Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kronovan" data-source="post: 9869525" data-attributes="member: 6775134">I own both Fantasy Grounds and Foundry VTT - enjoy the challenge of learning to navigate and create for a VTT. I like both for different reasons, but the main driver for me is the availability, stability and how feature-rich a TTRPG adaptation is. An official WH40k Imperium Maledictum and The Dark Eye are only available for FVTT, so that's my choice for those. Meanwhile, I tried the freebie Star Trek Adventures on FVTT, but it lacked features, content and a beneficial, fan-made add-on module couldn't be used due to being dormant and now incompatible. Whereas the FG ruleset/modules for STA is official, has far more features, is consistently updated and well worth the cost. So FG is where I run it.That's true for Fantasy Grounds too. From my observance of the retailing of VTT content, I've gotten the impression that some revenue for official content funnels back to the FG and FVTT stores. That seems to be the case even when a publisher sells the conent on their own webstore; i.e. Paizo, Kobold Press, Cubicle 7, One Book Shelf, Ulisses Spiele, etc. If that tranaction path tracks back to the VTT stores, it should be possible to ensure content creators get paid their cut. Whether that always happens...I  supsect the bigger challenge with offering a VTT bundle, is that it's still a smaller market than the PDF market - maybe book market too. So, while bundles may be attractive to the developer of a VTT (Roll20-One Book Shelf, Smitheworks, Foundry Gaming, etc.), it's probably less than attractive to the content creator. Unless the VTT developers eat the entire loss in revenue, but somehow it's hard for me to imagine them doing that.</blockquote>

Verification