I'm wondering why D&DI has to be an online application. Why can't they allow us to pay for the software, like you would most other games, one time for the whole thing?
If that were the case, then it would be perfectly reasonable to charge for additional V-minis and other peripherals.
For the Virtual Game Table, you could use a simple Local Area Network like nearly every multiplayer game has used for a very long time. I think I'd actually prefer it to be this way. It'd be more convenient, and you could still play online with friends either through some sort of hosting service (like Blizzard's Battle.net, if WotC provided it) or through a virtual network program (like Hamachi, which by the way is an amazing program).
Just throwing the idea out there for your reactions. *drinks potion of fire resistance*
I do however feel that the magazines should be subscription based. maybe like 5-7 bucks a month. I could stomach that.
love,
malkav
I do however feel that the magazines should be subscription based. maybe like 5-7 bucks a month. I could stomach that.
That's true, and actually I would be willing to pay a full subscription fee for the magazines, but I'd like the software to be separate from it.
They are using the same business model.
You can have the software they say, but cannot use it unless you pay the connection fees.
I think it rather dumb with the other outlets for all of those components of DDI. You can buy or get for free the same things for less than a years subscription.
For those not even wanting Draogn or Dungeon they save even more. They are sorting of modelling the thing also on you pay for the online versions of the print Dragon and Dungeon, but get the tools for free with some microtransactions to boost the tools.
This means you are paying the same for online that was being paid for print copies of Draogn and Dungeon.
Sadly non-D&D players or those who don't play 4th edition will have no use for that and it hurts the concept and strengthens the idea for stand-alone software.
Like maybe people just want to use the core books and never ened the upgrades, then they don't need the constant resources spent on the upgrade.
I think it silly, and agree a one-time fee for a standalone that allows private connections better than this conenct to serer and only get about 5 hours per month of game table type thing.
You can play with online whiteboards through any of the popular chat or Im services for free already, and they don't arbitrate any D&D rules either....
Standalone one-time pay=good
I'm wondering why D&DI has to be an online application.
It isn't. The VTT, character generator, etc. all appear to be Windows desktop applications. However, they connect to online servers which handle things like marshalling, communicating information, character vaults, v-mini-purchases, etc. Same as most online games.
Why can't they allow us to pay for the software, like you would most other games, one time for the whole thing?
Possible reasons...
1. It isn't economical. A one-time $50 likely isn't enough to maintain servers, keep staff going, pay for support, etc. for what it may cost to keep this running. They may also have VOIP licensing which likely is not a one time fee, plus hosting costs, servers, IT staff, programmers, sales, etc.
2. If the true up front cost is more than a certain amount, it may discourage folks from trying it. If the true cost was even $120 (one year) up front, many would see that as too expensive to just try it.
3. PtP systems have more issues with setup, performance issues, etc. which means more support and/or most
4. PtP makes it impossible to charge for v-minis, since without a central server you can't secure purchases.
5. Companies hate liabilities. Even if they earned tens of millions up front (unlikely, but lets say)... they then have millions in ongoing costs in terms of maintaining the servers, support, staffing, etc. which won't be accounted for. On the books they can't make those millions as income and they carry around a big liability... which doesn't look good on a public company.
Why do folks pay $300/month on car payments when it is less expensive to pay $40,000 up front? Why do folks pay $50/month for their cell phones rather than a $10,000 unlimited corporate account?
If that were the case, then it would be perfectly reasonable to charge for additional V-minis and other peripherals.
And how do you secure the v-minis if information for them is stored locally? What stops someone from hacking them, tracking v-mini "files" with each other, etc. Hence the reason you have a secured server.
For the Virtual Game Table, you could use a simple Local Area Network like nearly every multiplayer game has used for a very long time. I think I'd actually prefer it to be this way. It'd be more convenient, and you could still play online with friends either through some sort of hosting service (like Blizzard's Battle.net, if WotC provided it) or through a virtual network program (like Hamachi, which by the way is an amazing program).
No. Most players would not perfer this system or else they would have already bought the many VTT already on the market. Most players want the marshalling system, simplied setup, universal VOIP, etc. They want to find new players and groups. They want a "Play Now" option which none of these systems has. Like MtGOL, like D&DOL, and like WoW.
And most online games have a monthly fee, use a server-based model, etc.
It isn't. The VTT, character generator, etc. all appear to be Windows desktop applications. However, they connect to online servers which handle things like marshalling, communicating information, character vaults, v-mini-purchases, etc. Same as most online games.
I'm aware of this, it's patently obvious. The point is you can't USE the applications offline, which is what I was talking about.
Possible reasons...
1. It isn't economical. A one-time $50 likely isn't enough to maintain servers, keep staff going, pay for support, etc. for what it may cost to keep this running. They may also have VOIP licensing which likely is not a one time fee, plus hosting costs, servers, IT staff, programmers, sales, etc.
If it's an offline application, you don't have to pay for servers or any sort of staff, save a small technical support team. VOIP may have a fee, I don't know, but I can get it from plenty of other applications (Ventrilo, Teamspeak, etc.) it doesn't need to be included in DDI.
2. If the true up front cost is more than a certain amount, it may discourage folks from trying it. If the true cost was even $120 (one year) up front, many would see that as too expensive to just try it.
Well, we don't, and probably won't, know what the upfront cost would be at this moment. The likelihood that it would be that expensive is incredibly low and video games whose budgets are in the billions of dollars still sell at $50 retail.
3. PtP systems have more issues with setup, performance issues, etc. which means more support and/or most
Um, sorry but LAN is not the same thing as PtP.
4. PtP makes it impossible to charge for v-minis, since without a central server you can't secure purchases.
Not really, you can have the V-minis install as patch-like content, keep them as hidden information. Yes, it is possible that after hours and hours of work with a hex editor, you could hack the files and get the V-minis like that. I'm sure someone or some group will do that, but that's an applicable problem with absolutely any software.
5. Companies hate liabilities. Even if they earned tens of millions up front (unlikely, but lets say)... they then have millions in ongoing costs in terms of maintaining the servers, support, staffing, etc. which won't be accounted for. On the books they can't make those millions as income and they carry around a big liability... which doesn't look good on a public company.
Why do folks pay $300/month on car payments when it is less expensive to pay $40,000 up front? Why do folks pay $50/month for their cell phones rather than a $10,000 unlimited corporate account?
Well as mentioned before, if programmed as a standalone, LAN application, the ongoing cost would be much lower, but as far as your point about why people pay in smaller, more expensive chunks:
That's not only obvious, but totally inapplicable. The reason people do that is that those purchases are enormous. Few people have $40k upfront, so they HAVE to pay it in smaller, more expensive chunks. There is no way that DDI as a standalone will amount to such an overwhelming initial cost that it would require payment financing.
And how do you secure the v-minis if information for them is stored locally? What stops someone from hacking them, tracking v-mini "files" with each other, etc. Hence the reason you have a secured server.
Answered above, but to reiterate: Yes, that's a problem. But it's basically a problem no matter what. Somehow, malicious hackers and what not can steal information and distribute it. That will be true for DDI no matter what version in comes in.
No. Most players would not perfer this system or else they would have already bought the many VTT already on the market. Most players want the marshalling system, simplied setup, universal VOIP, etc.
I have yet to find a VTT with 3D Models, lighting effects, V-minis that appear accurate to the monsters in the Monster Manual, etc. If you have found an offline, network-based version with these features, please let me know and I will purchase it and never speak on this again. I would have bought a VTT already if this were the case, but it's not. I want something D&D specific with D&D flavor, but not at $15 a month.
They want to find new players and groups. They want a "Play Now" option which none of these systems has. Like MtGOL, like D&DOL, and like WoW.
And most online games have a monthly fee, use a server-based model, etc.
I used to play WoW, trust me I understand how "online games" work. I know why MMOs have monthly fees, and it makes sense. The scope and complexity of these games is enormous, and they hand out additional free content regularly.
You're looking a little short sighted, IMO. There are other online game models that work, anyway. FPS games, for instance, offer free online play. The game publishers simply allow others to pay for a server to play on for a monthly fee. Using this model, DDI could get people to pay monthly for server access if they required it, but not force those of us that only want to use it as a visual game aid to pay a subscription fee.
Sorry again for any long windedness, this is something I feel really needs to get out there.
I'm aware of this, it's patently obvious. The point is you can't USE the applications offline, which is what I was talking about.
You can't use any VTT without being online. So, everyone already has an internet connection.
Without a marshalling system, most of the market for D&DI goes away. Few folks would buy it, as most folks would buy it and never find a game. The idea that tens of thousands of games are going to be organized via forums and friends is pretty much a non-starter or else other VTT would have large numbers of sales - they don't.
If it's an offline application, you don't have to pay for servers or any sort of staff, save a small technical support team. VOIP may have a fee, I don't know, but I can get it from plenty of other applications (Ventrilo, Teamspeak, etc.) it doesn't need to be included in DDI.
Do you have any evidence that D&DI would be economical with a set fee? If not... then it could be a possible reason as I said.
Well, we don't, and probably won't, know what the upfront cost would be at this moment. The likelihood that it would be that expensive is incredibly low and video games whose budgets are in the billions of dollars still sell at $50 retail.
First, no video game has cost a billion dollars to make. Throwing out silly numbers is not an arguement. WoW has 10 million subscribers. Other desktop games sell a few million copies.
Second, there is no reason to think that D&DI will ever sell in the millions. The core market is only 4.5 million (active D&D players). MtGOL only managed some 250,000 users out of a market of some 6 million card players, after six years of expensive marketting. There is no reason to think that D&DI could get even a this number considering it does not support "Play Now", it is harder to learn, and it relies heavily on DMs volunteering time to run games or else you can't play. Even if it did proportionally as well as MtGOL, that might only be 50,000 people are year. 50,000 x $50 = 2,500,000 - which likely isn't enough to pay for development of the system in the first year, let alone v-mini production, marketting, support staff, VOIP fees, etc.
You have no evidence that D&DI can be sold like video games or would attract the same number of players. There is every reason to think it wouldn't.
Um, sorry but LAN is not the same thing as PtP.
You mean you expect WotC to make a VTT which runs on a LAN and not across the internet?!? Must be a huge market for that. Everyone in my office - even if we could install it.
Not really, you can have the V-minis install as patch-like content, keep them as hidden information. Yes, it is possible that after hours and hours of work with a hex editor, you could hack the files and get the V-minis like that. I'm sure someone or some group will do that, but that's an applicable problem with absolutely any software.
You must be nuts. You honestly think someone wouldn't hack MtGOL if the card information was held locally? If you think folks would accept spending real money on v-minis while others are hacking there way to free everything - and lawsuits and Visa/Mastercard complaints wouldn't be screaming for refunds - you must be joking.
Well as mentioned before, if programmed as a standalone, LAN application, the ongoing cost would be much lower, but as far as your point about why people pay in smaller, more expensive chunks:
Again, it wouldn't be D&DI. It wouldn't have a marshalling system, character vault, v-mini's, etc. All these need servers - as does downloads, new tiles, new v-mini's, support, patches, etc.
If you want to buy something without these... there are many VTT on the market. They aren't selling millions of copies, so I'm not sure why you think D&DI would?
That's not only obvious, but totally inapplicable. The reason people do that is that those purchases are enormous. Few people have $40k upfront, so they HAVE to pay it in smaller, more expensive chunks. There is no way that DDI as a standalone will amount to such an overwhelming initial cost that it would require payment financing.
And do you have any evidence of how much to costs to make the software, v-minis, support, marketting, etc. such that one could just give it away for $50? Even if it only cost $5 million to make and $1 million a year to support and market (a joke, but hey...) do you have any evidence that WotC is going to sell 200,000 copies to break even after say 5 years?
What if the cost was $10 million + $3 million/year for five years, and they only expected to sell 50,000 copies? That would be $500/copy just to break even. If that was the true cost, wouldn't folks rather pay $10/month for five years rather than $500 up front?
I have yet to find a VTT with 3D Models, lighting effects, V-minis that appear accurate to the monsters in the Monster Manual, etc. If you have found an offline, network-based version with these features, please let me know and I will purchase it and never speak on this again. I would have bought a VTT already if this were the case, but it's not. I want something D&D specific with D&D flavor, but not at $15 a month.
The fact that you won't pay for something does not change its real cost.
I suppose you won't play the table-top game without real minis? Well... I hate to burst your bubble... but most folks are happy playing with dice, tokens, etc. to represent things. There is no real evidence that anyone would really care if they were using v-minis or that they wouldn't play the game if they had to use tokens. There is evident (real life players) that tokens work absolutely fine in game play.
The fact is that WotC won't have millions of subscribers and it will spend tens of millions marketting, supporting, programming, making v-minis, servers (even if only for downloads), etc. Their pricing reflect it.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any business model in which the software is $50 and can cover its costs, but it needs to be based on some realistic numbers. Merely starting that "Of course a million people would pay $50 for a non-server-based VTT." is a complete non-starter since VTTs already exist using this model and they didn't sell a million copies. Try a few thousands.
You can't use any VTT without being online. So, everyone already has an internet connection.
Ok, I guess I'm not making this clear enough: that's my point. I think there SHOULD be a way of using one offline, and it is most certainly possible.
Without a marshalling system, most of the market for D&DI goes away. Few folks would buy it, as most folks would buy it and never find a game. The idea that tens of thousands of games are going to be organized via forums and friends is pretty much a non-starter or else other VTT would have large numbers of sales - they don't.
Well, that's not necessarily true, although it's a decent point. It's hard to say what the influence of an "official" D&D VTT would do though.
Do you have any evidence that D&DI would be economical with a set fee? If not... then it could be a possible reason as I said.
Um, EVERY non online-dependent video game?
First, no video game has cost a billion dollars to make. Throwing out silly numbers is not an arguement. WoW has 10 million subscribers. Other desktop games sell a few million copies.
Yes, that was my mistake, mainly due to me typing in haste. However the average is between 1 and 20 million. Based on the simplicity of the DDI software (no rules enforcement, animations, etc.), I would probably put it at the lower end. (If you want a reference, Wikipedia FTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_development)
Second, there is no reason to think that D&DI will ever sell in the millions. The core market is only 4.5 million (active D&D players). MtGOL only managed some 250,000 users out of a market of some 6 million card players, after six years of expensive marketting. There is no reason to think that D&DI could get even a this number considering it does not support "Play Now", it is harder to learn, and it relies heavily on DMs volunteering time to run games or else you can't play. Even if it did proportionally as well as MtGOL, that might only be 50,000 people are year. 50,000 x $50 = 2,500,000 - which likely isn't enough to pay for development of the system in the first year, let alone v-mini production, marketting, support staff, VOIP fees, etc.
You have no evidence that D&DI can be sold like video games or would attract the same number of players. There is every reason to think it wouldn't.
Perhaps, but IMO MtGO's policies are not designed well. But that's a different topic for a different time.
Let's take those numbers then:
250,000 users out of a supposed 6 million players: about 4%
(slightly more but hey)
4% of 4.5 million users: 180,000 users.
(Much higher than your 50,000, apparently I'm not the only one capable of giving rash, incorrect numbers, but I'll assume that, like me, that was a mistake)
At $50 a pop: $9,000,000.
So given that the complexity of the D&DI software is fairly low, it's reasonable to assume the development cost should be low. This is hard to estimate without good numbers but I'll put it at the top of the lower fourth of the average development cost, at approximately $5,000,000.
Now that leaves a $4,000,000 profit.
Then we'll add subscription based servers, V-mini transactions, etc. There's no way to know how much this is, but considering tons of other games offer this model, and it works, it makes sense that it could probably work for D&DI.
Good enough?
You mean you expect WotC to make a VTT which runs on a LAN and not across the internet?!? Must be a huge market for that. Everyone in my office - even if we could install it.
I didn't say NOT across the internet, but I want it to be POSSIBLE to use offline.
You must be nuts. You honestly think someone wouldn't hack MtGOL if the card information was held locally? If you think folks would accept spending real money on v-minis while others are hacking there way to free everything - and lawsuits and Visa/Mastercard complaints wouldn't be screaming for refunds - you must be joking.
Um, I don't mean to be obvious, but this is true for every piece of software ever. It is easy and simple to download games for free of all kinds. It usually only takes a few days for a pirate group to get a full version of a brand new retail game out. Yet, shockingly, every game company in the world isn't going bankrupt. Why? Because a lot of people are willing to pay for a legitimate copy in order to keep the franchises and brands they love going.
Again, it wouldn't be D&DI. It wouldn't have a marshalling system, character vault, v-mini's, etc. All these need servers - as does downloads, new tiles, new v-mini's, support, patches, etc.
If you want to buy something without these... there are many VTT on the market. They aren't selling millions of copies, so I'm not sure why you think D&DI would?
Apparently this misconception of my position runs deep. I do NOT want it to be strictly offline. I want the option to be there for those of us who want to use the tools, but not WotC's server space (and therefore have to pay for it). For those that do, the option of paying a subscription to host a server would be there, and the marshalling system, etc. would still be there, still setting D&DI apart from other VTTs.
And do you have any evidence of how much to costs to make the software, v-minis, support, marketting, etc. such that one could just give it away for $50? Even if it only cost $5 million to make and $1 million a year to support and market (a joke, but hey...) do you have any evidence that WotC is going to sell 200,000 copies to break even after say 5 years?
What if the cost was $10 million + $3 million/year for five years, and they only expected to sell 50,000 copies? That would be $500/copy just to break even. If that was the true cost, wouldn't folks rather pay $10/month for five years rather than $500 up front?
Okay, come on now, you know I don't have the numbers, but neither do you. My speculation is as good as yours. If the player base is as small as you say it is, the marketing won't nearly be as high. Heck I haven't seen much advertising for D&DI outside of this website and a YouTube video or two. Not exactly high production cost there. Also, I'm not suggesting they give away V-minis. I'm saying they should charge for them with the model I'm suggesting. Finally, I've already been over the brokenness of your 50,000, not to mention the likelihood of the initial and continuing costs being that high for such a small player base is incredibly low.
The fact that you won't pay for something does not change its real cost.
I was using myself as an example of a consumer. I'm not the only one, as evidenced by some of the replies above. Not to mention the many who I'm sure didn't feel the compulsion to type a message here. Whatever the "real" cost is, if not enough people pay for it, it's going down the drain.
I suppose you won't play the table-top game without real minis? Well... I hate to burst your bubble... but most folks are happy playing with dice, tokens, etc. to represent things. There is no real evidence that anyone would really care if they were using v-minis or that they wouldn't play the game if they had to use tokens. There is evident (real life players) that tokens work absolutely fine in game play.
Well, despite your judgment, I actually play the tabletop game and use dice and tokens all the time. I buy an occasional pack of minis because they are fun to have, but I don't require them.
I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but if you look around there's a lot of people who are excited about V-minis because they are cool, they give a very nice visual adding to the game experience, and you can buy the ones you want, a massive weakness in the plastic minis. There's a ton of evidence for it, look around the forums.
The fact is that WotC won't have millions of subscribers and it will spend tens of millions marketting, supporting, programming, making v-minis, servers (even if only for downloads), etc. Their pricing reflect it.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any business model in which the software is $50 and can cover its costs, but it needs to be based on some realistic numbers. Merely starting that "Of course a million people would pay $50 for a non-server-based VTT." is a complete non-starter since VTTs already exist using this model and they didn't sell a million copies. Try a few thousands.
Realistic numbers eh? Well I may have mistakenly said billions, but let's look at the above statement (since I'm tired of rehashing the incorrectness of your 50,000 players number)
Tens of millions of dollars eh? Well considering the highest cost for game development is approximately $20 mil. (all inclusive) it looks like your suggesting that D&DI is going to be on par in programming requirements, complexity, modeling, etc. with a game like Mass Effect. THAT is a completely absurd statement.
My argument went far beyond your one-lined oversimplification. I've given reasons and evidence to support my claim. I gave a bad number, for that I apologize. I give the realistic numbers here. I still find that this could easily work. Perhaps I'm not the one who needs number checking?