Virtual Tabletop software?

[Hussar]

To Hassur: Well, you are correct. You are getting no added value by purchasing a GM copy of any VTT. You are, however, getting added functionality. Yes, they are different. You do have a valid argument on price, which I would like to comment on.

The simple economics of computer software are obvious. Less functionality means less price. Check out any of the Microsoft Office productivity software. You are getting less if you only buy the basic package. Pay a little more and you get Access. Look at the Windows OS. Buy the Basic and you don't get the added features that make. Why would you buy the lesser? Price and need. Don't need Access, buy the smaller option. Yes, even some Open Source has this option (in the form of Service Plans) and "core OS".

What does this have to do with VTT? It's a similar concept to the OS example. If you have the GM and Player software at the same price, why bother selling two versions? Because a Player doesn't want to pay $40 for what they are not going to use. This translates into a lost sale. If you lower the price and strip the functionality, you have a product that appeals to the Player.

Sure, the GM gets "shafted" because they have to pay a higher price. This is the nature of economics in a computer software environment. Sure, they could lower the GM price. However, this would need to be compensated with raising the Player price to offset development costs for the ENTIRE application. There are more players out there than GMs, just look at PH/DMG sales for proof.

Your group is unique in that you have so many people willing to be a GM. In the glory days of my group, we had 14 people and only 3 of them would GM. Now, we have 5 and only 2 GM.

In the end, VTT is a business. I don't know how the Free VTTs do it, but I'm sure there's some kind of community support or advertisments that offset the bandwidth for hosting a game, downloading the application, supporting, customer feedback, development, and their main site. It all depends on the business model. Maybe that additional cost helps with the above in some way.

Finally, I stumbled onto this thread because Sylrae was asking for recommendations of VTT. The others are trying to answer your question and Sylrae's at the same time. They are not trying to influence you, only to give their viewpoint as well as defend a product that they find valuable.

For the record, I have only used Fantasy Grounds. I find the challenge of programming a ruleset intriguing and the Campaign Mangement features are appealing to me for when I do eventually GM.

The difference being, when you have a VTT package, you HAVE to create the DM's version first. It's not that the DM is getting a value added Player version, the player's are getting a stripped down DM's version.

Instead of 30 bucks and 10 bucks, why not 10 for everyone? Is it worth the extra 20 bucks from 1 user? How much profit is actually being seen here.

With your Microsoft example, MS doesn't actually have to create a fully featured version first. They can create the basic version and then add to it. But, a player only version of a VTT is useless without a DM's version.

In other words, you cannot use the VTT until someone ponies up the DM's version. Compared to Windows where everyone can run their programs to their hearts content. If I get the Pro version of Windows, I gets added benefits.

The DM's version does not.

And, again, it's not the money. It could be 3 cents and 1 cent. I wouldn't care. It's a principle thing. Why should one user be forced to pay extra without gaining anything? Without that one user, no game will be played at all.

I just don't understand why the basic VTT isn't fully featured. EVERY license should be the DM's version. And, from an economic point of view, if the player license is 10 bucks, then the full version should likely be the same. You're not gaining anything by adding twenty bucks to the DM's version. Only a small fraction of your userbase actually pays that. The additional money is pretty much a drop in the bucket.

Or, put it another way, 1 DM + 4 players is a minimum 50 bucks in FG currently. Would losing the twenty bucks from the one DM not be paid back by other people running their own games?

Isn't the goal here to get as many people as absolutely possible running games?

 

[Drahkar]

Just to be 100% crystal clear here. I don't care how fantastic FG is. I couldn't care less if it's the greatest VTT in the world. I love VTT's. I've been using them for almost eight years now, in weekly and sometimes twice weekly gaming. You don't have to sell me on how great VTT play is. I know it's great.

My sole, lone, complete complaint is the double pricing where if you want to run a game you get to pay three times what the players pay, while gaining absolutely nothing.

I don't think this is a fair complaint though. The added cost to the DM has always been there. They have always been the one expected to have all the books. Often in a Tabletop session they are supplying snacks and related costs. They bring most of the resources that are in a game session. The added cost has always been on the head of the DM.

Now with a VTT you have the DM who has the fully featured version of the application and the players merely have the ability to connect and play. Nothing else. This is just a continuation of that. It would be unreasonable to expect the Full version and the player version of the software to be sold for the same amount.

 

[Drahkar]

And, again, it's not the money. It could be 3 cents and 1 cent. I wouldn't care. It's a principle thing. Why should one user be forced to pay extra without gaining anything? Without that one user, no game will be played at all.

I just don't understand why the basic VTT isn't fully featured. EVERY license should be the DM's version. And, from an economic point of view, if the player license is 10 bucks, then the full version should likely be the same. You're not gaining anything by adding twenty bucks to the DM's version. Only a small fraction of your userbase actually pays that. The additional money is pretty much a drop in the bucket.

Or, put it another way, 1 DM + 4 players is a minimum 50 bucks in FG currently. Would losing the twenty bucks from the one DM not be paid back by other people running their own games?

You miss the point. In software development there is an innate cost accrued for development. The Player version of the software isn't there to cheat the DM. Its there to make the overall cost for playing less. If we were to implement what you are complaining for, the end result would be that they simply stop offering the player version of the software and only offer the DM version. Its not going to cost less just because they stopped offering one of the less feature rich versions. So the overall cost goes from, say $100 for a DM and 4 players to $300 because everyone is buying the full version of the software.

 

[Matchstick]

It *is* expensive when you consider that Maptool is FREE. But beyond that, I agree that Maptool is not for everyone.

I think you will find the following to be true:
Maptool is more complex to get up and running than Fantasy Grounds. It may require a degree of tinkering and reading to get things exactly the way you want, particularly if you plan on using a framework. These are not overly complex things, but it does require a bit of time investment to get it done.

People who just want a program that is going to work with minimal tinkering will find Fantasy Grounds more to their liking. I found that I was able to get Fantasy Grounds 3.5 game up and running in minutes with a minimum of fuss (really was just opening ports on my firewall and I was done).

I believe that technical support for both Maptool and Fantasy Grounds is via message boards and community support, unless something has changed and you can now get someone on a phone line for help with Fantasy Grounds, which would be an edge to that product.

Very well put. I've not used Maptools but that was a strength of FG that I took full advantage of. We had the VTT for years and I finally just said "I'm doing this", bought a module, plugged it into FG, and ran it the following Sunday. Now everyone is having a great time and wanting to GM. It was really easy, it had to be for me to be able to "just do it" so quickly. Regarding Maptools, I know a group that uses it and loves it. I would definitely recommend any new user try it out. Competition is good!

I have to say that for me at least, I'm not interested in which VTT is "better". I'm interested in encouraging people to try VTT's and playing online.

For the OP and anyone else interested: look at heruca's list, look at some of the options and demos, read the communities, and most of all, give VTT's and playing online a try! The technology is there and it works!

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

Just to be 100% crystal clear here. I don't care how fantastic FG is. I couldn't care less if it's the greatest VTT in the world.

But isn't this the original intent of the thread? To get information about which VTT's folks were using, which one's they considered the 'best?' It looked more like a technical question to me . . .

 

[amerigoV]

The difference being, when you have a VTT package, you HAVE to create the DM's version first. It's not that the DM is getting a value added Player version, the player's are getting a stripped down DM's version.

Instead of 30 bucks and 10 bucks, why not 10 for everyone? Is it worth the extra 20 bucks from 1 user? How much profit is actually being seen here.

With your Microsoft example, MS doesn't actually have to create a fully featured version first. They can create the basic version and then add to it. But, a player only version of a VTT is useless without a DM's version.

In other words, you cannot use the VTT until someone ponies up the DM's version. Compared to Windows where everyone can run their programs to their hearts content. If I get the Pro version of Windows, I gets added benefits.

The DM's version does not.

And, again, it's not the money. It could be 3 cents and 1 cent. I wouldn't care. It's a principle thing. Why should one user be forced to pay extra without gaining anything? Without that one user, no game will be played at all.

I just don't understand why the basic VTT isn't fully featured. EVERY license should be the DM's version. And, from an economic point of view, if the player license is 10 bucks, then the full version should likely be the same. You're not gaining anything by adding twenty bucks to the DM's version. Only a small fraction of your userbase actually pays that. The additional money is pretty much a drop in the bucket.

Or, put it another way, 1 DM + 4 players is a minimum 50 bucks in FG currently. Would losing the twenty bucks from the one DM not be paid back by other people running their own games?

Isn't the goal here to get as many people as absolutely possible running games?

I've come around to Hussar's thinking. They might get more people if they had a stripped down GM version (say $10) and the GM, as desired, could pay extra for features that they wanted. So for $10 you get a whiteboard in virtual space (anyone can host the game). For an additional $20, you get all the bells and whistles.

The problem is the $10 product would have to be better than Maptools.

Regardless, Maptools does it for the groups I am in. I played around with FG2 and liked it, but I did not want to force people to pay money to play (especially since I was already pushing them to Savage Worlds for $10 at the same time). A buddy of mine uses iTable, but i have not talked to him in awhile about it.

 

[Drahkar]

I've come around to Hussar's thinking. They might get more people if they had a stripped down GM version (say $10) and the GM, as desired, could pay extra for features that they wanted. So for $10 you get a whiteboard in virtual space (anyone can host the game). For an additional $20, you get all the bells and whistles.

The problem is the $10 product would have to be better than Maptools.

Regardless, Maptools does it for the groups I am in. I played around with FG2 and liked it, but I did not want to force people to pay money to play (especially since I was already pushing them to Savage Worlds for $10 at the same time). A buddy of mine uses iTable, but i have not talked to him in awhile about it.

But that is not a discussion of what is a reasonable cost at that point. Instead its merely, 'Hey, I want everything but I'd rather not spend money for it.' The removal of the 'Player' version of the software would do nothing to the price of the other tools. People need to understand that. All it does it increase the overall cost of playing within the VTT.

If MapTools meets you needs. Thats great. But the reality is that it doesn't meet the needs of a lot of people. For any DM to use it, they have to be extremely proficient in coding for it. That's the biggest advantage for ones like FG2. Once the ruleset is created, you don't have to be a master coder. You just have to learn how to use the ruleset.

 

[Matchstick]

I've come around to Hussar's thinking. They might get more people if they had a stripped down GM version (say $10) and the GM, as desired, could pay extra for features that they wanted. So for $10 you get a whiteboard in virtual space (anyone can host the game). For an additional $20, you get all the bells and whistles.

The problem is the $10 product would have to be better than Maptools.

Regardless, Maptools does it for the groups I am in. I played around with FG2 and liked it, but I did not want to force people to pay money to play (especially since I was already pushing them to Savage Worlds for $10 at the same time). A buddy of mine uses iTable, but i have not talked to him in awhile about it.

I was exactly the same way. I got to that "just do it" point and was very concerned because the VTT that I had was one that the players would have to pay for. I sent out mail making that clear, presenting the prices, and asking for feedback. It turned out that four out of the five players had owned FG for years; turned out we had all bought it around the same time simply on spec that we might play! The fifth had no problem with buying it and away we went.

It's a very valid concern to worry about "obligating" players/friends to spend money. I was there and can completely identify with that feeling. I do think that there's no reason not to communicate with your players like I did, it might wind up that they are OK with spending the money just to get to play with their friends (MMOG's would be similar) and that opens up the field to more VTT options. Quite honestly, had the option existed when I bought FG I'd have seriously considered the 140$ option that requires no licenses from players. Espcially considering the years I've had the license it would have been more than worth it to get to play with my friends and not worry about that "obligating" (quotes above and here are mine).

For my purposes I'm not much of a coder/programmer, nor do I have much free time. That led to Savage Worlds being a great choice for me, and matched up well with the strengths of Fantasy Grounds. Lucklily for me, since FG was what we all had!

Perhaps with Maptools the investment is in time and FG it's in money? I had more money than time so FG worked out well for me (and continues to do so).

Again, I have zero negative things to say about Maptools, I can only speak to my experience with FG and that's been very positive.

 

[Aeolius]

Of course the cost for Mac users of Fantasy Grounds is $240 higher ($40 for wine-based crossover software + $200 for Windows Home Edition non-upgrade price).

 

[Rienen]

Of course the cost for Mac users of Fantasy Grounds is $240 higher ($40 for wine-based crossover software + $200 for Windows Home Edition non-upgrade price).

I'll assume this is tongue-in-cheek and respond in kind,

If you're a Mac user, you should be used to everything costing much more.