Release Fantasy Grounds Unity now...

[Trenloe]

As has always been said by the people in the know on these forums - buy Fantasy Grounds now for what Fantasy Grounds is now. Don't buy it based on what it may be in the future - whenever that is.

Right now Fantasy Grounds is not a legacy application. It's a full blown, main product with over 1,000 DLC titles, active support and development and many tens of thousands of sessions ran every year. FGU will be backwards compatible with any DLC products you purchase, so you can keep on going using the products you may purchase now.

If there's any concern over future upgrade costs and double dipping then, sure, wait for FGU to come out - whenever that may be. It's just a shame, because you'll be missing out on some great games and products for the next however many months/years before FGU comes out, gets stable and you'd be ready to migrate. That being said, I respect anyone's decision to wait. As I said - only buy FG for what it is now...

[Iotatron]

As has always been said by the people in the know on these forums - buy Fantasy Grounds now for what Fantasy Grounds is now. Don't buy it based on what it may be in the future - whenever that is.

Right now Fantasy Grounds is not a legacy application. It's a full blown, main product with over 1,000 DLC titles, active support and development and many tens of thousands of sessions ran every year. FGU will be backwards compatible with any DLC products you purchase, so you can keep on going using the products you may purchase now.

If there's any concern over future upgrade costs and double dipping then, sure, wait for FGU to come out - whenever that may be. It's just a shame, because you'll be missing out on some great games and products for the next however many months/years before FGU comes out, gets stable and you'd be ready to migrate. That being said, I respect anyone's decision to wait. As I said - only buy FG for what it is now...

I'm not trying to argue the merit of buying now vs later; my decision has been made. I am trying to shed some perspective on why i disagree on the devs decision to double their workload. If they want to keep supporting FG with updates that's their decision, but since FGU is their future it makes more sense to me for them to focus on what's ahead of them, which they may be supporting for many decades as opposed to an already feature-rich product.

[Trenloe]

I am trying to shed some perspective on why i disagree on the devs decision to double their workload. If they want to keep supporting FG with updates that's their decision, but since FGU is their future it makes more sense to me for them to focus on what's ahead of them, which they may be supporting for many decades as opposed to an already feature-rich product.

FGU won't be out in the next few months, so the reasoning is pretty straightforward. Current users demand new functionality, new DLC, updates, bug fixes, etc.. Making sure FGU is backwards compatible with DLC and rulesets means that a lot of the work being done now in FGC (FG Classic - working title) is not double the work - it will be used in FGU too. This has to be done so that current customers, who may not make the jump to FGU, are serviced fully and correctly, and new products keep coming out - usually around half-a-dozen each week. But, if someone has been using FG for a long campaign, FGU has to be developed to allow them to migrate their campaign data to the new platform.

Sure, a hell of a lot of work in FGU is to support this backwards compatibility - but this has to be done to allow all of the loyal FG customers (new or long standing) to be able to migrate with the minimum of fuss when the time comes. Until then they (we) all still want regular updates, etc.. For example, here is what the next version will contain: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...Release-v3-3-7 And here is an example of the weekly updates: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...mber-27th-2018

I understand how someone looking in and waiting for FGU thinks this doesn't make sense. But I think you'll get very few people who use FG regularly agreeing that this approach doesn't make sense (even though a lot of them want FGU Noooooow!). It's building for the future, taking care of what is there now *and* continuing to move the current product forwards - with functionality that will also be used in FGU. For me it makes perfect sense - we'll just have to disagree on that. Which is OK - it's fine to disagree.

[Cluanar]

Welcome to the forums, Iotatron.

I typically refrain from commenting on the progress of FGU and I've asked lokiare1 to exercise the same restraint. It's best if publicly shared information comes from Doug and John (Moonwizard). They are the owners and face of Smiteworks and it reduces confusion to limit the number of voices. Unless you read something from them, it is best to view it as speculation.

Regarding, AAA games, comparing AAA games to Fantasy Grounds is like comparing apples to desk lamps. Other than both being software, there is little else in common. Prior to developing (the now defunct) Tabletop Connect, and subsequently joining the Smiteworks team, I spent 15 years in video game development. The last nine of which were exclusively working on AAA titles, primarily developing tools and pipeline. One the last titles I worked on, Call of Duty:Black Ops 2, had a 200+ member dev team and a budget close to a quarter of a billion dollars. In contrast, FGU has a single full-time developer (that's me) and John does both FGU development and continues development of the current version of Fantasy Grounds. Other than helping the users understand where and why FGU development is where it is, this is mostly irrelevant to the current or future FG user. You're only interest is when will FGU be available and what can it do when it gets here. I can assure you that no one wants FGU to launch more than Smiteworks.

Circling back to game development, there is a habit there to hit alpha dates by redefining alpha. That's not something Smiteworks is prepared to do. Post alpha will primarily be about performance optimization and testing, not bolting on whole features. Do I have a date for you? Nope. Are we close? Yeah, pretty close. Do I have guess? No. We have limited resources and don't have the luxury of a big dev shop that can just throw warm bodies at the problem. I appreciate that you are choosing to stick with Roll20 for now. If there is one thing that I've discovered during my time here is that Smiteworks wants you to be a satisfied customer and you're confident that the current offering isn't everything that you're looking for. FG has a lot of satisfied and passionate users and I'm confident that you'll become one of them when you're ready to come aboard.

Reinforces my point in that the project is too large for staff in hand to handle to match our "need it now" mind set. We saw the picture of the cake now we want to eat it. :-)

But as I also said, as it stands FG is a far better option than anything else out there as my 6 months of research told me before I went all in. I can wait but "DAAAAMN I want it NOOOOOW" .

It will be worth it I am 100% sure of that.

[mghauber]

And again, I will re-iterate that our message has always been to buy what we have today, not what might be built in the future.

Regards,
JPG

A couple of weeks ago I flew to Florida to game FACE TO FACE with my brother and old friends. There was no Fantasy Grounds. No computers. Just pencils, paper, and real honest to God dice. It was a game. An escape. Great fun and lots of laughs.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and gaming with Carl, John and Doug. I assure you they are good people with a passion to bring the above mentioned tabletop gaming experience to folks where distance is an issue. Please....leave them be to do that. Enjoy gaming over the internet for what it is. They have delivered an awesome product for our hobby as it is right now. Most here at the forums know that already. Newcomers...try to understand this is not a video game. It is simply a way to "table game" over vast distance. Its been doing that for years....

Just play games. Leave the business to them...

My $0.02.

Peace

[Trenloe]

A couple of weeks ago I flew to Florida to game FACE TO FACE with my brother...

Really? I wouldn't have done that!



Only joking - I'm really a little jealous!

[Iotatron]

A couple of weeks ago I flew to Florida to game FACE TO FACE with my brother and old friends. There was no Fantasy Grounds. No computers. Just pencils, paper, and real honest to God dice. It was a game. An escape. Great fun and lots of laughs.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and gaming with Carl, John and Doug. I assure you they are good people with a passion to bring the above mentioned tabletop gaming experience to folks where distance is an issue. Please....leave them be to do that. Enjoy gaming over the internet for what it is. They have delivered an awesome product for our hobby as it is right now. Most here at the forums know that already. Newcomers...try to understand this is not a video game. It is simply a way to "table game" over vast distance. Its been doing that for years....

Just play games. Leave the business to them...

My $0.02.

Peace

First off, i don't think this is a video game, i see it as a computer program to facilitate gameplay. Either way, it doesn't invalidate anything i've said. And I believe you when you say the devs are great people; but that also doesn't invalidate my criticisms.

Secondly, why are we not allow to post criticisms? Why should we just "play games, leave business to them," isn't a healthy interaction with criticism from community a sign of a strong business? I don't understand why people just ask the community to "let devs do what they do and not question it" when the community offers a lot of insight (and in FGs case a lot of content in the form of custom modules).

Being able to criticize something - while still recognizing that you enjoy it and are glad it exists even in its current form - is the basis for healthy growth.

[esmdev]

First off, i don't think this is a video game, i see it as a computer program to facilitate gameplay. Either way, it doesn't invalidate anything i've said. And I believe you when you say the devs are great people; but that also doesn't invalidate my criticisms.

Secondly, why are we not allow to post criticisms? Why should we just "play games, leave business to them," isn't a healthy interaction with criticism from community a sign of a strong business? I don't understand why people just ask the community to "let devs do what they do and not question it" when the community offers a lot of insight (and in FGs case a lot of content in the form of custom modules).

Being able to criticize something - while still recognizing that you enjoy it and are glad it exists even in its current form - is the basis for healthy growth.

Unless someone tells me otherwise you are free to criticise away. However on the counter side you should also be willing to accept when someone else criticises your criticism.

My opinion is we don't need FGU as much as access to 64-bit memory. They already sidelined the 64 bit FG in favor of FGU which made me sad.

[Iotatron]

Unless someone tells me otherwise you are free to criticise away. However on the counter side you should also be willing to accept when someone else criticises your criticism.

My opinion is we don't need FGU as much as access to 64-bit memory. They already sidelined the 64 bit FG in favor of FGU which made me sad.

I'm open to criticisms, and if the devs continue to support FG with new features despite delaying FGU that's there prerogative. I just wanted to share my opinion about what I believe is the best way to approach the situation of FGU taking so long.

I believe FGU should be 64-bit since the unity engine will handle that.

[epithet]

It seems like some of the tension could be diffused if the "full credit" purchase date were to be set. That way, people could buy with confidence now, and enjoy the program and get to know the quirks while confident that whenever FGU was finally released, they'd be covered.