Floating Client Licenses?

[rom90125]

If this has already been discussed in another forum, accept my apologies.

I am considering running The Shackled City Adventure Path using FG but before I pull the trigger on a license, I needed to ask a few questions. Two of my players aren't sure if they will be with the campaign for the long haul, and while they aren't opposed to the one-time $20 fee for a lite license, they do want to know if they can sell their license to another potential player, thus recoping the $20 investment, should they decide to leave the campaign.

Are the licenses keyed to a specific email address? Can ex-players sell their license to another person?

Any info you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks much.

[Dupre]

From a legal perspective, no. The EULA you agree on after installing the software states that you have permission to use one copy of the software on any one system and that it is not transferable.

[Lord Byte]

This entire licensing problem is exactly why I'm doubting buying it... I love the program, it looks awesome and possibilities are just great but...

I would have a hard time convincing new players to go out and buy it, the trial version hardly shows all the possibilities!

Maybe allow the gamesmaster to buy "blank" licenses, if you know what I mean, which allow anyone to connect with a "lite" version without a key, for as long as he has blank licenses left. So the licenses stay his, and if someone doesn't show up anymore a new player can be found to take his place.

Maybe something to think about?

[wavecutter]

I like the idea, perhas there could be some incentive to buy the license.

[Ram Tyr]

I just want to throw out another point of view on this issue. Sometimes the underlying policy positions of a business strategy are critical to success. Please note that if you only read a piece of my post it may seem like I’m opposing all suggestions to change. In fact, I do suggest a business strategy that would increase the attractiveness of FG. Like in all things, there is no business decision that will make all people happy. Smiteworks has to pick a strategy that works for them, and for enough consumers to sustain their business, and run with it.

I’ll start my post by stating three points and then discuss them below.

First, concerning the actual price (of either full or lite versions); in the tradition of capitalism, the price will end up being what the market can bear. They have been improving the program, and as long as it is supported by Smiteworks, the community of folks using the program will grow if the price is not prohibitive. Low sales create a pressure to reduce the price to increase sales.

Second, as a member of the community, I like that everyone has to make a financial commitment to purchase the software. The current business practice contains this element. The suggestion above (by Lord Byte) doesn’t have this element.

Third, as a potential DM, I would not want there to be any expectation that I should provide the software to players in my campaign. I’ve spent some time thinking about this and I don’t like the model being offered that creates that expectation. If I elect to provide the software to a player, I can do so by purchasing the lite version. Certainly, the DM is doing so much to get a campaign running that applying additional financial pressure, regardless of how subtle, is not the way to go.

So, I’m not going to address the actual price of the full and lite versions. Everyone that has purchased the product has shown the price is acceptable. Everyone that elects not to make a purchase is also making a statement about the price. If someone with good business sense is making these decisions for Smiteworks, they know whether they need to reduce the price to stimulate sales of FG.

I think my second and third points are really intertwined. Online gaming comes with certain inherent realities. A big factor is the historical unreliability of the players. I believe that player purchases provide some incentive not to break too many commitments. Of course, this is not a perfect indicator, but it is better than no indicator. (Just think of all the folks in the world that join health clubs thinking, “I just spent $X, you bet I’m going from now on.” Gyms would be overflowing if that was a perfect incentive, and that’s noting that gym memberships are more than the current price of FG.)

Also, the community is small enough that we can easily identify people that commit to campaigns and then drop out, whether player or DM. As a community we know what we are getting as people develop a history. Even as the community grows, this will be possible through using FG forums and fan sites like Adventuresome Dreams.

With the proposal to have DM licenses that allow anyone to fill the DM’s player slots, both of those items are removed. No incentive, no community history. As a player, I would be wary of a group that I knew that some of the players might keep swapping in and out. As DM, I would be downright frightened of making it available.

The only situation this seems to work (to me) is for a DM that wants to bring in a particular group of players that are unwilling to pay $X for a license. (This is equivalent to Lord Byte’s situation, since they want to be able to recoup the purchase price. The voice of the market!) I would suggest that this could be addressed by allowing a group discount for purchasing licenses. Allow a bundle of three licenses (either full or lite) and a bundle of five licenses (either full or lite) to be sold. (For clarity, a bundle would contain only one kind of license, but you could buy bundles of full or lite licenses. So, a bundle of three full, of three lite, of five full, or five lite.) Again, the price of each bundle would have to be set based on market pressures. But, it would obviously need to be set at a price point low enough for one person to make the “gift” purchase, and/or for the price per license to be low enough that the players are no longer concerned with recouping the purchase price when they elect to stop using FG.

I believe that bundles should be for both full and lite because I believe it’s best to game with other people that can host and run sessions. If the DM goes on a two week vacation, one or two other people in the group could then run a one shot session!

Anyway, that’s just my thoughts on this. I’m sure that some others may feel differently, but I wanted to put my point of view out there in the “marketplace of ideas”. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Later.
Ramza

[Lord Byte]

The bundle idea seems workable in my opinion, something in the style of Klooge-Werks (or whatever the blasted thing is called)...

My "key" problem here is attracting players, people I know, who can't make the step (usually due to outside circumstances), to come to the pen & paper session, but would (if they get the chance to experience it) be interested in playing it online. The trial version is NOT enough incentive imho, so having the possibility to allow them to "taste" the full version might get them to buy it.

Most of these people have little or no experience with pen & paper roleplaying. Maybe allow the full license to host a game in which "trials" could join? Their character would be a server character, or possibly even "unstorable" so their incentive would be not to have to fill everything in again?

[Zangad]

Are the licenses keyed to a specific email address? Can ex-players sell their license to another person?

I was just checking out the FAQ, because I was concerned about this, too. Seems to me like if someone buys a piece of software & license to use it, they should always be able to sell it to someone else. This is true with most software I've purchased or been involved in the purchase of.

The good news is, it sounds like you could setup your gaming group so players sell their copies back to you once they aren't using them anymore. Check this out from the FAQ:


Q: Can I run the software on two computers with one license, e.g. at work and at home?
A: The EULA states that you have a license to use one copy of the software on any one system and that the license is not transferable to any other system. In other words you are not allowed to install the software on several computers.

The software itself cannot tell what computer it is running on and as long as no two players in a game are using the same license, the software will assume the above to be true.

This sounds very reasonable to me.

[Valarian]

As someone who has just bought Fantasy Grounds, I had to think long and hard about the licensing before my purchase. I have now purchased a full license for me to GM. I also bought four player licenses, as I know that a player having to buy a license before playing is a barrier to getting players. Once they get to know the software, they will probably be okay with purchasing their own license - maybe even a full version so that they can GM to.

The way I have read the EULA is that the license can only be used on any single computer at any one time. I have read this to mean that I can lend one of the licenses to a player to use on their computer. As I am the purchaser the license is still owned by me, but the computer I am allowing the license to be installed on is that of my player. When I wish to reclaim the license, the player will no longer be legally licensed and will have to uninstall the Fantasy Grounds Lite software (or purchase their own license). I can not lend the same license to more than one player at a time, if I want to reallocate the license, the player has to remove the software from their machine.

The whole licensing issue would be simplified greatly if I could register the four player license keys I have with the Full version I have installed. If a player were to then connect with an unregistered Lite version, they would be allocated one of the license keys for the duration of the connection - up to the number of extra player licenses registered with the Full version.

Is the licensing in FG2 the same, or has the floating license concept been picked up for this release?

[richvalle]

I'm 99% sure the licensing is the same in FGII. This is a popular request though, so it could change at some point, just not right off the bat when FG II comes out.

rv

[sloejack]

The whole licensing issue would be simplified greatly if I could register the four player license keys I have with the Full version I have installed. If a player were to then connect with an unregistered Lite version, they would be allocated one of the license keys for the duration of the connection - up to the number of extra player licenses registered with the Full version.

I like this idea, but I think to do this becomes cost prohibitive for some. Certainly the current option of buying a bundle of licenses (I think 1 full and 4 lite is like $79) already exists for DMs that want to do what you suggest sort of. The more likely case a group of friends want to get together and do this. By spreading the finacial burden to the players as well that theoretically lowers the barrer to entry for people.

The flip side of that though would be doing something like making the full license and it's cost connection based. So using the current price structure Lite versions would be free and a Full that allowed 4 connections would be $79. That's a non-trivial amount of money for some folks so I think I'm still in favor of the current model where the client costs are distributed to the players as well.

I do not believe the cost of lite licenses is the barrier it is being made out to be. It's $20, I spend more than that to go waste two hours at the picture show. Even if I bought the client to play in a game and decided after the session that it sucked I wouldn't be out any more than if I'd gone to a bad movie. In fact I'd be better off since there's a possibility to improve FG or the game I play in and I don't have to pay any more for it.

Personally, I think this thread exists out of the valid concern that getting and retaining a consistent number of players for your game is challenging and the premise of the various responses is that it would be less so if the full license holder could make access to their game free to the players. While this may be true, I think this would probably turn off some DMs from buying larger cost licenses since even hosting a game that would be free to the players still has the challenges of attracting and retaining its players.

Honestly, I think the solution to this concern doesn't lie in messing with the licensing approach but rests firmly in the hands of having some sort of matchmaker service that pairs people that want to run a game with people that want to play a game based on system, time, etc.

[Valarian]

The licenses should be kept as they are currently, except that a player license can be registered with a full version to allow an unregistered Lite version to connect. Players could still purchase their own license, but the GM could also (if they wanted) purchase player licenses additional to their full license to act as floating licenses. The license structure would then be completely flexible and allow both ways of licensing the software.

If the option exists, I think that it would bring more people in to the product. I currently use GRiP which, though dated, has a rich interface for network RPG. The full version retails at $40 USD, but the player module is free. This structure puts up the barrier that you mention above. Someone must be willing to make the purchase in order to GM. But, once they do ... finding players is easy as you just tell them to download the player module. One of my existing players has even purchased the full version of GRiP so that he can GM some games (though it helped that it was on offer in the UK at the time).

I made the decision to purchase a bundle and let my players use one of my player licenses on their computer. The US to Euro to UK exchange rate at the moment helped that decision (the cost was about £40 - the price of a new release computer game). As things stand, I will have to send a license key out to my players with the download and put a legal notice in the email to state that I am retaining ownership of the license key and that the player will be legally required to remove the software if I inform them by email that I am reclaiming the key.

[Tokuriku]

If you are surfing the net, then you are more then able to pay for a license.
As soon as my players saw the demo, they went and bought it DURING the first game.
Believe me, you won't regret it. :)

[Moon Wizard]

I currently use Klooge.Werks as my virtual tabletop for various reasons, though I'm keeping a close eye on FG2.

Klooge.Werks provides the options to:
* Have players buy their own client license for their machine
* Have the DM buy floating client license multi-packs that are installed on the host machine

This seems to address both major methods of parcelling up the costs for tabletop programs, and addresses most concerns regarding players going missing.

JPG

[MaineCoon]

I suggest people read up on the 'doctrine of first sale', which would override the EULA (you need a signed, not implied, contract to override doctrine of first sale). Right to resell or give away is a fair use. Check out Lasercomb America v. Reynolds. Using license terms to improperly extend copyright or restrain use of product can actually cause a loss of right to enforce copyright. As for this being a 'copy of the software' vs a 'license to use software' - courts generally apply rule of reason, with the EULA conditions being struck down in similiar circumstances.

Even the nature of the bulk discount offered in the shop violates the letter of EULA.

I do like Valarian does - I retain ownership of the licenses. I choose to install the copy temporarily on a players computer. They leave the group, it gets uninstalled and the license goes back into my unused pool.

I think not having a built-in support for floating licenses is keeping Fantasy Grounds down; I think floating license can be a much bigger draw than a lot of the other features. I still spent a while picking which software to buy after having decided I liked FG's features, because it didnt offer floating licenses. 3D dice is a nice gimmick, but thats little consolation when worrying about buying 8 copies. Floating licenses and I wouldn't have deliberated so much. I actually came VERY close to buying Klooge instead.

[Valarian]

I think it would be a big gain for (relatively) little effort for the developers. I've seen that this seems to be a popular request in the community here. There must already be a license checking routine to stop two of the same lite licenses being used to connect to a full version server. All it needs is a little more conditional logic in the login/logoff/error handling routines to handle the license store for incoming connections, and a method of registering lite licenses in a license store for the full version.

e.g. (pseudocode of login additions)


IF player is licensed THEN
allow connection
ELSE IF player is unlicensed THEN
check full version license store for available number of lite licenses
IF license is available THEN
decrease number of available licenses by one
temporarily assign license to incoming player connection
allow connection
OTHERWISE
refuse connection
END IF
OTHERWISE
refuse connection
END IF

[Griogre]

I'm not opposed to floating licenses, but I really don't seem that much need for them either and I would much rather the developers be fixing bugs in FG2 than messing around with floating licenses.

Why? FG has one of the biggest pools of players already. It is the only VTT that has third party developers. There are always more players than GM's, just look at the Guild house.

All I see floating licenses do is allow a GM to try to coax people he already knows to play. My experience is if they won’t drop a 20 to play, they aren’t going to play anyway.

I suppose if you want to run for kids who have no job or want to demo the game then they are useful. I think they also may be useful when the player pool is very small. I can only speak from personal experience, but when I decided to move my online group over to FG, they all dropped the money without any quibbles.

[Griogre]

As I expressed in another thread, I am not a fan of floating licenses because of the many of the reasons expressed by Ramza and I strongly agree I would rather have my players buy the software simply because it calls for some commitment (although an imperfect one) on their part.

If you want to have something where there was some sort of promotion, I would think an opposite model would be more beneficial. IE something where when 5+ lites connected one could be promoted to a full version for free for the duration of the connection. The FG model follows the WoTC one. You want to sell to "players" because there are always more players than DM's. That's why WoTC quit making modules until recently.

I personally think it unlikely that Smiteworks will change this policy because of the reason above until they achieve a certain size user base; and in addition, they may either be philosophically opposed or opposed for technical reasons to the floating license model.

All that said, I don’t like the demo for FG. I would have bought FG months sooner if I had felt good about its ability to connect my six players. I don’t really have a solution for that other than it would be nice if Smiteworks would occasionally run a demo with the demo software that allows more than 2 connections. That should be easy for them to do, and a once a month thing wouldn’t be that time consuming for them and it might help promote FG2 once that is out. I was disapointed they didn't run some demos at iCon.

[heruca]

Well, a floating license scheme would have made it possible for them to run demos for folks that were interested in FG but hadn't yet committed to buying it. With the current FG demo being limited to two connected clients at once, you can't really run effective demos of the software. Hopefully they can have something in place for next iCon, which will likely be in January 2008.

[Bakshara]

What about this. They could make termed licenses. For example instead of $20 for lite FG, you pay $1 and it is good for 1 week or $5 and it is good for 1 month. Maybe, instead of timed, a game limit. You pay $1 to play once. Because someone could connect, it indexes that as their use, they loose their connection and then they can't reconnect, unless they allow multiple connects to the same IP or game name within a very finite amount of time.

I think they could do something like that.

[The High Druid]

A "connect-once" license wouldn't work too well. What happens if your internet connection blips on you and you're disconnected in the middle of that one game? Do you make it a one-day license instead? In which case what if the game goes past midnight (as many games on the current lists do)? And then there's the time-zone issues . . .

I think the update system makes floating licenses even more complex since I get the impression it's checking the license keys to allow you to update the software.

[Irian]

From a legal perspective, no. The EULA you agree on after installing the software states that you have permission to use one copy of the software on any one system and that it is not transferable.

Btw: That's not always true. For example here in germany, it's totaly wrong :-)

[sunbeam60]

Joining the discussion rather late, I know, but perhaps some kind of time restricted license could be bought for a lot less, say US$5. A timed license hash is sent to the DM client, who talks to the FG licensing server to see if the license if valid. If within the first 24 hours of the license being bought, the DM allows the client to connect.

That way, people could try the software, but anything more than a couple of sessions played and it becomes silly not to buy a lite license.

Personally I have a hard time understanding how US$20 can be prohibitive to someone who has the financial strength to secure a broadband connection and allow 6 hours off for playing a game, but at least the US$5 could be a kind of "soft entry" into buying a lite license.

[Valarian]

I would like to see the floating license (registering additional lite licenses with the full version), rather than any time limited version. This just allows us GMs to get new players past the "I'm not spending money on something I may never use" thing. Plus, this model isn't too different from that already in place.

[DarkStar]

Hey, joshua! Now since we have a community representative... Can you tell us if floating licenses are on the developers TODO list at all? Is this feature planned?

[joshuha]

It has not been ruled out but it is not in the current plan.

[unerwünscht]

This is my number 1 requested feature, above even fixing the directory issues.

[Valarian]

This is my number one enhancement as well.

[Sigurd]

Re Floating Licenses

In due fairness to the developers its not really a technical problem so much as a pricing decision. Lumping it with bugs and feature requests is akin to saying "we want it cheaper" is a bug.


I can appreciate the persuasive arguments people are making but for me its a non issue. Personally, I tell everyone considering the game to get a full license. Thirty five bucks is a great deal for software with this level of convenience IMHO.


Sigurd

[Valarian]

I disagree with the opinion that it's a pricing decision. It's a valid technical request to ask for the option to buy additional player licenses as a GM for unlicensed players to use on an adhoc basis. My personal feel is that it would increase market share for Fantasy Grounds and attract new blood as people could really try before they buy.

My feel on the matter is that it could be fitted in to the existing licensing model. Either as a "default license" which would be available for anyone to enter and connect to a GM with additional licenses. Or, as a "connection license" where people would have to register to get a temporary license for the FGII installation.

Further benefits:

It would also allow the developers to concentrate on developing the core product, rather than another demo version. This feature could make the need for a demo version redundant as any GM with registered Lite licenses could host a demo.
A GM could host a demo using whichever ruleset he wanted. This could allow for increases in sales for third party rulesets such as Savage Worlds and again potentially increase market share for Fantasy Grounds.
You can run a demo for as many people as you have registered licenses for, or invite people to join a game with existing players as a "trial run".
An emailed "connection license" would allow SmiteWorks to target people for marketing who have downloaded the product but not yet bought either the Lite or Full licenses.


Am I the only person here to see the marketing potential? If the developers need a business case for the enhancement, there it is.


Well, a floating license scheme would have made it possible for them to run demos for folks that were interested in FG but hadn't yet committed to buying it. With the current FG demo being limited to two connected clients at once, you can't really run effective demos of the software. Hopefully they can have something in place for next iCon, which will likely be in January 2008.
With iCon2008 now coming up next week without a demo version for Fantasy Grounds II, I'll be running a couple demo sessions using the older version. This looks bad but, in order to try and get interest for Fantasy Grounds, it's the only option I've currently got.

[Xorn]

I get the desire for the floating license, but honestly I want the SmiteWorks to make money, and it seems like if I have floating licenses attached to my full client, then it's now up to ME to make my players buy their own client.

Buying a Lite license is not expensive (the movie analogy was a great example), and I always make my players buy the Player's Handbook for the edition we're playing. Quite frankly, if you don't buy the books, they won't make money and they won't print more. Same principle.

Now that said, I REALLY would like to see a current demo hit the download section. While I don't have the issue of convincing my players to buy FG2, I remember telling them, "There's lots of features in FG2 that the demo isn't showing us!" Besides a demo that actually shows FG2, we also need an upgrade option to a Full License. My brother bought a Lite (happily) and wanted to start running games, so he bought a Full (happily). But now he's got this Lite license, and legally, he has no use for it.

[joshuha]

The demo is being worked on with hopes for making it out of the door before iCon but not sure if its going to make it. However, even if it does not make iCon it should be out soon.

[Griogre]

I have to agree with Sigurd, floating licenses are a business decision. Philosophically, I am opposed to them. I see no reason for a GM to pay for a player. Frankly, I think the players should pay for the GM. There is a reason there are always more players than GM's - it's more work.

Aside from that, generally speaking, I don’t want players who aren’t willing to commit to dropping a few bucks. My feeling is they are less likely to show up because they don’t have anything invested. One of the biggest problems with online play is people who don’t show up. The good news is that with online play, there are lots of players.

[Malovech]

I support Smitework's decision to not have floating licenses as well. This software is extremely cheap already and the market for VTs is tiny. I do, however, think that a FGII demo is long overdue.

[unerwünscht]

I support Smiteworks ability do make what choices they want to make. However I feel they are losing out on a large chunk of the market due to other programs that have the ability to use floating licenses.

[joshuha]

This is my personal opinion and not one on behalf of Smiteworks.

I can see both sides of the fence here but business wise floating client licenses are not always a good thing. Sure it can encourage more interest in people to try it out with a GM which is always a good thing (and a demo can do this to some extent).

However, it can cause stagnation in license sales as well. Any product out there is going to suffer with turnover. The more floating licenses available the more chance that stagnation of new capital into the program becomes. If I am a GM who has say 10 floating licenses and bring 10 people aboard, we RP for 6 months and then my players leave to WoW or something else and I bring 10 more in and repeat for several years the license sales probably don't increase as much.

Some of those players may go out and purchase full lite licenses but again the more floating licenses that are out there the less likely they would need or want to.

My idea to increase sales and players in general would actually be to make the GM license nearly the same cost as the players license or even cheaper (but not allow playing except locally for testing). With more GMs out there willing to run games I think that would drive more people to buy players licenses. This also involves getting a wider selection of game types and I hope to help contribute to sheet only type rulesets soon.

But anyway just my personal opinion and like I said, its on the feature request list but its not being implemented in the short term.

[unerwünscht]

But anyway just my personal opinion and like I said, its on the feature request list but its not being implemented in the short term.

Would that be floating keys, or cheaper GM licenses?

[joshuha]

Sorry, floating keys. Its definitely on the list, just not in the "being developed now" pile.

[DarkStar]

I asked about floating licenses because I see this as the only way for me to play with other people in my mother tongue. Although I feel comfortable enough with English to talk with others or watch a movie I also consider that not being a native speaker hinders my ability to roleplay and play in RP heavy games. Moreover, I _prefer_ RP over hack & slash, so this pains me even more.

I know some people who use not-so-legal (last time I used the P word my post was removed) Fantasy Grounds 1.5 licenses and have been playing for months now. Although they would like to use FG 2 they will _never_ purchase licenses as they think that if they can get away with "free" FG1 it's enough for them. Such mentality, I try to educate people but it's difficult to convince someone without income to buy something if he can get it elswhere for free, even if illegal.

This makes me want to cry. I would buy 5 floating licenses right away, right now, but I will not buy Lite licenses and give them away to people with whom I may not play anymore in a couple of months, I don't want to make presents, I want to _lend_ something to people who will never otherwise buy this product.

Although I understand the business side of this, I am also surprised almost no one is looking the other way - the customer's side. Let me say this - as a paying customer it is my right to demand (:P) any features and at least try to be heard. As a customer I DON'T CARE if it is better business-wise, I want what's best for ME.

I am actually looking into Battlegrounds due to its floating licenses, but it lacks character sheets, I don't like its GUI and MapTool has better light support (like FG had any... :P). I want my 3D dice, too.

My .02.

[Sigurd]

I disagree with the opinion that it's a pricing decision. It's a valid technical request to ask for the option to buy additional player licenses as a GM for unlicensed players to use on an adhoc basis. My personal feel is that it would increase market share for Fantasy Grounds and attract new blood as people could really try before they buy.
With due respect Valarian, you're kidding right?

You don't think changing the price structure for the game is a pricing decision?

Imagine yourself in the shoes of the programmer. She\he can probably start on certain ideas because they improve code technically. Suggestions save time and effort by being a point to start thinking about improvement ideas. Changing how the product is bought however, affects revenue and the whole company. Its simply not done without agreement and consideration.

Its one thing to say its a pricing decision you'd personally be in favour of. I'm not debating that the idea has merits. Its another thing to use creative good will and product improvement to take decisions from the hands of company directors.

Sigurd

Players make up the majority of FG users. Changing how\if they pay for fantasy grounds is not just a technical request.

[Cantstanzya]

I have to agree with Sigurd, floating licenses are a business decision. Philosophically, I am opposed to them. I see no reason for a GM to pay for a player. Frankly, I think the players should pay for the GM. There is a reason there are always more players than GM's - it's more work.Amen to that. I have always said that the GM version should be free but cannot connect to other GM versions, only paid clients could connect to the GM version. This would allow anyone to download the GM version to try out, create campaigns etc. at no cost to them. The clients would have to pay for their version. This would make it so that there would be more GMs and more content for everyone.

[Old Sparky]

Amen to that. I have always said that the GM version should be free but cannot connect to other GM versions, only paid clients could connect to the GM version. This would allow anyone to download the GM version to try out, create campaigns etc. at no cost to them. The clients would have to pay for their version. This would make it so that there would be more GMs and more content for everyone.
I like that idea. I've been shopping around for the best way to take my game online since my regular gaming group drifted apart (2 now live in other states).

Right now, cost of anything is a big factor for me. FG seems to offer a lot of what I'm looking for, but the pricetag to start/build a game AND try to convince others to buy into it seems unlikely to get me to spend anything at all. As a DM, if I run a game for 4 people, that's 4 customers I would bring to Fantasy Grounds. Right now, the only pricing incentive I see is a discount on player licenses if you buy two or more... but, unless I'm adding the numbers up wrong, if I want to start a game and pay the way in for a couple of friends, it would cost me $77... close to a hundred for a full group of four.

There will always be players, but DMs are hard to come by. And DMs are the ones needed to make the players' FG licenses useful. The more incentive there is to get someone running as a DM, the more player customers you will draw in. And right now, paying $40 for a full license on the hopes that I can convince my friends to pay their way into my game isn't going to happen. I'll probably end up with a more affordable, less useful virtual tabletop to try to get my gaming group back together... which is sad, because if performance becomes an issue, frustration could easily lead to the group just finding better ways to game together... such as playing MMOs or loading up NWN2 for the occasional get-together.

[unimatrixzero]

Hi All
How about this for a radical move? Smiteworks only issue the GM version of FG for a set price(this obviously includes the player version). The purchaser gets X amount of dollars in a voucher(discount code) that can be redeemed against another purchase for someone else. Kind of a 'reward' or 'domino scheme' for introducing someone to FG. This will avoid the need to upgrade licenses and essentially lose out on your old license and will be more incentive to get players for your group. There will be more people with the facility to host and GM games and still keep the cost for large groups minimal.
Just my thoughts.
Regards
Uni