you are headed with that.
And I like the argument where you think the GM should do all the prep work and spend all the money too. Thats a great one. Yay for GMs with oodles of time and money doing it all for players who cant even show enough commitment to the product to stump up $4/month or $40/outright. They are the players we should all want at our tables.
And you know that Roll20 is not free right? All those free players are subsidised by the guys shelling out on the monthly subscriptions - oh right - you do get that - thats the way you like it - someone else paying the bill.
You know Fantasy Grounds isnt the only product out there that has free competitors? Photoshop and Gimp. Office and Open Office. Some good price disparities there. I cant see Microsoft and Adobe just giving their software away now.

[Hastur]

[sorry again for bad language skill]
a) Looking at foreign forums and discussions, there is indeed al lot of moaning about the price. The problem here is, many of this moaners are not willing to try the free demo-version of the game and are just judging based on the pricings. That's stupidity in my opinion. FG is a great product with great features and great customer support and a fantastic community. Should they make it cheaper or grant strange discount-models so that people may overcome their wrong prejudice? Dont think so. b) The prices may seem very high, but roleplaying is a group-thing. If you want to be the santa claus for your group that honours you. But for a group this is not expensive at all. Its a cheap product regarding the hours and hours, days and days of fun in a group of at least 4/5 people. Me and my group are playing Rise of the Runelords. We have played 13 sessions, at least 30 more to come. I bought the ultimate license and the adventure path for 70$. Every player is paying willingly 1$ every 3/4-hours-session. So no problem at all.

[Thete]

I feel FG is very competitively priced with a lot of flexibility as to how to buy in. But is that relevant to another customer? No, I don't think so. Do I think Smiteworks should be concerned about their pricing? Nope. Do I think DnD4 ruleset DLC is overpriced? Also perhaps not relevant, it is what it is.
What is relevant is that Smiteworks have established a very flexible graduation of complimentary products- ultimate, standard and sub, with a tiered pricing of DLC. With some creativity, that flexibility could offer some appealing inducements.
Do inducements work to get more customers? yes. What would be an inducement that doesn't impact on price point, nor erode full product purchases?.. Giving away a few months subscription with the purchase of the 3 main DnD4 DLCs

[jshauber]

I am not a programmer, but I would think that setting up the models and tracking when your discount stops and you have to now start paying again etc. would become a nightmare to manage.

IF you didn't already know Smite Works is Doug and John with a couple of others recently added to help with specific things. There isn't a staff of 100s waiting for something to do.

SO, you could take Doug and/or John away from the programming of upgrades, new features, conversion to Unity, etc. and put them on marketing tasks that would probably take as much if not more time (since they are programmers, not marketing guys) OR do a cost/benefit analysis yourself as others have done and realize that FG is a great product at a great value.

Yes the initial outlay can scare some people, but if you step back and look at what you get over the amount of time you will use it, it becomes the best valued VTT out there.

Unless of course all you do is rely on others to foot the bill and you just show up to play when it suits you (which are players I tend to shun....)

[Thete]

I am not a programmer, but I would think that setting up the models and tracking when your discount stops and you have to now start paying again etc. would become a nightmare to manage.

IF you didn't already know Smite Works is Doug and John with a couple of others recently added to help with specific things. There isn't a staff of 100s waiting for something to do.

SO, you could take Doug and/or John away from the programming of upgrades, new features, conversion to Unity, etc. and put them on marketing tasks that would probably take as much if not more time (since they are programmers, not marketing guys) OR do a cost/benefit analysis yourself as others have done and realize that FG is a great product at a great value.

Yes the initial outlay can scare some people, but if you step back and look at what you get over the amount of time you will use it, it becomes the best valued VTT out there.

Unless of course all you do is rely on others to foot the bill and you just show up to play when it suits you (which are players I tend to shun....)

I don't know how the subscriptions are managed, and it is possible it would be unfeasable for a small team to justify the tracking. However, the steam store is a robust and mature shop, I would be a bit alarmed if it didn't automate such a product in some degree.

[jshauber]

I don't know how the subscriptions are managed, and it is possible it would be unfeasable for a small team to justify the tracking. However, the steam store is a robust and mature shop, I would be a bit alarmed if it didn't automate such a product in some degree.

True, but not everyone bought FG thru Steam, some of us got it before the Steam release so it isn't associated with our Steam account. And not everyone new that buys it gets it thru Steam either. So there would need to be two systems in place to track, just adds to complexity....

[Xorn]

The only thing I think that doesn't get emphasized enough is the $10 subscription plan for Ultimate. Your gaming group has to invest $10 to try out FG with all the bells and whistles for a month. You do not need modules to have a great session with Fantasy Grounds. I've preached it in every quick start tutorial I've ever made (I've made three sets of them now) and I stand by it.

With the introduction of PAR5E it's actually really easy to make modules now, like disturbingly so. While having the PHB stuff is really cool, it's hardly critical. Ask any DM--what module do they use the most? I'll bet a significant amount of money that it's Adventure Modules--which again you don't even need PAR5E for. But it's hard to get that message out there. I drop my quickstart video links on any Reddit thread I find asking about FG, and explaining what you do and don't need.

And the reason Roll20 exploded is because of Twitch, in my opinion--someone streamed their play session, then everyone else started streaming it. Last year there wasn't a Dungeons & Dragons game listing in Twitch--now there is.

Since I started streaming my FG game, we spend 5 minutes every session telling viewers about FG, about the $10/mo ultimate option, about not needing the 5E modules, etc.

Then we also mention how AWESOME the 5E modules are--but the cost to try FG for your whole group is $10. If you all love it, then split up the cost for an Ultimate License.

[Thete]

So what we can agree on generaly, broadly etc :) is that there is a perception that the buy-in to get started is: FG Ultimate + the 3 main DLC. As opposed to a more gentle selective buy-in.
I'm inclined to shy away from considering the parsing route as I think those that can, will opt for that and it's not the demographic that is interested in the large official DND4 DLCs.
I think it timely to consider those two different kind of customers with different needs..no?
If so perhaps they need to be marketed to differently.

When a customer walks away, it's seems redundant to remark that they didn't put the effort in or that you (as another customer) wouldnt want that kind of customer anyway.

[Thete]

The only thing I think that doesn't get emphasized enough is the $10 subscription plan for Ultimate. Your gaming group has to invest $10 to try out FG with all the bells and whistles for a month. You do not need modules to have a great session with Fantasy Grounds. I've preached it in every quick start tutorial I've ever made (I've made three sets of them now) and I stand by it.

With the introduction of PAR5E it's actually really easy to make modules now, like disturbingly so. While having the PHB stuff is really cool, it's hardly critical. Ask any DM--what module do they use the most? I'll bet a significant amount of money that it's Adventure Modules--which again you don't even need PAR5E for. But it's hard to get that message out there. I drop my quickstart video links on any Reddit thread I find asking about FG, and explaining what you do and don't need.

And the reason Roll20 exploded is because of Twitch, in my opinion--someone streamed their play session, then everyone else started streaming it. Last year there wasn't a Dungeons & Dragons game listing in Twitch--now there is.

Since I started streaming my FG game, we spend 5 minutes every session telling viewers about FG, about the $10/mo ultimate option, about not needing the 5E modules, etc.

Then we also mention how AWESOME the 5E modules are--but the cost to try FG for your whole group is $10. If you all love it, then split up the cost for an Ultimate License.

Ill check out your twitch channel! Nice work promoting FG

[Dakadin]

When a customer walks away, it's seems redundant to remark that they didn't put the effort in or that you (as another customer) wouldnt want that kind of customer anyway.

Agreed but you can't sell something to someone that isn't willing to really consider it. The 5E license got people that normally wouldn't have listened to actually take a look at FG. Some of those have turned away for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread and others but a lot of new people are using FG now. A change in pricing or perks aren't going to influence those that aren't really looking at FG. The 5E license definitely influenced them. :)

[Thete]

A change in pricing or perks aren't going to influence those that aren't really looking at FG. The 5E license definitely influenced them. :)

In my case I have often been influenced by a price drop/sale...:hurt: I think the price difference between the DnD4 ruleset (3 main DLCs) compared to other rulesets is also an influence. A virtual tabletop system and content is not a simple beast to commit to, I think lateral solutions influencing customers are a worthwhile avenue to explore. And I think that the subscription model allows some inexpensive possibilities for Smiteworks.

Another that springs to mind is giveaways during the FGcons. I think also getting the FG virtual store recognised as part of the organised play might be great...FG could be a huge online organised play venue...

[Dakadin]

I've been influenced by sale prices also. I was mainly talking about those that aren't even willing to look at FG. Sale prices won't change their minds like it would change ours. :)

[Thete]

In my case I have often been influenced by a price drop/sale...:hurt: I think the price difference between the DnD4 ruleset (3 main DLCs) compared to other rulesets is also an influence. A virtual tabletop system and content is not a simple beast to commit to, I think lateral solutions influencing customers are a worthwhile avenue to explore. And I think that the subscription model allows some inexpensive possibilities for Smiteworks.

Another that springs to mind is giveaways during the FGcons. I think also getting the FG virtual store recognised as part of the organised play might be great...FG could be a huge online organised play venue...

I must be getting old. I've been referring to DnD4 when I should be writing DnD5 sorry for that. :)
Another reason I think it might be worth considering ways to sweeten the deal is that currently, if I'm not mistaken, FG is the only way to get DnD5 digital content, no?

[JohnD]

The only place to have something shouldn't need to sweeten the pot. You're competing against yourself then.

[Thete]

The only place to have something shouldn't need to sweeten the pot. You're competing against yourself then.

Ideally yes, but I'm thinking of potential customers who currently (correctly or not) feel priced out of FG DnD5. I have a perhaps naive hunch that a few timely creative concessions now could swell FGs user base considerably. :)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I do feel opinions so far are contrary to my suggestions. And FG's strength has kind of always been its slow and steady approach (Long pedigree, backwards compatibility, continuous updates, deep rather than broad features).

To be clear, I'm playing devils advocate, not troll (regardless of my DnD edition fails) so lets hear your say folks, pick the gauntlet back up and slap me with it

[jshauber]

Ideally yes, but I'm thinking of potential customers who currently (correctly or not) feel priced out of FG DnD5. I have a perhaps naive hunch that a few timely creative concessions now could swell FGs user base considerably. :)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I do feel opinions so far are contrary to my suggestions. And FG's strength has kind of always been its slow and steady approach (Long pedigree, backwards compatibility, continuous updates, deep rather than broad features).

To be clear, I'm playing devils advocate, not troll (regardless of my DnD edition fails) so lets hear your say folks, pick the gauntlet back up and slap me with it

You have to remember that the 5e content for FG is licensed from WotC so there may be constraints in place from WotC as to what the pricing is. The guys at Smiteworks might want to run a sale, but WotC, thru the license, might have a set point and that is it. We don't know the terms of the license....

[Thete]

You have to remember that the 5e content for FG is licensed from WotC so there may be constraints in place from WotC as to what the pricing is. The guys at Smiteworks might want to run a sale, but WotC, thru the license, might have a set point and that is it. We don't know the terms of the license....

That is more than likely, and why I suggest a subscription offer rather than any direct changes to prices or sales.

[Hastur]

No offense, I really believe what you are saying, Thete, but honestly: you may not be a troll but you are arguing like one. This is a never-ending 'devils advocate'-thread.
You don't believe the customers who say
a) "You don't have to buy all that stuff to play D&D5." or
b) "Even if you buy it all it's not that expensive because you have so much fun with it and you can share the costs with your players."
If this is all about the pricing: The only one, who knows, what is the best price not only for the "customers, who currently feel priced out" but also for himself and the whole company and the wizards and the programmers etc. pp. is the owner of the company. 5E is a brand new product here. So no need to hurry with discounts and bundles etc. I am sure there will be discounts and perhaps they may offer subscription-models not only for the program but for modules, too. But why not let them decide. But perhaps I am to stupid to understand: What is the great business lesson you want to teach them?

Again, no offense (because of language inability things may sound harsher than intended), Greetings
Hastur

[Thete]

No offense, I really believe what you are saying, Thete, but honestly: you may not be a troll but you are arguing like one. This is a never-ending 'devils advocate'-thread.
You don't believe the customers who say
a) "You don't have to buy all that stuff to play D&D5." or
b) "Even if you buy it all it's not that expensive because you have so much fun with it and you can share the costs with your players."
If this is all about the pricing: The only one, who knows, what is the best price not only for the "customers, who currently feel priced out" but also for himself and the whole company and the wizards and the programmers etc. pp. is the owner of the company. 5E is a brand new product here. So no need to hurry with discounts and bundles etc. I am sure there will be discounts and perhaps they may offer subscription-models not only for the program but for modules, too. But why not let them decide. But perhaps I am to stupid to understand: What is the great business lesson you want to teach them?

Again, no offense (because of language inability things may sound harsher than intended), Greetings
Hastur

No offence taken :) you are spot on. I'm very enamoured (less so now) with the suggestion, hense my pushing to be convinced otherwise rather than convince others. I've covered my perspective but also want to gage others perspective.

[tocino]

You have to remember that the 5e content for FG is licensed from WotC so there may be constraints in place from WotC

This.

FG is the product that SmiteWorks produces, not DnD5E. As Xorn says you don't have to have it, it just makes life easier. SmiteWorks is licensed to sell the Rulebook Modules in such a way that they can be used with their product, and they do so based on a legal agreement with WotC. They do not have final say on the pricing WotC sets.

Possibly you could contact WotC and ask if they would sell a digital version of the rulebooks that allows subscriptions at X dollars per month because that would attract more buyers who use a product (FG) that a third company produces.

I can tell you from my experience though that I bought a license to FG *because* it allowed online play of DnD and not the other way around.

My guess is WotC would say that they produce rulesets to sell as books, and that if you want an FG compatible digital library you will need to purchase that separately.

Just my 2c.

[PopinFRESH]

It's a hassle making everyone buy in to play your game. That makes it crippleware. If you're the only dog in the junkyard, then you get to set the barking cadence. But that's not how it is in this case because Roll20 exists. So if your players can't connect for free, you'll have a hard time pulling in players. Fantasy Grounds has nothing like market saturation. Roll20 does. And that's where players will end up. That's absolutely the worst case scenario for SmiteWorks, because players learn things about the system and then become GMs. Those new GMs need to be settled in with Fantasy Grounds rather than Roll20, or else there's another missed opportunity.

In short, it's one of those things that seems like a good idea, but in practice just isn't. The $39 license matters, but it matters in a way that is detrimental to SmiteWorks.

Also: imho, the existence of the "full license" is clouding the issue and making it hard for Doug and crew to make the smart call and drop the price on the "ultimate license" to where it should be. There's a logical fallacy reference in there somewhere. "Sunk Costs" isn't quite right, but it's the closest fallacy I can think of at the moment.

I can't fathom your flawed view here. Not everyone has the time or desire to GM so I don't know why you can't see that there are 2 separate value propositions here. You have plenty of options with Fantasy Grounds regarding pricing, enough that your scenario above is just nonsensical. Most of the people I play table top RPGs with do not have a desire to GM. Out of the several groups I play with there are only a couple of people who are even remotely interested in being a GM. For those players, they can either connect to a GM with an ultimate license for free or they can choose to pay $40 outright or they can pay $4/mo to play with a GM who doesn't have an ultimate license. If you think $4/mo is too much for the functionality and support of Fantasy Grounds, you are more than welcome to take your business savvy and obvious knowledge of what it takes to program something like Fantasy Grounds, and you can make your Own competing platform that is cheaper.

If you feel it's too much of a hassle to get a few people to forgo their tall iced mocha caramel frappe latte once a month to do some role playing then either pay $10/mo when you are wanting to GM, or pay $150 and be done. As someone already mentioned, Roll20 isn't free, nor is it anywhere near the same level of functionality as Fantasy Grounds. There is nothing crippled about the software if you don't have the ultimate license, you can still do everything the system is designed to do with the only limitation being that people who have not purchased the platform can't connect to your campaign. Roll20, on the other hand, is "crippleware" because without a membership you don't have access to the API, you can't use your sheets, handouts, etc. across campaigns (very basic equivalent to Fantasy Grounds module functionality). So with Roll20 you can pay $5/mo for a not quite as crippled experience, or $10/mo for their full product. (it's odd, but those subscriptions seem familiar from some where /s)

Roll20 does have some interesting features for paid members (such as dynamic lighting) but their core functionality is not nearly as good as Fantasy Grounds. I use both, I'm currently playing in a campaign with a group on Roll20, however, when I GM I choose to use Fantasy Grounds. I had no problem paying $150 for the ultimate license because I knew I would want to GM for some of my friends who are new to d20 games and wouldn't want to spend much initially to see if they would enjoy it (this was before the subscription options). The majority of them have had a blast and would have no issues with paying ~$60 for a Full license if I didn't have the Ultimate license. A couple of them bought a Full license anyway primarily to support SmiteWorks because of how much they enjoyed using the software. I'd say Doug et al have a fairly solid grasp on their product and it's value. When they finally finish the move to Unity with Fantasy Grounds 4 I'll happily give them another $150 for their labors.

Regards,
-PopinFRESH

[Vellun]

There are a lot of interesting points being made here. I originally heard about FG when the 5e licensing was announced and one of the streamers I watch showed it off on his stream. When I first looked at it I did experience that "sticker shock." In my head I immediately walked away wistfully thinking that was just too much money; I was intrigued, however.

After thinking about it for a while, it occurred to me that the perception of FG seemed a bit skewed (in my personal opinion). You talk about free and paid software like Gimp and Adobe, etc and I don't even think it applies here. The $60 price point is very appealing and is pretty much the standard for premier PC/XBox/PlayStation/WiiU/etc. releases. Fantasy Grounds isn't a premier game release. It's better to compare it to a software application like Adobe, or Microsoft, or (the best in my opinion), a console. $150 isn't so bad when compared to $300-$500 for a console.

The adventure modules, then, are more like actual game releases. The official D&D 5e WoTC releases would then fall into that "premier" release category (to carry the analogy forward). After looking at it this way I can see the reasons for the price point for the Ultimate license. That's just a personal point of view. I can see how some might feel that it's a barrier. I only GM for my family and not really outside that (though I may reconsider in the future) so the group method of consolidating resources didn't exactly apply in my case.

After all that I decided to jump in and make the investment on the PHB and the MM as well as the LMoP adventure module and various map and token packs and the Ultimate license. Maybe the price point changes in the future (which would be great), or maybe not. This is a business and, while a great product is critical, you can't have it if those making it don't have the time to focus on it...and that means being able to do it and get paid to compensate them for that time.

[Dakadin]

After thinking about it for a while, it occurred to me that the perception of FG seemed a bit skewed (in my personal opinion). You talk about free and paid software like Gimp and Adobe, etc and I don't even think it applies here. The $60 price point is very appealing and is pretty much the standard for premier PC/XBox/PlayStation/WiiU/etc. releases. Fantasy Grounds isn't a premier game release. It's better to compare it to a software application like Adobe, or Microsoft, or (the best in my opinion), a console. $150 isn't so bad when compared to $300-$500 for a console.

The adventure modules, then, are more like actual game releases. The official D&D 5e WoTC releases would then fall into that "premier" release category (to carry the analogy forward). After looking at it this way I can see the reasons for the price point for the Ultimate license. That's just a personal point of view. I can see how some might feel that it's a barrier. I only GM for my family and not really outside that (though I may reconsider in the future) so the group method of consolidating resources didn't exactly apply in my case.


I like this analogy much better than the others I've heard in the past. FG is definitely a platform for playing RPGs and not an actual RPG. Thanks for pointing it out that way and welcome to FG. :)

[JohnD]

There are a lot of interesting points being made here. I originally heard about FG when the 5e licensing was announced and one of the streamers I watch showed it off on his stream. When I first looked at it I did experience that "sticker shock." In my head I immediately walked away wistfully thinking that was just too much money; I was intrigued, however.

After thinking about it for a while, it occurred to me that the perception of FG seemed a bit skewed (in my personal opinion). You talk about free and paid software like Gimp and Adobe, etc and I don't even think it applies here. The $60 price point is very appealing and is pretty much the standard for premier PC/XBox/PlayStation/WiiU/etc. releases. Fantasy Grounds isn't a premier game release. It's better to compare it to a software application like Adobe, or Microsoft, or (the best in my opinion), a console. $150 isn't so bad when compared to $300-$500 for a console.

The adventure modules, then, are more like actual game releases. The official D&D 5e WoTC releases would then fall into that "premier" release category (to carry the analogy forward). After looking at it this way I can see the reasons for the price point for the Ultimate license. That's just a personal point of view. I can see how some might feel that it's a barrier. I only GM for my family and not really outside that (though I may reconsider in the future) so the group method of consolidating resources didn't exactly apply in my case.

After all that I decided to jump in and make the investment on the PHB and the MM as well as the LMoP adventure module and various map and token packs and the Ultimate license. Maybe the price point changes in the future (which would be great), or maybe not. This is a business and, while a great product is critical, you can't have it if those making it don't have the time to focus on it...and that means being able to do it and get paid to compensate them for that time.

Excellent post.

[kavaliro]

Kavaliro - from where Im sitting... your telling a company who has been doing what its been doing successfully and growing year on year that they dont know what they are doing. I like where you are headed with that.
And I like the argument where you think the GM should do all the prep work and spend all the money too. Thats a great one. Yay for GMs with oodles of time and money doing it all for players who cant even show enough commitment to the product to stump up $4/month or $40/outright. They are the players we should all want at our tables.
And you know that Roll20 is not free right? All those free players are subsidised by the guys shelling out on the monthly subscriptions - oh right - you do get that - thats the way you like it - someone else paying the bill.
You know Fantasy Grounds isnt the only product out there that has free competitors? Photoshop and Gimp. Office and Open Office. Some good price disparities there. I cant see Microsoft and Adobe just giving their software away now.

Microsoft does in fact give away their software. How much have you ever paid for IE? Visual Studio Express is free. Thier libraries are free. They are even giving away Windows 10 free on many platforms. They do this because market share and brand recognition and loyalty are much more important than making the immediate dollar.

Do I think FG is worth $150? I do. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with it. It matters only what the potential customer thinks it's worth. Full Stop.

A better model maybe is to make it an option in the interface to allow or disallow unregistered users in your games. Maybe you can do this already? Anyway, then it's up to the GM.

I want Smiteworks to succeed. I want them to not sell out because it isn't profitable. I want them to grow large enough to be able to support a team of full-time devs. I want the code base to get overhauled/reimplemented so that it's not coderotted throughout. I want a reasonable toolchain for producing content, that functions across all rulesets. I want the chatwindow dice mechanics to catch up to where IRC scripts were in the early 1990s, dammit! I want FG to be more popular than Roll20. Most of that is logistcally improbable at the current pricepoint. In the immortal words of the prophet Andre Agassi, "Image is EVERYTHING." It doesn't even matter that there are other licensing levels, or a subscription model. All that matters is that 98% of potential customers come in, see that $150 sticker, and close the window in disgust and loathing, never to return. !!! If that doesn't raise a red flag, then success of Smiteworks and Fantasy Grounds is no priority at all.

Badass content creation tools, a complete toolchain, should be free. A company or individual should be able to create, test, package without buying anything. There should be no monetary cost associated with getting an rpg or module packaged and it should be easy to get that content vetted and into the store! I don't understand how such a concept even needs to be uttered out loud. There needs to be an intermediary format (Par5e input is a step in the right direction) that lets content be semantic. Then there needs to be a tool for cooking said format into modules. All of that needs to be open-source, freely available, and editable by the community. Any other thought is folly. It's not straight thinking.Think Microsoft doesn't give their stuff away for free? Guess again. The entire .Net framework is being opensourced bit by bit. I'd venture to say Microsoft offers more free stuff at this point than stuff for sale! It's not the same company it was 10 years ago. They've become enlightened because the paradigm shifted, and they had to shift with it, or die. Extrapolate that statement onto Smiteworks' current situation however you see fit.

I'm not saying make everything free. I'm saying sell FG for the optimum price. I'm saying, the Smiteworks store should be like Lulu.com for FG content. I'm saying get smarter. Get wiser. Arrogant as it is to say. ;)

[Dakadin]

The problem is your expecting Smiteworks, a small company, to act like Microsoft, a huge company. Microsoft can survive giving away free stuff because they can have other revenue streams and can afford to eat the cost for a short while. I am pretty sure Smiteworks makes most of their money on licenses. Smiteworks has been growing pretty steadily with a few bigger jumps (Steam and 5E). If they keep going like this, they will do just fine.

I agree that they are losing some customers that turn away when they see that price tag but they seem to be gaining customers not losing them. Look at the number of new people that have joined in the last year. Look how many are saying they have the $150 ultimate license.

[Mellock]

If I remember correctly, that $150 was never meant to be the "base" license that people nowadays make it out to be. The community asked for a way to let other people play for free, and the owners tossed a few ideas around like floating licenses, which were a hot topic then. They worked out a way to let as many people pay for free without ever using up your floating licenses, and that was the "ultimate" license. Not only is the "regular" $40 license still available, they also added a low-cost subscription option to try and make it easier on more people. With that in mind, I really don't find it very accurate to portray that $150 license as *the* option, yet I always see that one come up. The way I personally see it is that they've been bending over backwards to give people the most bang for their buck while playing nice with all other licensees/licensors and still keep a very niche company afloat.

On the open sourcing stuff... Unlike some opther open source projects, I don't think there's gonna be sponsors in the league of Intel or MS, or Mark Shuttleworth, or iXsystems to pay for the upkeep. But making a free module tool isn't out of the question anyway: look at par5e.

As for the tool to cook up such modules for free: there was an sort-of-kickstarter (it was on Verkami) a while ago to try and get a guy some time away from his dayjob to make a ruleset wizard. Unfortunately, it didn't succeed. But you're part of the community now, perhaps you can devote some of your expertise to make it all happen faster?

[kavaliro]

The problem is your expecting Smiteworks, a small company, to act like Microsoft, a huge company. Microsoft can survive giving away free stuff because they can have other revenue streams and can afford to eat the cost for a short while. I am pretty sure Smiteworks makes most of their money on licenses. Smiteworks has been growing pretty steadily with a few bigger jumps (Steam and 5E). If they keep going like this, they will do just fine.

I agree that they are losing some customers that turn away when they see that price tag but they seem to be gaining customers not losing them. Look at the number of new people that have joined in the last year. Look how many are saying they have the $150 ultimate license.

Gaining a few customers here and there, sure. How many people have the ultimate license? A small fraction Of the number of Roll20 mentors, I'll wager. Which destroys any notion that FG is properly marketed pricewise. Because it is a better platform, even with its flaws. Were it properly priced, there would have been no chance that Roll20 could have made headway in the VTT market. Whetever else might get said here, that is the pudding which contains the ultimate proof. Smiteworks is not close to fine. I hope they do get their stuff in one sock, but I can laundry-list probably a score of serious, future-threatening issues they have, but don't have the resources to fix. They don't have the resources because sales are not happening at a strong enough pace. Which is because they aren't selling at the correct price. Selling FG itself is ultimately not even a sustainable model. Selling content (ala Lulu.com) is. Provided they have market saturation. Which requires swallowing a big ol' lump of pride and lowering that damn price to something that doesn't scare off all the fish before they take a nibble at the hook.

[Trenloe]

Gaining a few customers here and there, sure. How many people have the ultimate license? A small fraction Of the number of Roll20 mentors, I'll wager. Which destroys any notion that FG is properly marketed pricewise. Because it is a better platform, even with its flaws. Were it properly priced, there would have been no chance that Roll20 could have made headway in the VTT market. Whetever else might get said here, that is the pudding which contains the ultimate proof. Smiteworks is not close to fine. I hope they do get their stuff in one sock, but I can laundry-list probably a score of serious, future-threatening issues they have, but don't have the resources to fix. They don't have the resources because sales are not happening at a strong enough pace. Which is because they aren't selling at the correct price. Selling FG itself is ultimately not even a sustainable model. Selling content (ala Lulu.com) is. Provided they have market saturation. Which requires swallowing a big ol' lump of pride and lowering that damn price to something that doesn't scare off all the fish before they take a nibble at the hook.
You have some interesting points, but you're making a lot of statements that you actually have no evidence to support. For example, in the last year one part-time employee has gone full-time, and SmiteWorks have taken on another part-time employee. Yes, they're small - but they're expanding. Which suggests to me that FG *is* a sustainable model.

In case you haven't noticed, SmiteWorks have an agreement with the biggest hitter in the RPG industry. Currently SmiteWorks is the *only* company to provide official 5E material in a digital form (beyond the free rule PDFs WotC distribute). Sign of a struggling, unsustainable business model? I think not.

Yes, all of us could point out a few things that FG could do better - arguments will result around things like the "need" for dynamic lighting, music/sound effects, built in voice.video, etc.,etc.. A lot of us have been here for a very long time (proving the longevity of the product) and have seen great advances over that time, and there are more and more new "Faces" posting on the forums over the last year - since SmiteWorks did another great move of getting onto Steam.

SmiteWorks are building for the future - with the move to Unity to allow a lot more options within the product. Will that move result in a change in any of the licencing/subscriptions etc. time will tell on that point...

[JohnD]

How much does one have to pay Roll20 to get the same level of functionality that FG has?

[Nylanfs]

You can't the closest would be ∞, because of the subscription and no buy-in.

[JohnD]

OK so why is Roll20 being held up as some sort of supreme competition to be emulated then?

[Trenloe]

How much does one have to pay Roll20 to get the same level of functionality that FG has?
It's actually quite hard to find the costs of supporter or mentor subscription on the roll20 site - you need to login and click on a couple of links to get the info. Supporter is $4.99/month, mentor is $9.99/month.

[JohnD]

So to find out how much it costs, you need to create an account. And somehow the #s of registered accounts are being used to claim Roll20 is this massive juggernaut. But you don't actually get rules - you need to write stuff yourself, or get lucky and know someone willing to share with you. OK got it.

[mghauber]

My two cents: Why not do away with the "Ultimate" moniker and make the "Full" version the standard. Make the "demo" a 30 day trial.

I was on WOTC web site last night and followed the link to Fantasy Grounds. If I didn't know the difference, I would assume that in order to get the "biggest, baddest, most role-playingest, WOTC endorsed VTT" I would have to purchase the "Ultimate" at $150. Maybe I would dig in to it and find out the small connectivity difference between the "Full" and the "Ultimate", but the "Gotta have the biggest, baddest, most role-playingest, WOTC endorsed VTT excitement" is already gone.... I think most folks (me included) assume they aren't getting something with the "Full" because it is not "Ultimate". And I agree that that would turn a new customer off....how many smart shoppers do you know nowadays....

I give kudos to those who have the "Ultimate" version, and thanks for allowing many others to try it out for free. I think the Ultimate version was there to allow folks new to FG to try it and see how good it is. However, with the WOTC agreement, I think there will be many more who are looking and will see the "Ultimate" version and think that is what they need. I believe the price will turn them off because they are ignorant that the "Full" is REALLY what they want/need. I also believe that players who use only the demo version and rely on Ultimate holders need to tow the line so to speak. The "Ultimate" holders could have a special splash screen that commands respect and admiration of all those who come after....cue heavenly music and radiant beams of light....

The opinion of a single lowly Full License holder....

[kavaliro]

You have some interesting points, but you're making a lot of statements that you actually have no evidence to support. For example, in the last year one part-time employee has gone full-time, and SmiteWorks have taken on another part-time employee. Yes, they're small - but they're expanding. Which suggests to me that FG *is* a sustainable model.


By "ultimately unsustainable," I was considering the finite nature of the rpg industry and the fact that there *is* a point of full market saturation, where everyone who is going to get FG will have done so. Then sustainability means selling content to existing customers, rather than trying to sell to new ones.

But you're right: I'm making logical guesses based on partial information. I have no say in how Smiteworks does business, nor should I, since I have no stake in it. At the same time, as a customer, I am both a significant part of the marketing strategy and part of the ongoing success of Smiteworks. And I do want success for FG. I can sit back and be silent, or I can express my thoughts. That doesn't mean Smiteworks has to listen. Nor agree. Nor that I'm right. (Though of course, I feel that I am. Maybe not 100% right. But generally so.) One of the previous posts mentioned that the Ultimate license wasn't the original intent, and that it was added later at customer request. Good! Smiteworks has generally been responsive from what I've seen. The advent of Roll20 marks a paradigm shift. The deal with WotC marks another. Things are not what they were when Ultimate was added as an option.
I have an Ultimate license. Glad to have it, and in retrospect it is worth that cost. At the time, I struggled with it, and would have walked away, but my wife insisted. ;) She hated the idea that Roll20's model is subscription so much that she was willing to bite the bullet on the high FG cost to get rid of the subscription. I never would have paid that price on my own. This isn't Photoshop. I can't make a living as a GM. If I could, I would! But the point is, FG is not enterprise software. It's hobby software, and should be priced with other hobby (gaming) titles, not with enterprise titles.

As an existing customer, hey: I'd rather have better dice and drawing/image tools. I want to easily package my content in an sustainable, versionable, upgradable way. But applying logic, all that depends on Smiteworks having financial breathing room. Thus my interest in this topic at all. Cause it doesn't line my pockets ;)

[kavaliro]

So to find out how much it costs, you need to create an account. And somehow the #s of registered accounts are being used to claim Roll20 is this massive juggernaut. But you don't actually get rules - you need to write stuff yourself, or get lucky and know someone willing to share with you. OK got it.

Yep. Roll20 is more customizable by far. But you have to jump through the same hoops every tme. The dice engine has superb flexibility, and its cards are better, which makes up for a lot of its other shortcomings. The built-in video and chat are flashy gimmicks. And the randomness of dicerolls are legendarily hosed. But you can truly play anything on there, because you can set up the complex macros in chat.

Technically, FG could be made to do the same thing. But Lua. Ughh. Among other things, no regex. So what should be a single line of code takes a book. Functional rather than OOP. So what should be an object is spread across 15 files, and the whole of it is a house of cards, waiting for a puff of wind. Thus how slow development goes. Or at least, that's my perception.

For all that, FG is still "better" than Roll20, if I might preach to the choir.

[Nikkadaem]

Challenges to this - Fantasy Grounds have the rights to sell THIS 5e product. Not any other.
And why, why, why would you try and compete with Amazon on making a $1/book, turning over $89billion dollars a year and not making a cent of profit more often than not?

Anyone can become a distributor if you have a website or a store, so FG could carry more product if they chose to. Competition is not just about who sells more, it's also about convenience. So to answer you challenge: The profit is not is selling the book, it's in selling the software. Selling the book is just a matter of convenience. Say for example FG wanted to sell Rage of Demons as an Adventure. They could certainly do that, just sell the software. However, how many more people would they attract if they sold the hardcopy of Rage of Demons and bundled it with the adventure. I'd pay $50 for both as a bundle. Just toss in a 1 month subscription with it...BAM...instant value.

As a customer, I now have the book and the adventure...wonderful! FG just saved me a trip to another website. And I'm willing to pay more than I would on Amazon just for the convenience.

Case in point: My buddy owns a comic book shop. His subscribers have the option to pay $60.00 per year to have their selections mailed directly to their homes. They can certainly come to the store and pick them up, but almost 100 people still pay for delivery. Why...convenience. He has another program where you can pay $5.00 a month and get a random new release. I can't tell you how many people he's gotten hooked on other comics that way, which then led to more subscriptions.

[JohnD]

I don't think "giving away" an electronic version of a WotC module for FG with a purchased copy of the actual book will get Smiteworks anything other than a C&D order, along with possibly a lawsuit and an end to their agreement for 5E stuff.

Just possibly a bad idea.

[Nikkadaem]

I don't think "giving away" an electronic version of a WotC module for FG with a purchased copy of the actual book will get Smiteworks anything other than a C&D order, along with possibly a lawsuit and an end to their agreement for 5E stuff.

Just possibly a bad idea.

Nothing is given away, but possibly a 1 month subscription. The customer still pays list price for the book and list price for the adventure..

Well it's jsut a thought.

[JohnD]

The point is that the "electronic version" of the module is a different product to the printed/book version of the module. Smiteworks would need to have WotC's permission to sell or give away a copy which will cost money. Why would WotC allow their product to be devalued with a free offering.

[Griogre]

I think he was suggesting giving a month or so free in a monthly FG subscription with a purchase of say the complete monster manual and complete player packs. This is like when you buy a data plan for a year or two they give you a free phone. This particular idea should not upset WotC because their part of the deal sells at full price, its just FG being offered at a discount. Given this type of thing usually requires a contract period I'm not sure the administrative part of the idea would be easy for SmiteWorks.

Alternatively they could offer a Steam DM Starter Bundle where you would offer the player and monster complete packs plus an adventure module and then give them half price on a full license. Or something like a - Basic Let's Play 5E bundle where you do the buy 4 for the price of 3 where you get 4 full licenses and 4 Basic rules packs for the price of 3 copies of the basic rules pack and 3 full licenses.

[Thete]

I think he was suggesting giving a month or so free in a monthly FG subscription with a purchase of say the complete monster manual and complete player packs. This is like when you buy a data plan for a year or two they give you a free phone. This particular idea should not upset WotC because their part of the deal sells at full price, its just FG being offered at a discount. Given this type of thing usually requires a contract period I'm not sure the administrative part of the idea would be easy for SmiteWorks.

Alternatively they could offer a Steam DM Starter Bundle where you would offer the player and monster complete packs plus an adventure module and then give them half price on a full license. Or something like a - Basic Let's Play 5E bundle where you do the buy 4 for the price of 3 where you get 4 full licenses and 4 Basic rules packs for the price of 3 copies of the basic rules pack and 3 full licenses.

That was my thinking too.
Interesting points all round folks. I do feel that DnD5 if now the flagship of FGs features.
It would be cool to convey that without eroding the economy of Full license with adding just what u need. Maybe ultimate could be tagged with "others play for free" or something

[damned]

I wrote a longish reply to Nikkadaem before I realised there was some clarification in there... :)

A few shorter bits here..

The profit is NOT in selling the book. There is no profit in selling the book when you are going to get compared to Amazon. Bundling the FG product in on top of that? Im missing something. Taking a no profit situation and making it worse? Yes you would attract more buyers - but would you attract enough new buyers?
so this was clarified in that you suggested that the SUB should be given away or discounted which has some merit IMO
We have a large ISP in this country who can sell $4000-40,000 internet connections to its business clients where other providers can do it from $400-$2000. Should they switch models? Hell no. Not while they are still selling connections at the price they are. Do the Math anyway you like. We can throw up so many different products and examples as comparisons but none of them will truly tell us what is going on - we can only guess and make suggestions.

Maybe an option - would require WOTCs approval Im sure - but perhaps the Core Rule Books could also be bought on subscription - $10/month. Then someone can try out the full experience at $20 only. If you want to swap GMs for a couple of weeks. Easy. Ultimately the subscription model (eg recurring revenue) is the best over the long term for SW.

And to another earlier post - maybe the Ultimate should be called something like Group License - but Group could imply or be mistaken to mean the GM role could be passed around. I dont know what the right word would be - but Ultimate can imply that it contains more something.

[BnaaUK]

When I first brought Fantasy Grounds like a decade ago, it was pretty much the only game in town.

This quickly stopped being the case, with things like Battlegrounds and a few others, I've forgotten the names. But for me, Fantasy Grounds saved those of us who struggled to get a face to face group together the option of playing D&D online without awkward IRC chatrooms and dicebots, and it was a nightmare to game like that.

When Fantasy Grounds and the other VTTs came about, there was not, as I recall, this rather bitter and very off putting trolling. I'm very clear, I like Fantasy Grounds, I'm sure others like other systems, good for them. But the sheer bile, I've seen directed towards Fantasy Grounds by Roll20 fans really put me off of even looking at the system. It's weird how people feel like Roll20 needs to be protected by going around searching for mentions of Fantasy Grounds and spreading misinformation about it's rather simple pricing structure or the capabilities of it. The rage against FG is strange, it puts off people trying both systems, I suspect. But don't we all want more people to be interested in our hobby?

The current incarnation of Fantasy Grounds is almost unrecognisable to Fantasy Grounds 1, the dice and chatwindow still look broadly similar, and even then it was great for running games with. But we have got so many awesome and amazing new capabilities. The system is now so different that the old modules for FG1 no longer unless you have the old version of the program.

Just for fun, this isn't the first time Fantasy Grounds has had official Dungeons & Dragons adventure modules, I still have the old Forge of Fury and Sunless Citadel modules that CMP released when they had a license to make stuff.

[Thete]

When I first brought Fantasy Grounds like a decade ago, it was pretty much the only game in town.

This quickly stopped being the case, with things like Battlegrounds and a few others, I've forgotten the names. But for me, Fantasy Grounds saved those of us who struggled to get a face to face group together the option of playing D&D online without awkward IRC chatrooms and dicebots, and it was a nightmare to game like that.

When Fantasy Grounds and the other VTTs came about, there was not, as I recall, this rather bitter and very off putting trolling. I'm very clear, I like Fantasy Grounds, I'm sure others like other systems, good for them. But the sheer bile, I've seen directed towards Fantasy Grounds by Roll20 fans really put me off of even looking at the system. It's weird how people feel like Roll20 needs to be protected by going around searching for mentions of Fantasy Grounds and spreading misinformation about it's rather simple pricing structure or the capabilities of it. The rage against FG is strange, it puts off people trying both systems, I suspect. But don't we all want more people to be interested in our hobby?

The current incarnation of Fantasy Grounds is almost unrecognisable to Fantasy Grounds 1, the dice and chatwindow still look broadly similar, and even then it was great for running games with. But we have got so many awesome and amazing new capabilities. The system is now so different that the old modules for FG1 no longer unless you have the old version of the program.

Just for fun, this isn't the first time Fantasy Grounds has had official Dungeons & Dragons adventure modules, I still have the old Forge of Fury and Sunless Citadel modules that CMP released when they had a license to make stuff.

I'm sorry if I or others are coming across as trolling, my hope is that we are just throwing around opinions and ideas. I agree that these days these subjects are clouded by glib and inflammatory remarks or more subtle trolling. But FG is a robust, enduring product, it can weather some static from growing.

Another lateral idea that springs to my mind from this discussion s the value of FGs DLC back catalogue, there are enough official rulesets and modules to sustain an ongoing series of community spotlights. Maybe mini-cons for specific rules sets accompanied with a set of community created videos on the rulesset, type of game. that kind if thing would get me buying store DLCs that I might not otherwise. Id be up for collaboration on that kind of thing

[BnaaUK]

I'm sorry if I or others are coming across as trolling, my hope is that we are just throwing around opinions and ideas. I agree that these days these subjects are clouded by glib and inflammatory remarks or more subtle trolling. But FG is a robust, enduring product, it can weather some static from growing.


Sorry, the trolling was because I've seen multiple areas across the internet where fans of Roll20 have done their best to put people off of Fantasy Grounds, in the comments. You've not shown any of the level of venom that was displayed on, for example, PC Gamer article about the Fifth Edition announcement, as well as other places. The discussion here hasn't stepped into anything like those places. It is a discussion.

I was commenting in general, because it really does smell of edition wars, those are so tiresome.



Another lateral idea that springs to my mind from this discussion s the value of FGs DLC back catalogue, there are enough official rulesets and modules to sustain an ongoing series of community spotlights. Maybe mini-cons for specific rules sets accompanied with a set of community created videos on the rulesset, type of game. that kind if thing would get me buying store DLCs that I might not otherwise. Id be up for collaboration on that kind of thing

The back catalogue of FG1 modules? You'd need permission of the original people wouldn't you? I suspect the Digital Adventures ones are probably still ok to convert but I've never tried to do that because I didn't want to fall afoul of some copyright stuff. Or do you mean like FG-Con? There used to be other VTT conventions too, if I recall? Ones that involved Fantasy Grounds but weren't specifically FG.

It could be interesting to have a Savage World's week or other rules systems to show off the already built flexibility. Though with the recent launch, I think a 5th edition one would have a larger attraction, especially with the new Rage of Demons that has been announced.

Community videos are awesome.

[damned]

Or do you mean like FG-Con? There used to be other VTT conventions too, if I recall? Ones that involved Fantasy Grounds but weren't specifically FG.

I think the three biggest online conventions now might be AetherCon, VirtuaCon and FG Con (I certainly could be wrong on this). The first only use Infrno, Roll20, Hangouts or MapTools. The last only uses Fantasy Grounds. There may be another Fantasy Grounds only convention launched later this year....

[BnaaUK]

I think the three biggest online conventions now might be AetherCon, VirtuaCon and FG Con (I certainly could be wrong on this). The first only use Infrno, Roll20, Hangouts or MapTools. The last only uses Fantasy Grounds. There may be another Fantasy Grounds only convention launched later this year....

Fun.
I kept being too busy when you've had FG Con in the past. I was really hoping to take part in the one that happened in April, but research got in the way. Not even fun research either.

[dulux-oz]

Fun.
I kept being too busy when you've had FG Con in the past. I was really hoping to take part in the one that happened in April, but research got in the way. Not even fun research either.

Just for interest sake: what are you researching?

[BnaaUK]

Just for interest sake: what are you researching?

Just some psychology research for university. Nothing particularly interesting.

[ddavison]

There are some interesting thoughts here. A lot of it is based on conjecture - whereas, we've actually done some competitive research. That doesn't mean that our take-aways are the correct ones... just that we probably have a clearer picture of the actual numbers than anyone else would. R20 does not publicly share the number of mentors and supporters and instead highlights total accounts. As has been noted, there are a large # of people who register an account just to see what the price is or just to try it out. How many people does this account for? I would say about half. Then, I've seen posts by R20 users who say that they create multiple free accounts just to get around file storage limitations and they run different campaigns or game systems in each account. I have no idea how many people that accounts for. The actual number of paying subscribers is much less than the total number of licensed FG users, but is currently more than our active subscriber counts. Our active subscriber counts are growing pretty quickly though -- especially the Ultimate sub and especially after the announcement of the 5E license. We still see many people opting for the 1-time purchase though. If we only wanted to drive subs, then we would probably discontinue the Ultimate 1-time license. That is not necessarily a bad idea. While I like more options, it's kind of a no-no from a marketing sense and people seem to fixate on the $150 price point.

Subscribers do help though. We had estimated that R20 had around $50-$70K a month in revenue off of subscribers alone. I believe they accounted for roughly 1-2% of the user base and something like 98% of their revenue.

For us, official D&D content has been doing extremely well. Even though we support a series of lower cost buy-ins for player class packs or monster packs, the most common purchase by far is people buying the two Complete packs plus the Phandelver module. The D&D Basic Rules are a close second in quantity, but everything else is just a tiny fraction. A lot of these people are getting subs or buying the 1-time license options.

As for taking steps to remove the license cost from the equation to sell more content -- I don't think that works for this particular market. R20 has publicly stated that their marketplace sales pale in comparison with their sub revenue. 5E content sales have shifted that much more in favor of content for us, but even then our licenses make up a higher percentage of our revenue and a much higher percentage of our profit since we don't have to share that with anyone.

Most of our plans for FG involve other changes and improvements, such as:

Moving the core engine to Unity to enable native builds on multiple platforms (Mac, Linux, PC)
Working on a build for Xbox and PS and also web and tablets
Integrating the Store directly in the app
Improving gifting so players can gift items to a GM
Adding some content subscription options
Continuing to produce D&D and other product add-ons
Improving ruleset and character sheet building tools
Improving the core system in Unity to enhance drawing tools, tiles and layer map building, dynamic lighting, no more port forwarding, streaming sound and possibly embedded video and sound, easier streaming to twitch and youtube and more


While I think there is probably room for improvement on the initial sticker shock, I am leaning towards highlighting the $9.99 / mo sub or the player sub $3.99 as the primary options.

[kavaliro]

There are some interesting thoughts here. A lot of it is based on conjecture - whereas, we've actually done some competitive research. That doesn't mean that our take-aways are the correct ones... just that we probably have a clearer picture of the actual numbers than anyone else would.

True! A huge amount of conjecture, on my part, at least. Often I forget to label my thoughts in a way that makes it clear that they are speculation/conjecture/extrapolation/logical induction/etc.I'm happy enough to have the thoughts acknowledged.

It's also true that I have no skin in the game, so it's easy to drop suggestions from the comfort of my lazy-boy.

[ddavison]

I didn't mean that in a negative way at all. We appreciate the spirit with which suggestions are made and we just bounce it up against what we know -- or think we know.

[Xydonus]

Having been a user of FG for over 2 years now and a Ultimate License owner, and also having tried out roll20 for myself, I can safely say I consider FG to be the far superior product, at least for what I want it for, and that is narrative. FG has a great interface for this, for narrative style of play, while Roll20 is excellent for being a pure map-based program along with some of the nice features that come with being mostly a battlemap program, making it great for dungeon crawls more so than FG.

I do hope that future iterations of FG will improve in this area.

I do want to say however that I am greatly concerned about the future of FG and where it may end up.

From my own perspective, I'm using an outdated ruleset (it was made pre-3.0) that pretty much works fine in FG as it stands now without any automation features, which is perfectly fine. However I'm worried that a potentially forced move to Unity may completely break the ruleset. That's always a worry in my mind, but perhaps what I worry most is the prospect of losing players due to potential license changes. I get 'jittery' when I read statements like, "If we only wanted to drive subs, then we would probably discontinue the Ultimate 1-time license." - Would such a change mean that current lifetime users like myself would no longer have a valid license and be forced to sub? Would players who've previously been able to connect to me for free, suddenly find themselves being forced to sub if they wanted to join one of my campaigns cause of some future policy change in terms of player licensing, etc.

Things like that, that give me uncertainty and I can honestly say such changes if they were to ever happen, I think out of the 7 players in my game, probably only 1 would actually consider subbing if it meant being able to play.

Maybe its posted elsewhere with definite answers to these but I would appreciate a developer confirming or denying my suspicions on future changes to the licensing systems, at least some sort of guarantee in regards to not implementing any changes that would screw over the Ultimate License owners.

[ddavison]

When we deprecated the Lite licenses, it just meant that we quit selling those on our store. All existing Lite licenses continue to work today and they can still do an upgrade to a Full like they were able to in the past.

Regarding backward compatibility, this is one of the major requirements we have set for ourselves on the move to Unity. We expect that it will probably require a 1-time conversion that we expect to be able to automate. Similar things were done with the Savage Worlds ruleset where it went from version 3 to version 4 or from D&D 3.0 to 3.5 (okay, that was before my time as owner/dev.)

[BnaaUK]

When we deprecated the Lite licenses, it just meant that we quit selling those on our store. All existing Lite licenses continue to work today and they can still do an upgrade to a Full like they were able to in the past.

Regarding backward compatibility, this is one of the major requirements we have set for ourselves on the move to Unity. We expect that it will probably require a 1-time conversion that we expect to be able to automate. Similar things were done with the Savage Worlds ruleset where it went from version 3 to version 4 or from D&D 3.0 to 3.5 (okay, that was before my time as owner/dev.)

The same thing happened with the Complete SRD when Fantasy Grounds 1 was replaced by FG2. Though a significant discount was given if I recall. If that's what you mean by upgrading from 3.0 to 3.5.

Are people able to upgrade from the subscription based version to the one time only deal?

[damned]

I think out of the 7 players in my game, probably only 1 would actually consider subbing if it meant being able to play.

whilst that is the reality you face I think it is quite sad that your players are quite willing to let you stump up good money but are not themselves willing to either pay $4 a month or chip in and share the $10 cost a month. after all you are already doing the bulk of the work and the only one making any financial investment too.

my guess is that unity of FG4 will require an upgrade fee. subscribers would automatically get it. if you didnt pay an upgrade fee you would stay on the current FG3 platform and get no further updates or support. just my guess

[damned]

The same thing happened with the Complete SRD when Fantasy Grounds 1 was replaced by FG2. Though a significant discount was given if I recall. If that's what you mean by upgrading from 3.0 to 3.5.

Are people able to upgrade from the subscription based version to the one time only deal?

you can always do that but there is no discount - it is just at store price.

[BnaaUK]

you can always do that but there is no discount - it is just at store price.

Ah, that makes it less appealing then.

Cheers though.

[PopinFRESH]

...Our active subscriber counts are growing pretty quickly though -- especially the Ultimate sub and especially after the announcement of the 5E license. We still see many people opting for the 1-time purchase though. If we only wanted to drive subs, then we would probably discontinue the Ultimate 1-time license. That is not necessarily a bad idea. While I like more options, it's kind of a no-no from a marketing sense and people seem to fixate on the $150 price point.

...

While I think there is probably room for improvement on the initial sticker shock, I am leaning towards highlighting the $9.99 / mo sub or the player sub $3.99 as the primary options.

Just wanted to share my 2¢ on this subject. I'm personally not a fan of "Software as a Service" models. I do however understand that it significantly lowers the barrier to entry allowing more people to experience the software. As such I do like the current options as this offers people who are unsure about the product to try it out with little investment and then depending on their planned usage they can choose to continue a subscription as needed or buy a perpetual license. I would be significantly disappointed if the one time purchase options were to be removed in the future as I much prefer this payment model. I think the current pricing strategy is pretty reasonable, especially considering the subscription options. If you consider any other type of multi-player computer games require each player to buy a copy of the game, there is really no difference with everyone in a group buying the $40 full license. There really isn't another multi-player computer game that I can think of off the top of my head that allow one player to buy a license that allows any other players who haven't bought the game to play.

I personally think the Ultimate license under values the software, but I'm happy where the price point is. Consider a typical 5 person group (4PCs and a GM) with each spending $40 on a full license equates to $200 which is about where I'd value the Ultimate license. Giving a $50 discount from that perspective is also appreciated as this option limits the freedom of any of the players being a GM. This would also be true of the subscriptions ($4*5=$20/mo vs $10/mo). I really like the flexibility in the pricing options as they are now. I'm not sure why people fixate on that $150 price point as most people really don't have any reason to buy that. I suspect that it may be as simple as the naming of the licenses. People see "Ultimate" and think it's better or the best license and may have additional functionality beyond just allowing hosting of unpaid clients (even though you've been pretty clear on it's function).

My main point is that I really hope that you don't move to a purely "Software as a Service" subscription model. I do like that the options are there for those who just wish to play for a couple months at a time, or wish to try out the software before paying for a perpetual license. If the perpetual licenses went away (sadly) I would probably just continue using existing version and wouldn't upgrade further.

Kind Regards,
-PopinFRESH

[damned]

Just wanted to share my 2¢ on this subject. I'm personally not a fan of "Software as a Service" models. I do however understand that it significantly lowers the barrier to entry allowing more people to experience the software. As such I do like the current options as this offers people who are unsure about the product to try it out with little investment and then depending on their planned usage they can choose to continue a subscription as needed or buy a perpetual license. I would be significantly disappointed if the one time purchase options were to be removed in the future as I much prefer this payment model. I think the current pricing strategy is pretty reasonable, especially considering the subscription options. If you consider any other type of multi-player computer games require each player to buy a copy of the game, there is really no difference with everyone in a group buying the $40 full license. There really isn't another multi-player computer game that I can think of off the top of my head that allow one player to buy a license that allows any other players who haven't bought the game to play.

I personally think the Ultimate license under values the software, but I'm happy where the price point is. Consider a typical 5 person group (4PCs and a GM) with each spending $40 on a full license equates to $200 which is about where I'd value the Ultimate license. Giving a $50 discount from that perspective is also appreciated as this option limits the freedom of any of the players being a GM. This would also be true of the subscriptions ($4*5=$20/mo vs $10/mo). I really like the flexibility in the pricing options as they are now. I'm not sure why people fixate on that $150 price point as most people really don't have any reason to buy that. I suspect that it may be as simple as the naming of the licenses. People see "Ultimate" and think it's better or the best license and may have additional functionality beyond just allowing hosting of unpaid clients (even though you've been pretty clear on it's function).

My main point is that I really hope that you don't move to a purely "Software as a Service" subscription model. I do like that the options are there for those who just wish to play for a couple months at a time, or wish to try out the software before paying for a perpetual license. If the perpetual licenses went away (sadly) I would probably just continue using existing version and wouldn't upgrade further.

Kind Regards,
-PopinFRESH

I think the outright purchase will still be available - it just might not receive never ending updates for free. That model isnt sustainable over time in a niche market. Paying an upgrade fee to move to FG4 seems reasonable to me. And Subs would just get that anyway.

[PopinFRESH]

Are people able to upgrade from the subscription based version to the one time only deal?

They aren't different versions, just different licensing methods. Think of it like paying to rent movies vs buying a movie. The content is the same, it's just how you are licensing the content. If you rented a movie for $4 and really liked it and decided to buy the DVD or Bluray, you are still going to be paying the same price for the DVD or Bluray that you would have paid if you originally bought it rather than renting it.

Kind Regards,
-PopinFRESH

[PopinFRESH]

I think the outright purchase will still be available - it just might not receive never ending updates for free. That model isnt sustainable over time in a niche market. Paying an upgrade fee to move to FG4 seems reasonable to me. And Subs would just get that anyway.


Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply perpetual license to be free upgrades. I expect to pay to upgrade to major versions of the software like the move to Fantasy Grounds 4. The choice between a subscription vs perpetual license also relies on paid upgrades being spaced out reasonably longer than the equivalent time of subscriptions. For example if they released a paid upgrade every year then there is no value in the perpetual license. However if they released a paid upgrade every 2 years, then there is value as $10/mo * 24 > $150. The full license is however priced at ~12 month subscription price so that would be an even better value for those buying a perpetual full license if they released a new major version every 2 years.

Hope that makes more sense,
-PopinFRESH

[BnaaUK]

They aren't different versions, just different licensing methods. Think of it like paying to rent movies vs buying a movie. The content is the same, it's just how you are licensing the content. If you rented a movie for $4 and really liked it and decided to buy the DVD or Bluray, you are still going to be paying the same price for the DVD or Bluray that you would have paid if you originally bought it rather than renting it.

Kind Regards,
-PopinFRESH

I know, I suppose I mispoke.

I was interested in upgrading to unlimited on a temporary basis using the subscription because I may have players soon who are new to gaming in general and don't have licences. Never know if people new to the hobby will take to it. So a £6.50 seemed like a better way to test the waters for these newbies than to pay the £75 upgrade cost or whatever it is that day. The conversion rates seem especially unstable at the moment.

[Xydonus]

I wouldn't mind the pay to upgrade option either.

I assume players who use the demo/free version of FG3, that FG4 would have a similar demo function for players and provide the same function as it does in FG3.

[ddavison]

I know, I suppose I mispoke.

I was interested in upgrading to unlimited on a temporary basis using the subscription because I may have players soon who are new to gaming in general and don't have licences. Never know if people new to the hobby will take to it. So a £6.50 seemed like a better way to test the waters for these newbies than to pay the £75 upgrade cost or whatever it is that day. The conversion rates seem especially unstable at the moment.

B'naa, you can cancel your regular license, re-sub for an Ultimate license for a while and then cancel and revert back to a standard license as needed. Each time, you will need to re-enter the new license key and run an update... but otherwise that will work. Just make sure to cancel your active license before re-subbing because there is a limit of 1 sub per Paypal account.

[BnaaUK]

B'naa, you can cancel your regular license, re-sub for an Ultimate license for a while and then cancel and revert back to a standard license as needed. Each time, you will need to re-enter the new license key and run an update... but otherwise that will work. Just make sure to cancel your active license before re-subbing because there is a limit of 1 sub per Paypal account.

Thanks. Good to know.

The things I've brought are linked to my store account not licence key right?

[ddavison]

Sort of. You may need to re-run an update for newer secured content to be accessible. Your store account always lets you re-download/auto-install things though.