Thanks for the feedback and keep it coming. I want to hear what people have to say about it -- even if it's a simple "I don't like it." or "I do like it."
Printable View
Thanks for the feedback and keep it coming. I want to hear what people have to say about it -- even if it's a simple "I don't like it." or "I do like it."
So to answer my one and only question, you plan on sticking to the rented license structure.... That is very unfortunate, but I will no longer have any use for Smite Works or Fantasy Grounds.
That being said, now that Autodesk vs. Vernor has affirmed that we may legally sell our used licenses, and with the luck of Smite Works being purchased by an American Company, I have roughly 3 Full, and 15 lite licenses that I am willing to sell for around $10 each to whomever may want them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
That seems kind of a hasty post considering nothing has been carved in stone yet and the new owner has stated that he WANTS the thoughts of this groups members in deciding how things WILL go about. All change is not bad, and for software especially change is needed to keep it relevant. I don't post here often, but have bought this software because I like what it brings to my game play. For my money I have a working program that does what I need it to do. Yes, I would like to see floating licenses and am not a huge fan of the monthly pricing structure...but until it actually happens I'm more than satisfied enough with this product to give the new owner the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, I'm rambling. I guess I just want to say...wait and see before any "I'm leaving" statements are bandied about.
Heads up, bislab, your ten posts indicate you likely don't know unerwünscht's status here. Don't bother trying to convince him, and if you're unsure why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
As for the floating license issue, it seems fine to me, but I am not the target audience.
Well EugeneZ, I happen to agree with bislab. The application as stands is great for a fixed group that never (or rarely) has old players move on and new players join. This sadly is not the case with our gaming group. I have a list of around 160 people waiting for someones character to die so they can hop in.
But while we are on the subject of name calling and finger pointing did you notice that my posts are all on the topic of the floating license structure and your post is only a link to "a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community"
Look in the mirror next time, and/or die in a horrid accident that kills you slowly. :-)
Edited: Ooops forgot the smiley to let you know that was in jest.
Just a minor clarification, the subscription setting I'm looking at would not be every month but would be a small amount once every 6 months. I guess that could be considered basically the same as the cost divided by 6 each month, but I just wanted to make sure you read the pricing structure I proposed correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bislab
I am willing to listen to feedback from everyone, however, even those who think my proposal is a bad idea. If you can make a counter proposal and more people are in favor of that idea and it still helps move things the way I think they need to go for the company that I would like to hear them.
I'll add my two pence worth.
Whilst my groups are pretty static with all players currently having purchased lite licenses I can understand the appeal of a floating license structure as it offers flexibility for getting new players into FGII.
However it strikes me that the proposed 6 month subscription will NOT appeal to those who will compare the costs of a subscription vs lite license and determine its not cost effective if you have a large group of dynamic players (as in Unerwünscht's case).
So, if the desire is to introduce some annuity revenue into the business why not consiider the following:
1) Offering a lite license equivalent (available to GM Full licensees only) that can be used in a true floating manner with ANY player at an affordable price. The floating licenses will need to either be transferable to lite licenses or offer some sort of concession for referal to a proper lite license.
2) Introduce new feature sets such as a hosted offline campaign management/wiki space, HTML versions of PC's/NPC's, that integrate with FGII and allow GM's/Players to interact outside of game sessions. This service could be subscriber based and would deliver the annuity revenue your looking for. At the same time it would alleviate the need to turn the floating license model into a rental license scheme and at the same time deliver a richer and more complete experience to our RPGs.
3) At the same time perhaps also introduce some sort of subscriber based matchmaking service whereby if I, say as a user, finds some spare time on the spare of the moment I can fire up FGII and connect to the matchmaking service which finds me a GM and game and connects me straight in, a sort of drop-in/drop-out dungeon delve service perhaps.
Anyways, just a couple of examples of alternatives for generating annuity revenue.
I like that one, it's sort of on the same lines of the chat system we suggested, but its a nice spin on that idea, and would work well in tandem with a global chat system.Quote:
Originally Posted by zephp
Personally, I would only need floating licenses a couple of times a year (to demo the product at FUMCon) so the currently proposed subscription looks expensive to me. If I could purchase the licenses (say for $25 each) then I could justify the cost as a one-off. If I had licenses available, I could possibly invite new players to try before they buy - but I'm not willing to pay a large subscription on the off-chance. Again, if I had the option to buy, I could justify this as a one-off expense.
One thing a friend of mine brought up: A one time expense for a floating license would be a good idea. You could share it easily with others for one shot adventures or bringing in new folks. Very nice.
But, a reoccuring cost for a floating license would make it more economical to purchase a light license, then share the license number with other people as needed. Granted, this would be in violation of the license agreement, but let's be honest, someone would do it if it meant saving money. You could stop it with a central server that keeps track of things, but the first time that went down and prevented people from doing a gaming session, everyone would be looking for new products.
Well, I have my full license on several machines (desktop and laptop) so I don't think a central server that checks IP addresses or some sort of MAC address based hash would work. Attaching a username and password to a license might work better, but it would still suffer the problem you described (login server failures) and people would probably come up with bogus ID's that they could hand out with the license number anyway (guestplayer142, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_h
-Kevin McD
Again, I am very pleased with the amount of feedback received. I am going to drop the idea of a renewal fee for floating licenses and make them a one-time purchase option. The prices will need to be adjusted somewhat to keep them relative to the Lite license fee. Would $30 for a floating license feel about right?
Also, I imagine use of the floating licenses would require an active Internet connection. Your full license would continue to work off-line as it does today, but it would not accept an incoming unlicensed connection unless it was able to verify adequate floating licenses. In addition, if a floating license player crashes, there would need to be a re-sync operation that would occur to re-verify the number of floating licenses currently in use. I doubt the check would be any more significant than the server alias lookup, but it does need to occur.
As a user myself, I have copies of my full license on several of my personal machines to make it easier for me to work on stuff off-line and then transfer it to my gaming laptop for sessions in person or run off my desktop for online games. I have no desire to limit that sort of usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invain63
So looking at the store:Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Fantasy Grounds II Full License $39.95
Fantasy Grounds II Lite License $23.95
So doesn't seem too unreasonable, they would be liable for bulk discount?
I think that's great. And I truly appreciate your attention to our feedback and concerns. A $30 price for the floating license is - I think - a decent price.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
At first I thought you were incorrect here, but I now have to agree. The floating license scheme should be of greatest benefit to GMs with large dynamic player bases but the cost effective strategy appears to be for the GM to buy an excess number of Lites on the off chance that a past player happens to be using one of them when the GM is trying to run a game with new players. The GM just says "Oops! That license is in use. Here, try this one." That would be annoying, so if it happens frequently the floating license scheme would become more attractive. I really doubt that it would, though, except in extreme cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by zephp
It seems to me that there should be *some* way for the floating license scheme to be cost effective, but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. The fees should probably be set up such that over the life of the license the cost is at least as much as a Lite, but is never painful at any given time. Perhaps a minimal up front cost with another small activation fee for when the floating license is used.
Maybe something like this, for six slots:
$5 per slot setup (activation not included) and then $3 per 3 month activation. That way the break even point would be at the 1 year continuous use mark and the rest is gravy for SWUSA.
This is approximately the same as the current scheme - Six licenses: $15 per including 6 months activation plus $7.50 per additional 6 months (in my terms, $7.50 initial setup plus $3.25 per 3 months activation.) Of course SWUSA would loose on both ends. My proposal is cheaper for the customer and gives them more chances to opt out. My philosophy is that frequent small fees are more palatable to customers than occasional large ones, so the customer is more likely to buy on impulse.
-Kevin McDonald
I should really learn to make small frequent posts rather than spending the time to compose a magnum opus! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
Yea, this sounds reasonable to me. One issue is that it raises the cost of entry for the GM. The cost of entry for GMs is a significant issue. The current high cost of a Full + Lites (or floaters) means that only the truly dedicated (or wealthy) will take a chance on the product. I seem to remember you saying that this is something under review, so I am interested in what you come up with.
-Kevin McDonald
I'll offer you a bannana peel and a piece of lint that I've had in my pocket for a month. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
An idea I had, and someone would have to fill this out because it's only a partial idea here. If you're looking for some sort of a continuing income stream, something to consider is, in addition to floating licenses, you could have temporary floating licenses. They could be cheaper ($5), but time limited (say, one day from the time of purchase).
Something like that might be a hit with conventions, letting a bunch of new people try it out. It wouldnt be really optimal to use in the place of another license (6 sessions for a regular floating license or a lite license).
Dunno, just an idea I had that I thought I'd mention before I forgot it.. There might be problems with it, but I haven't thought that far ahead (Maybe someone already mentioned it :b)
Also a look at the competition:Quote:
Originally Posted by MurghBpurn
Software Licenses
GM Client $34.00
Player Client $18.00
Floating License (Requires GM Client) $18.00
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurghBpurn
Yes, but you also have to look at the difference between the applications themselves. I don't think anyone here will argue against "Fantasy Grounds is superior to BattleGrounds." Battlegrounds still has a few features that are not in Fantasy Grounds but the remaining features are of limited use. Where as Fantasy Grounds has a much cleaner user interface, and is just an all around awesome application.
That being said, I think $30 is a fair price for the floating license. It's not as powerful as the DM license, but in comparison does offer better flexibility than the lite license.
I am very pleased to see the change in pace, and am a firm believer that Smite Works has just secured Fantasy Grounds position as "The Best" VTT on the market for quite some time to come. I am also looking forward to working with them (if they will) on some of our gaming products now.
This has been a good discussion. I think FG might be better off with several types of floating licenses. This is because there are really two very different ways these licenses are going to be used:
1) The "Demo" Floating License: This is a license which would be used at a Con or to actually demo the software in a real group. The characteristics of a "demo" license is it’s only needed for a few days and tends to benefit Smiteworks USA as a marketing tool and doesn’t hurt the sales of other licences. This license could be very cheap (or even free in some cases like at a Con) and for a very limited time. You could offer a small discount to someone who uses a demo license and upgrades to a lite or full version.
2) The “Traditional” Floating License: This license shifts the cost burden from a player to the GM and in return gives the GM the ability to easily recruit, add and change players. It competes directly with the lite version and would have some impact on new lite license sales (the most commonly sold license). The pricing should probably somewhere between the full and lite licenses.
I have to admitt I like what I see so far, we have a dialogue. :)
And yes, I agree there should be some kind of 'short-term-floating-license' available for demo-games and cons etc.
I like the idea of a one-time price for the floaters as well... it gives me an option to demo my stuff to anyone who is interested without them having to gamble and buy a light license first or for me to buy them one. (( You guys KNOW who you are.... ))
- Obe
Another option that is a derivative from another tabletop I used previously:
You download one program. If you enter the appropriate license key, then it enables usage based on the license.
1. Basic - Only can connect to hosts that have floating licenses, otherwise acts as demo.
2. Lite - Enter license key, and can connect to any host.
3. Full - Enter license key, can connect to any host, and can host games. Additional license keys can be entered to add floating licenses.
Cheers,
JPG
Ok... I just got SUPER confused.... Is that not what we have been talking about this whole time? If not that is how it should work.
Well, four pages is a lot to read. But, yeah, my understanding is that we've been discussing the system moon_wizard suggests.
I think what Moon Wizard is saying is that in that VTT it uses all one program but that one program acts differently depending on which key is used.
Ahhh... I see now. Where as that is a great idea from the view of the end user, its a bad move for the developers in the end. It makes it MUCH easier to break the code and create pirated copies.
In other programs, your code is checked when you download updates. Thus if you settle with current version, you don't need "just now" connection to network, so don't spoil your rpg session.
I have noticed that this model encourages developers to release minor bug fixes faster :) Normal cycle is about 2 weeks per update (size is from few kilobytes to up) so if one version of the program or license is cracked it won't effect next versions or atleast it could be isolated. Perhaps same as in Time Machine - you are required to connect to server in last 30 days to use program?
No, please no. I want to be able to continue to use FG even if the worst comes to pass and SmiteWorks goes bust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukki
Spyke
Seconded ... most stronglyQuote:
Originally Posted by Spyke
Thirded, just in case this was needed :)
Well hopefully if the worse case ever happens, smiteworks would be nice enough drop an unlocked version of the application, however, I don't see the community ever letting it come to that.
My hope is for a better relationship between the new owners and the community than what existed with the previous owners. If a better relationship exists then more of us can become featured module makers, and sell product directly through the smiteworks store. In that case its only fare that smiteworks also makes a percentage of those sales, and that will go a long way to keeping them in business.
What he said! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
I'm certain Mr Davison would be happy to oblige you, though you might want to make clear what 'better relationship' means to you in this case and exactly how it would enable/allow more of us to become featured model makers.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
I agree, but also think we are on a good track here.
We are having a dialogue instead of a monologue with both sides coming forth with views.
Noe if Mr Davison keeps this upp I think we'll loose a LOT of the frustration that was occasionally generated when there'd go months with no updates or even board-visits by the developers.
- Obe
I do have ideas for that sort of thing. I was a huge fan of NWN Vault and how the community members could rate each other's work and become well known among the community by putting out fantastic modules. If it could also generate a little revenue for those authors and for FG, I don't think anyone would complain either.Quote:
Originally Posted by unerwünscht
No need to worry about things going bust. Things were going well when I bought it and as long as I listen to the community and keep pushing the envelope technically, we won't see things dip down in the near future.
Well I can tell you that people on my other sites have been asking A LOT of questions about Fantasy Grounds since the announcement of your acquisition. Most of them are looking forward to giving it a try through the floating license system, and a good majority of them plan on getting Full Licenses if all works well for them.
Yes, I 'pop' in here every month or so especially to check this very thread. It's the only one I look for (shame on me, I know...) but my purpose is to track the progress on the floating licenses.
If there is another place for me to get updates on it, by all means let me know. I'm exited to see them offered. (oh, I check the store too... just to see if it's posted there.)
anyway, this time I figured I'd post something... instead of just 'lurk' about.
thanks for keepin it alive Ddavidson!
zWolf -out.
Okay, I have an update on the floating licenses. I think this is going to take a little longer to get it in place according to the model I outlined. There are some issues with how the licenses will need to be purchased and linked to your full license key and with the procedure that checks this at run-time.
To better support what I would like to accomplish with this, I will be shifting the store and web site over to a new host and developing it in my language and database of preference. That work has already begun and is pretty far along but will still need quite a bit more work and testing before it can go live.
Unfortunately, I expect this may delay the floating licenses until some time in January. I will post regular updates as I make progress on achieving this goal. Thanks for your patience so far. I realize this is a major issue for many people and I will do what I can to get it done correctly and as quickly as possible.
Doug
Thanks for the update sir Doug, I'm exited by the progress so far, and the good news that it's high on the stack of things getting done.
thanks again.