Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4143775" data-attributes="member: 22779">There are any number of options out there for VTT gaming.&nbsp; Pretty much every IM program out there supports video now.&nbsp; The only problem really is the game map and die rollers.&nbsp; Enter any number of VTT programs, both pay and not, to fill that void.In all fairness, I think WOTC is making a serious mistake tying the VTT to a subscription model.&nbsp; The whole point of a VTT is to get more people playing.&nbsp; Why not make it easier?&nbsp; I hate, no, loathe the idea that the DM should have to pay extra.&nbsp; If I choose to run a game over a particular VTT, then I'm pretty much guaranteeing 4 sales of the player version of the VTT.&nbsp; Why do I have to pay extra for the privilege of selling your product?&nbsp; Why not just make a single version client that supports both DM's and players and charge one price?&nbsp; That's the most fair way of doing it.Placing the economic burden squarely on the DM is just bad marketing.&nbsp; I'd love to use Fantasy Grounds, but Hell will freeze over before I pay extra just so I can sell four or five more versions for them.&nbsp; OpenRPG may not be as pretty as FG, but, at least I'm not getting screwed over for using it.What I'd love to see is a scaled down version of the DDI VTT which is pretty much just the basic map, die roller and connection abilities.&nbsp; Make it like OpenRPG, in that the DM has to host his own images somewhere.&nbsp; Sure, if I want all the extras, I get to pay for the nice version, but, if I don't want them, I don't have to pay.To me, that's a pretty win/win idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4143775, member: 22779"] There are any number of options out there for VTT gaming. Pretty much every IM program out there supports video now. The only problem really is the game map and die rollers. Enter any number of VTT programs, both pay and not, to fill that void. In all fairness, I think WOTC is making a serious mistake tying the VTT to a subscription model. The whole point of a VTT is to get more people playing. Why not make it easier? I hate, no, loathe the idea that the DM should have to pay extra. If I choose to run a game over a particular VTT, then I'm pretty much guaranteeing 4 sales of the player version of the VTT. Why do I have to pay extra for the privilege of selling your product? Why not just make a single version client that supports both DM's and players and charge one price? That's the most fair way of doing it. Placing the economic burden squarely on the DM is just bad marketing. I'd love to use Fantasy Grounds, but Hell will freeze over before I pay extra just so I can sell four or five more versions for them. OpenRPG may not be as pretty as FG, but, at least I'm not getting screwed over for using it. What I'd love to see is a scaled down version of the DDI VTT which is pretty much just the basic map, die roller and connection abilities. Make it like OpenRPG, in that the DM has to host his own images somewhere. Sure, if I want all the extras, I get to pay for the nice version, but, if I don't want them, I don't have to pay. To me, that's a pretty win/win idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification