Printable View
I plan to hold out here another month or so, and see what smite works decides, if they can't make up their minds in that time, or they chose to go with license rental, I will be going to battlegrounds as previously mentioned. But you might want to take a look at battlegrounds, it's structure is what you are looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by cryptoknight
Totally new here, potential buyer.
I'm more than willing to pony up the cost for myself as the DM and five player licenses.
However, the issue is, I have no idea who will be playing from week to week.
Instead of a subscription service, why not this:
Sell me my DM seat plus 5 floating player seats.
When a player logs in with his free client, I approve or disapprove of him joining the game. When the 5 floating seats are filled, no more free clients can join. (Full clients can still join).
Solves the problem and gets rid of the whole subscription nightmare.
This is what most people want, Esperifiel, but Smiteworks have made it pretty clear that they don't want to go down the floating license route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esperifiel
Can I refer people back to my earlier post (#36) which has gone off the radar a bit, but which might still be worth some discussion. In it I suggested lowering the barrier to entry by charging players a nominal fee each time they play until they reach the price of a Lite license, at which point they own it. It would require setting up an account with Smiteworks, and an active server connection, so there are disadvantages, but maybe a workable mechanism could be found for this?
Spyke
Looks to me that there are 3 kinds of groups using FG:
1. Real life friends that want to use FG to play with the same group every time. I think the current licensing scheme works fine for them, the GM can buy the Full and Lite licenses if he's willing to pay for it all, or he can buy a bundle and hand out the keys as players hand over the cash. No floating licenses required.
2. GM centered groups with changing players. In this case the GM is willing to pay for all required licenses for a game, but only if he can use the same licenses for another game with different players. Floating licenses would be bought by the GM to provide players with a free game.
3. Groups focused on trying out FG. The GM is willing to host a game so the players can try the game, and if they like it buy a lite license themselves. Floating licenses would be bought by the player to connect to a series of games to try out FG.
Now the trick seems to be to invent a licensing model that satisfies everyone. I'll give it a shot.
Obviously every player playing in a game should have a valid license, but to satisfy everyone, it must be possible for both the player and the GM to provide it. So here's my proposal:
A. The GM purchases a Full license, and can optionally buy a 'true' floating license for each player he wants to provision for in his games. In my opinion, since these licenses allow many people to play (although not concurrently) they should be quite expensive. I'd say maybe the price of 3 or 4 Lite licenses.
B. The player either buys a Lite license, or installs FG without a license. When connecting to a host, if the player does not have a Lite license installed, the GM can approve the player to use one of his floating licenses, or require him to go to the FG website to get a 'temporary' license. Let's say something like $2 for 24h.
The demo program should still be available so the GM can try out the game without paying for it.
Quick note, I also fall into the "Willing to buy 1 GM and 4 Player licenses, but I own them, not rent them".
I certainly would support a authentication check to a Smite Works server reaffirming that the players that connect to my game either 1) Own their own license or 2) Are using a license I bought.
That being said I would potentially be open to a subscription based service if it was fair and reasonable. I probably spend more on latte's each week then I would for a month of the subscription anyway.
Either way I'm going to hold out on buying FG for now. I had made a post today asking about this very question and I'm glad I found this thread. Sadly I do not think any of my friends will buy this on their own untested and frankly I'm only interested in running a nWOD game, not a demo of D&D. If there comes a day I can buy a GM license and also buy/rent licenses to give to my players for the duration of my game (and only my game), then I will be back!
Cheers!
~ JamesWOD
Well since it doesn't look like they care about those of us wanting floating licenses here, let me know if you would like a demonstration of Battlegrounds.
The devs have officially said they will be keeping up with this thread and considering the system hasn't been implemented, it would make perfect sense that they are reading all responses. I think it's not very fair to say they don't care when all proof shows to the contrary. Id' hope you'd give them a chance before you try to promote a competing product on their own forum (which is just never a polite thing to do, even if its not against the rules or outright wrong).
For a month this thread went without a post. It has been 3 months since the devs last commented on a floating license system. I think its safe to say they do not care about those of us who want one.
Seeing as other companies not only support floating licenses, but answer the call of their users. I think it is more than fair at this point to say "Hey, this is not working the way we would like it to work, Would anyone like to try something that might?"
P.S.
And oh... seeing as the other company in question supports floating licenses its not like anyone else has to purchase anything.
Oh I just figured the idea might have been abandoned since so many seemed rather violently oposed to it since they couldn't get it tailored to their own ideas of how things should work.
- Obe
I have a strong suspicion they will be addressing this in the near future. I realize people are sitting on the fence over this issue right now and have been waiting for a resolution for some time, but I think we can all agree that a suitable Fantasy Grounds based solution would be much better than using an inferior product simply due to licensing issues.
Agreed with MeepoSose here. No need to jump ship, SmiteWorks has always been quiet and slow. They'll get around to it and I'm sure they'll give your system of choice the consideration it's due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepoSose
It wouldn't be the first time. In the corporate software landscape, licensing in a way that meets the customers' needs is a feature of the software itself. Several times I've seen an inferior product win out over a superior one because the licensing terms were more flexible. Especially with regard to concurrent vs named licenses.
There are a lot of things that factor into "the better product"
From the product itself, to licensing, to official support, to "addons and modules"
And I can say without question Fantasy Grounds is currently falling short on 3 of those 4, and questionably falling short on the 4th at this point. It is quickly becoming and inferior product.
I'd be interested to see the user numbers compared to the other main pay VTTs out there. Doubt any of them would release those figures though. I do agree though that a floating license scheme would serve to bring more people in. I was very close to purchasing Klooge when I first was looking years ago but after scanning the activity on their boards I settled with FG.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
Don't get me wrong, I honestly believe with a little work Fantasy Grounds could become "The Best" product on the market again. A true floating license system would help a lot with that.
Visually (in my opinion) Fantasy Grounds is worlds above any of the other products I have seen. However some of the others at this point support things like simulated Miniature War games (I.E D&D Mini's and Warhammer 40K), something that is very difficult to actually pull off with Fantasy Grounds. I have also seen support in other VTT's for trading card games such as Magic and Naruto, as far as I know something that can not be done in any way with Fantasy Grounds.
Other things I have seen in other products that Fantasy Grounds just doesnt do: "Fog of War", PDF support, Voice/Video support, MP3 Support, Map Tiles, More robust token rotation, Token Binding (like locking one token to another token), Token Cycling (I.E. stage 1 standing, stage two hiding, stage three dead etc..), Automated map conditions (such as torch light, night vision, blindsight etc...)
This list keeps going, but I think my point is valid. Most of the features would be very easy for Smite Works to incorporate into Fantasy Grounds, but for whatever reason (and there are many valid reasons) they have not.
I can understand that there may not be enough users to justify the time required to make said changes. I can understand that Smite Works is only a few guys, working on Fantasy Grounds part time. I could even understand if it happened to be an issue of they dislike me so much they do not want to acknowledge any feature ideas that I come up with, but no matter what the reason, Fantasy Grounds has gone from "King of the Hill" in the VTT market to being a second rate application.
What I see has happened over the last year is slightly different. There is no one first rate application. The main VTs are getting differentiated by the niche where they excel. Fantasy Grounds is the front runner by a long way for atmosphere, text chat-based roleplay and campaign management within the GUI. That defines the way a large number of people want to play.
Other VTs lead the field in things like tactical miniature play, audio/video support, pdf and web support which can expose external file structures to the game, etc.
So, at the moment, talking of being second rate is premature as there's no one application that does everything better.
What's true is that none of the developers can rest on their laurels, the market is mature enough for each to understand where their feature set lags behind, and the arrival of that first rate application is probably not too far away.
Spyke
Isn't that what I said?
Nope. ;)
You said it had already become second rate. My point was that no single competing VT had broadly surpassed it (or any other) yet, though I strongly suspect that this will happen during the next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
Spyke
Ok, now we are just splitting hairs :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyke
I do agree, tho others have more features, the "visual experience" of Fantasy Grounds still has me holding onto the hope that someone can light a fire under that *rear ends* of the Smite Works Team, and get them to open their eyes and bring Fantasy Grounds up to date feature wise.
In all honesty with programs like ventrillo and yahoo they can skirt around the audio/video features for now, and focus on the token and map aspects of the application. However the floating license issue at hand in this thread is truly what will make or break them at this point.
I can say with utmost certainty that the rented license scheme originally announced will generate a few more sales for them, but will bring about the end of Fantasy Grounds as a legitimate table top alternative. Tho from everything I have seen at this point the clock is ticking against them. They only have till Epic Table is released if epic table lives up to what it looks like it will.
Sounds good if both options are available. In this way, the players who might spend a small bit of money (at first) to have a taste of 'floating license' admission into the games..... may eventually be tempted to purchase ownership of a full or light license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Any nearer to making an announcement on the way ahead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
We have been actively developing the system for managing floating licenses and we expect it to be ready for release in the upcoming month or two. Details on the pricing structure will be available closer to release. We appreciate your patience.
Great stuff! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dupre
I know it may not be the best use of posting space, but I just wanted to celebrate this post from the devs a little bit! So good to know that this is something that is being worked on!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dupre
Thanks Dupre, for keeping the hope alive here!
zWolf - out.
My god!
Thank you Devs, really!
I am so happy.
Altough I have lots of friends, none regular players, and I cant wait to buy 5 licenses and run games.
Any more news with regards to this?
As far as I can tell this will explain everything. "Full Disclosure"
swine - you got me (good thing I have a sense of humor).Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
AGHHHH.... not just .... AGH... GAAAAH... Dual-Loss.
*headbutts keyboard*
I know, it was a low blow, but I have been holding that one back for awhile now.
*whispers from the shadows*Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberoten
Go ahead....do it, you know you want to. No court in the land would convict you...justifiable homicide...temporarily insane.......
:)
Looks like FUM are having another FUMCon end of october / begining of November, floating licenses would be ideal for this!
Phil
There is a prototype developed that supports floating licenses, but I asked them to hold off on releasing it until the ownership change was finalized. For various reasons, that process took longer than expected. The prototype will probably need to be altered somewhat to support the model I expect to employ.
The floating license will require one full license along with X floating licenses which are linked to your full license. These licenses will allow X anonymous people to download a basic version of the application and connect with your full license. You can have X simultaneous connections active in addition to any other connections from Full and Lite licenses. The floating licenses will be a subscription model -- either renewed every 6 months or renewed every year.
Preliminarily, I am proposing something like the following:
Full License: Same cost
Floating License Subscriptions:
Qty Price 6-month renewal
1 $20.00 $10.00
2 $40.00 $20.00
3 $55.00 $27.50
4 $70.00 $35
5 $80.00 $40
6 $90.00 $45
There is additional server burden to provide the real time floating license to full license match which the 6-month renewal would address.
If a user finds that their regular users have all purchased their own licenses, they can reduce their subscription amount by decreasing the number of floating licenses they subscribe to.
You say full licenses will be the same cost and then break down the floating options. Does this mean the Lite license will no longer be offered?
In other words if you had a static group of 4 players and 1 dm/gm, the most cost effective purchase would be 5 full licenses? As this option would avoid the recurring $35 fee?
The lite license will remain an option for static groups. You could theoretically mix all 3 types together.
Are the basic and lite versions functionally equivalent? If not then what features might the basic version lack.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Is the Lite version cost remaining the same also?Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
If you let your floating licenses laps and then later want to renew them again would you have to start over with the base price or would you just pay the +6 months fee?Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
From a price comparison perspective, for the first six months this scheme offers an approximately $4 discount off the equivalent in bundle purchased Lite licenses. Thereafter it becomes significantly more expensive. It appears to be a slightly cheaper way to add an unexpected extra player or two.
The discount isn't so much that I personally would choose it over just buying a Lite license for my extra player. My game group is fairly stable and relatively small. Even if some of them didn't follow my instructions to uninstall their Lite license once the campaign is finished, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any of them would be trying to use their Lite license with some other Full License holder at the same time that I am running a game.
Other groups are no doubt different, so this is only a problem if my group is typical of FG2 groups in general.
Still, if it results in more business for Smite Works then more power to it.
-Kevin McDonald
The lite license will remain the same price-wise for the time being. I have no plans to change that although I may look to provide a permanent lite to full upgrade path.
The Lite license will still be preferred when you don't mind the license being given to a specific user. As it is today, they are basically able to connect to any full license they want but you aren't able to swap them in and out for other players as a GM under the same license. It's a different beast and only appropriate for those people who need that sort of flexibility. Long term, there is a premium paid for that flexibility.
I actually imagine that for most DMs, they may keep a single floating license to allow someone to try their game before buying. In that regard it is superior to the demo license since you can connect with live games running custom rulesets along with other users who own a full or lite license. We may also look to institute some form of referral bonus credit that basically allows a GM to waive the cost of a floating license renewal for each referral that resulted in either a Lite or Full license sale.
Does the pricing seem reasonable so far?
The basic version will be crippled in that it will only allow connections to GM's who have an open floating license. Otherwise I expect it will be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invain63
That's a good question. I will have to think about that some more before answering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invain63
I GM a lot of [Savage Worlds] one shots with new players so would welcome the opportunity to both try and increase the player base of FG and benefit through that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
To me, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Both statements receive the Kevin seal of approval!Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Please forgive my rambling - I am working this out in my head as I type this response. As it is, I have rewritten this email about 16 times. Ugh!
Just to be clear, I am observing that under the current system GMs with a small player base and/or infrequent FG2 hosted games will be tempted to give out the same Lite license to more than one player if both players are not in the same game at the same time. Under those circumstances the odds of a license conflict are vanishingly small. I understand that this is a violation of the FG2 license, but I am sure it happens. How often it happens I can't say. Being a pessimist, I assume that people will typically act according to their narrow self-interest.
That sort of GM is not likely to find the floating license scheme to be very attractive. As MurghBpurn observed, the floating license scheme *will* be attractive to GMs who have a large player base (ie run demos, etc) or play very frequently with a variety of players. Those GMs are much more likely to encounter license conflicts if they break their license and hand out Lites to all players.
If the GM always plays with the same players (ie no drop-in players) and gives each of them their own license then this isn't an issue. (That is my situation - 4 players, 4 Lite licenses, no problem.)
GMs that have popular ongoing games using FG2 are more likely to be able to get players to self-support than GMs like me that are just starting out and have a skeptical group of players to win over. For the popular FG2 GM the floating license would make tempting players to buy their own licenses that much easier, which is a good thing.
Otherwise, the up-front cost of 4 floating licenses isn't all that different from buying 4 Lites and the Lites don't have a recurring cost, so I would probably still buy the Lites if faced with the floating license scenario as described.
Maybe. It depends on how likely the GM is to have more than the just occasional drop-in player. The very occasional one or two drop-ins can be handled almost as cost effectively using Lite licenses - possibly more. I expect that the floating license program is of most benefit to the GMs that can potentially bring in lots of new customers. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Now THAT could tip the value scales in favor of the floating license for lots of people. Please do give that serious consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
-Kevin McDonald