It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
duvik;716 wrote: I just found out about this program tonight and i'm curious as to what the cost is going to be as I saw nothing on the main site mentioning it. I get the feeling that it's going to be pay to play though. So, the question is... How much is that Doggy in the window?
duvik;719 wrote: You've also got piracy to consider... Klooge and FG have already been broken I believe and it's only a matter of time afore your program gets cracked.
duvik;719 wrote: I really don't see a subscription service working out at all. How would you plan on working that?
duvik;726 wrote: edit: don't forget about that edit button Heruca... I'm sure you know the general Taboo on double posting
For what it's worth, addressing different topics in different messages the way Heruca's done is fine by me. (In fact, I'm doing it by posting this.) I'll keep that in mind when I'm on other boards, but here, I don't consider it taboo.
duvik;726 wrote: My price suggestions reflect what I'm willing to pay for a product that performs a function that is already emulated exceedingly well by free software. From what I've read so far, there will be a few extra features that are nice but, I can't see anything that would be much more. There is certainly a lot of effort put into development of such a program but, it's something that is going to be resold over and over after the main base code is set. If his product is good, it'll continue to sell for years to come. So far as cracking goes, if FG2 hasn't been cracked yet, it's only a matter of time. If folks can break the security surrounding a $4000 program like Solidworks for 3d Modeling or Photoshop for graphic design, they can most certainly crack a simple VGT. The question on that matter is, will the program be worth bootlegging. If the answer is yes, that means you have a success on your hands. What is your pricing on Battlegrounds? I'd have to say that your opinion on this matter is very biased. The reason, if Epictable runs as good as things are looking, it's going to be stiff competition for you. This table looks pretty sweet but, it had better offer me something for my money that the free alternatives do not. 80% of the most important features are already accounted for. It's what he does above and beyond what is offered for free already that I am purchasing. Battlegrounds, Klooge, Fantasy Grounds 2, and any other paid VGT has yet to show me anything I can't get for free via my preferred freebie tables. We've had this debate before you and I if I recall. You've yet to show me why Battlegrounds is any better than the freebirds. Anyway, back to this topic... This is most certainly a niche market. It's also a market that can have nearly anything it wants for roleplaying online for free. If you overprice it, you're just digging an early grave. Why should he offer his product up at the same price as his competitors? Epictable needs something to entice folks away from the other paid options. Setting an even medium between free and what the established guys are charging is in his best interests but, certainly not yours. ;D And thus I defend my suggestion. From the standpoint of a potential consumer. edit: don't forget about that edit button Heruca... I'm sure you know the general Taboo on double posting
John Lammers;717 wrote: There may be a subscription model, but I'm very aware of pushback on yet another subscription service, so don't blast me yet.;) It would be less like an MMO sub and more like a tools sub--free updates, perks, floating licenses, ... something along those lines. But I'm still just thinking on this.
duvik;726 wrote: What is your pricing on Battlegrounds? I'd have to say that your opinion on this matter is very biased. The reason, if Epictable runs as good as things are looking, it's going to be stiff competition for you.
duvik;726 wrote: My price suggestions reflect what I'm willing to pay for a product that performs a function that is already emulated exceedingly well by free software. [...] This table looks pretty sweet but, it had better offer me something for my money that the free alternatives do not. 80% of the most important features are already accounted for.
duvik;741 wrote: There isn't much that CAN be offered above what is available for free already. How much more is needed above and beyond the ability to roll dice, chat, display maps and tokens, and store macros? That there encompasses 100% of what one needs to play online.
heruca;724 wrote: Duvik's suggested pricing would probably net you between $1500 & $2000 per year. If you have a day job, that might be enough for you
heruca;724 wrote: If a product is too much cheaper than competing products, sometimes people assume it must not be as good or have as many features as its competitors, and that translates into less sales.
heruca;724 wrote: Personally, I think all commercial VTs are underpriced, for the amount of effort that goes into making the software and the smallish size of the niche market (exacerbated by the availability and abundance of free VTs).
Omnidon;749 wrote: Sorry to "blast" you, but I would not pay a subscription fee for a VT out of general principle and most RPers I know are the same way. I feel you are very wrong in your belief that subscription fees have a better psychological impact.
Omnidon;749 wrote: One-time fees allow to you to know exactly how much it's going to cost you and to decide whether you really feel it's worth it. Subscription fees force you to make a long-term commitment and to constantly think about whether you've gotten you're money's worth since the last payment.
Omnidon;749 wrote: Besides, subscription fees make a developer obligated to constantly release quality updates rather than allowing him to set his own pace or to or branch out into other projects.
Omnidon;749 wrote: Also, subscription fees punish people who play infrequently, early adopters, and people who who like to own multiple VTs. Some people like to use a different VT to each type of game, while others are willing to purchase VTs they don't use very often just to support the community.
Omnidon;749 wrote: While I agree with you that pricing for BG has always seemed a bit high to me, I think it is very unfair to heruca to dismiss his opinion just because he has his own product. He has been very objective and supportive of other projects, especially ET, and always encourages people to pick whatever VT they will be most happy with.
John Lammers;752 wrote: I agree with that to the extent that there's no service provided other than the software itself. If there were something else that one had access to via the subscription, it changes the equation.
John Lammers;752 wrote: The subscription idea was the result of my thinking, "What if I release feature X, which is a bandwidth consumer, and people buy version 1 (hooray!), use the hell out of it (hooray!), and by year 2 I have no money coming in and a hefty bandwidth bill that keeps coming (boo!)."
John Lammers;752 wrote: So, my initial thought was, if I foresee ever doing a subscription, I should consider it right up front, so that people don't feel like I've changed the rules on them. As I've gathered feedback and thought about it more, it seems to me that the way to go is to pull together a suite of features that are nice but not required for EpicTable (I'm taking "Future Hypothetical Stance" here) and make those subscription-based if they need to be.
Omnidon;749 wrote: I agree with you that pricing for BG has always seemed a bit high to me
Omnidon;749 wrote: Honestly heruca, I don't think the VT market will support a full-time income no matter what
Omnidon;753 wrote: Bandwidth costs are absurdly low these days...dedicated servers, unlike webservers, ARE expensive.
heruca;756 wrote: Compared to what, exactly?
heruca;756 wrote: Edit: I realize this probably sounds rather defensive on my part, but I truly think that BRPG is fairly and competitively priced. Perhaps you meant to say that ALL commercial VTs are priced too high? Singling out BRPG, considering the prices of other commercial VTs and what you get for your money, seems unfair.
John Lammers;758 wrote: I couldn't host this on a shared server due to some restrictions on what one can do in that environment.
Omnidon;764 wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is it that ET needs that doesn't work on a shared webhost?
John Lammers;767 wrote: There's a class of operations that the security model of a shared host won't allow. Mostly, these focus on outbound interactions with other services, access to kernel level synchronization objects for cross process coordination, that kind of thing. None of this is necessary for basic EpicTable functionality, but there are a couple things I was thinking about...
Omnidon;771 wrote: Sounds to me like something that would be better postponed until you actually are ready to add those features. No reason to pay that much when you aren't using them.
Omnidon;771 wrote: Also, would it be feasible to use shared hosts for the main website and backup server, while using a only a single VPS for your other content?
John Lammers;772 wrote: Yeah, my site is on a shared host, as is the small set of services that EpicTable currently uses. Whether I can get by with a single host, shared or otherwise, depends on the reliability of that host and how necessary the services on it are. Right now, it's IP address exchange and game invitations, which players could coordinate offline in a pinch. Sort of an unholy pain to do so though.
Hrathor;821 wrote: I would LOVE a DM version with between 3-5 revolving accounts
John Lammers wrote: By "revolving accounts" do you mean "floating licenses"?
heruca;823 wrote: LOL! I like the idea of virtual chairs for a virtual tabletop.:D
Copyright © 2016 Realityforge LLC. Based on the “Bitter Sweet” theme.