It looks great, I especially like the plugin option for free users as that would allow developers to contribute without needing to purchase the ability. I'd compare it to paying to get access to npm to use other people's libraries as well as contribute your own; it's a turn off for contributors.
What's a bit troubling is the custom content restriction. Any DM worth his/her salt would have amassed a pretty large token library by nature of how VTTs work. It kind of pidgin holes GMs to have to get a subscription just to use their own content. Now I'm not saying that the vast majority of the product should be free, but there's better ways to monetize.
I'm not entirely sure how the platform runs (I'm currently on my linux station, I'll transfer to my windows box when I get the time). But if there's a bridge server involved that helps in content dispersion (server side cache, upload once, server distributes), then that would be the best place to have a pay gate. If you use a lot of content, you'll need to pay more or force the user's machine to distribute the content for a slower experience. Perhaps with an alert that if they paid a small monthly fee, they'd get access to this content caching because.. servers cost money to run and every user will understand that. I'm sure there's perhaps concern that new users will see the slow load times as a turn off, but there could be a cap for anything over X MB we'll force the user to distribute themselves rather than tax the servers with freeloaders. I mean, think about it, all those silly software pirates complain about buying things, but they shell top dollar for connection speed.
For some perspective, I've shelled $200 for roll20 over two years as well as purchased the $150 Fantasy Grounds ultimate license, and that's excluding the token packs and etc.. so paying money isn't really an issue. The main thing is that you're telling users to pay to use their own content, forcing them to pick up token packs or sub to get anything more than 5 custom graphics. Telling users that if they want faster content delivery that they can pay for a server to take that burden sounds a lot better in people's minds, especially for a freemium model to attract users in the first place.
I mean 5 graphics is like... just the player tokens, no room for monsters outside of the standard pack. Custom baddies will require it to either exist on the store or a sub. That would turn off a majority of Roll20 users that are accustomed to using their own content.
They're based on a heavy server model so a sub fee (SaS) would be the more stable route. I have no problems with sub fees to be honest. If you're going to use a bunch of server resources I think would get people to pay in. The content packs are questionable but a good side revenue; I say questionable as the GMs I know make their own tokes and such rather than source it out to buy from the market.
Also content packs tend to nickle and dime people to the point of annoyance. HeroLab doesn't need to maintain servers to help broker connections between peers as skirmish does; so they can afford a lower payment footprint.
I think the pay for server load model is akin to 'pay for server accelerated speed' which many people can buy into. There will be a set of people with beastly connections, but for those who don't, this ability to tap into a server content delivery network is worth every penny. The bonus of unlimited grid size is also a good seller as 50x50 units is more than enough space except for the beastliest of maps which is worth paying for.
Hello, I'm new here and new to the Tabletop scene. I found Skirmish-VT because I Googled to find something better to start playing than the current VTT which I am not fond of. I was wondering if the Devs will still release the game if the Kickstarter fails. I have done a lot of research on the actual marketing of S-VT and it seems that every time they market it, it doesn't make it's goal and seems to be not even close. There is little to no knowledge on this beautifully built and well maintained piece of software. Just over a few days of learning D&D 3.5 with my friends while playing it in S-VT we have had a ball and I know I'm ready to easily drop $100 so that all of my friends and I can enjoy D&D like never before, but nobody seems to know about it... So basically, is it likely that this program will keep being built and even released if the Kickstarter were to not make it's goal, as well as I think it would be great to let those who want to back your beta through Paypal and give the rewards as a nice "backer" special before release. I'm so excited to see what you guys do and my friends are too!
Hi guys, there's some good points here. As I have just returned from a business trip, I will reply to you guys after thoroughly reading the discussion. Oh btw, we will announce the kickstarter date tomorrow!
Hi, the kickstarter is set to start on October 25th, 2016. I didn't reply here anymore cause it is announced on the main site and all across our other channels (twitter / fb). We even put a big countdown on the main page!
Comments
What's a bit troubling is the custom content restriction. Any DM worth his/her salt would have amassed a pretty large token library by nature of how VTTs work. It kind of pidgin holes GMs to have to get a subscription just to use their own content. Now I'm not saying that the vast majority of the product should be free, but there's better ways to monetize.
I'm not entirely sure how the platform runs (I'm currently on my linux station, I'll transfer to my windows box when I get the time). But if there's a bridge server involved that helps in content dispersion (server side cache, upload once, server distributes), then that would be the best place to have a pay gate. If you use a lot of content, you'll need to pay more or force the user's machine to distribute the content for a slower experience. Perhaps with an alert that if they paid a small monthly fee, they'd get access to this content caching because.. servers cost money to run and every user will understand that. I'm sure there's perhaps concern that new users will see the slow load times as a turn off, but there could be a cap for anything over X MB we'll force the user to distribute themselves rather than tax the servers with freeloaders. I mean, think about it, all those silly software pirates complain about buying things, but they shell top dollar for connection speed.
For some perspective, I've shelled $200 for roll20 over two years as well as purchased the $150 Fantasy Grounds ultimate license, and that's excluding the token packs and etc.. so paying money isn't really an issue. The main thing is that you're telling users to pay to use their own content, forcing them to pick up token packs or sub to get anything more than 5 custom graphics. Telling users that if they want faster content delivery that they can pay for a server to take that burden sounds a lot better in people's minds, especially for a freemium model to attract users in the first place.
I mean 5 graphics is like... just the player tokens, no room for monsters outside of the standard pack. Custom baddies will require it to either exist on the store or a sub. That would turn off a majority of Roll20 users that are accustomed to using their own content.
People are more willing to pay for add-ons then they are for a subscription fee.
You could sell themed packs.
Elves - Including:
Elven Tokens
Elven maps
Elven Magic Items
Dwarves - Including:
Dwarven Tokens
Dwarven Maps
Dwarven magic Items
......and so on.
Could also sell D&D and Pathfinder adventure packs for particular adventure paths and modules.
Could also sell themed spell effect packs pre-set to different scale's.
-- 5' scale
-- 10' scale
Fire themed
Force-magic themed
Nature themed
.....and so on.
Could also sell maps with everything set........trap animations....... fog-of-war.......door animations.
I think you'd make a lot more money with this kind of income structure.
It works for HeroLab.
I think the pay for server load model is akin to 'pay for server accelerated speed' which many people can buy into. There will be a set of people with beastly connections, but for those who don't, this ability to tap into a server content delivery network is worth every penny. The bonus of unlimited grid size is also a good seller as 50x50 units is more than enough space except for the beastliest of maps which is worth paying for.
Stay tuned.