Fantasy Grounds Unity engine

[ColinBuckler]

Will I upgrade to FGU, the answer will be Yes.

Am I concerned about the cost or the fact there is a charge for an upgrade I have to say No.

It is totally impractical to assume that any product in a comercial environment has free upgrades forever - you have to remember it costs resources/money to maintain a product. At some point FG will get retired in favor of FGU, that again is also to be expectect as it will start to look old compared to the flagship FGU and become more troublesome to maintain coding on rulesets/modules for new features in FGU which will not be compatible with FG.

The cost of the upgrade I think has several users concerned - especially those on tight budgets. I also imagine the FGU upgrades will operate similar to other products:

* Any licenses purchased after date X will be entiled to a free upgrade. This is to ensure users will not be disappointed with their recent purchase.
* Upgrade licenses will be at Y. Probably around 50% of a normal license cost. (e.g. Ultimate upgrades at $75, Normal licenses at $20).
* Introductory licences will be at Z to grow the user base for a period of 3 months. Probably around 80% of a normal license cost. (e.g. Ultimate upgrades at $120, Normal licenses at $30)
* Subscription users will just get the upgrade automatically.

Just my thoughts on pricing.

One other option to throw into the ring that has not been mentioned. SW could consider granting all existing ultimate license owners a Normal/Standard license which expires after 3 months during the introduction for them to see if they like the product and to consider their options. This could be extended to run prior to launch for beta testing ?

SW are a very professional company that actively develop their product. They are growing as a company and support for their product is one of the best in the world for a software product.

So I have faith that they will pitch the product at the correct price point making it attractuive for users to upgrade, after all the more users they upgrade the sooner FG can be retired leaving them to concentrate on FGU.

[ddavison]

<snip>On a more personal note completely unrelated to the product or services of SW, ... <snip>

Thanks for the comment. That's one of the things I like about Gen Con. It is gamers gathering to have fun and connect with other gamers.

[ddavison]

One idea that's been bouncing around in my head was replacing the Ultimate $149 option with a cheaper option ($99 or maybe even lower) but requiring an annual maintenance fee of around $10 or $15.

[LordEntrails]

One idea that's been bouncing around in my head was replacing the Ultimate $149 option with a cheaper option ($99 or maybe even lower) but requiring an annual maintenance fee of around $10 or $15.

Be aware (as you probably are) of the potential confusion this will cause.

[ddavison]

Yeah, it's a half-baked (or less thought) at this time.

[Tabulazero]

I like being able to buy my VTT for my friend to play. If I did not owned one, I would have far less friend to play with. I also like the fact that once I pay it is done and dusted. Some kind of hybrid method is a bit confusing in my own pesonal opinion.

[Bidmaron]

The other thing I'd personally wholeheartedly support is a purchase of the license and then a minor fee for step-level revisions (e.g. FG4 you have to pay a minor upgrade fee). As long as these step-level revisions are issued at a frequency that keeps the license purchase plus upgrade fee a bargain relative to the per-month fee, I doubt whether most of us would balk at that.

[Xemit]

@Bidmaron

That opens a whole new can of worms! Now the software company has to maintain each release as separate code bases for the purposes of bug fixes. For example you have users who decide to stay with FG3 and are OK with not having the new features of FG4. They do, however, still want the defects in FG3 fixed. Those who buy the upgrade get everything (upgrades and updates/patches).

And then what happens when new features require changes to DLC (that never happens) and makes the DLC incompatible with the older version?

These things can be handled, but at the cost of higher complexity and much more work. This takes resources away from new innovations, or the costs have to increase enough to pay for that work.

At the software company I worked at, we keep the current product path open, plus the last two 'releases', where we continue to provide patches (and occasionally minor features). Yearly, we release a new 'current' version and drop the oldest prior version.

For decades we only ever charged for the original purchase and all upgrades and updates were free. That was not commercially viable.

We eventually started selling maintenance contract subscriptions. The subscription provided the customer with all upgrades and updates for the whole year at no additional cost. Without the subscription, you were permitted access only to patches to your current version (for two years). Most customers buy this subscription, but not all. Some like to keep their product at a consistent and predictable level. They only upgrade when they actually need new functionality that is offered in the newest release.

We are now evaluating changing that model again. New plan is purchase product with current version and that entitles user to no additional charges on any fixes or minor features for the next two years. After the two years, there will be no more updates/fixes to the purchased version.

Now, I will admit our software is used in an industry where the user wants high reliability foremost (including timely fixes for functional defects) and generally are not too interested in new features until they are starting a new project. Projects may run for decades unchanged, except for possible minor maintenance.

[Bidmaron]

I don't see the issue. It is the model most companies, including Microsoft, used for many years, and it is simple. If you want the latest features, you had to buy the upgrade at a reduced cost. If not, you locked-in where you were. You recognized that at some point you would want data files with the new features, and you'd upgrade.

Will there be minor bugs in the version you locked-in with? Of course, but so what? I don't think I've ever owned software where there weren't bugs. If the bugs were fatal, they'd issue a hot-patch just like they do now, and that would happen before the major upgrade that cost money.

Anyway, not trying to start an argument. I think the model is viable. However, one thing I am sure of: whatever they decide, I will be right there with them. If they give me a non-subscription option, I will certainly use it, but I will do whatever they decide. The product is fantastic, and the company and support is even better. Somehow, they deserve to make money while doing it. Exactly how, I don't really care that much. I am not living from paycheck to paycheck, however, so I may not be the typical user (however, I suspect I am more typical that you might think because a good deal of those on tight budgets who gripe about spending less on a product than the pizza for two or three game sessions are on Roll20 forever).

[spite]

Much as I dislike the idea of paying again, that's entirely rooted in the fact that I am a student. Were my financial situation be different I'd not be mentioning a thing. Over the last two years I've gotten way more than my money's worth from fg when breaking down the hour per dollar, it smokes the hell out of any game or anything comparable.

The fact that you won't be losing the current iteration of FG also makes it better in my book. Unity will be enough of a core change that it necessitates another purchase.

Don't want to pay? Keep using the program that you paid for when you bought lifetime license.

It's still going to be the fg you knew you were getting. Hell, 95% of us will have seen massive increase in functionality on that original purchase as it is.