I honestly hope they don't offer extra licenses. With an online model it is really not needed, unless you are trying to steal from LWD by buying 1 copy and distribute licenses to the rest of your gaming group.

I am repeating info from the Official HLO FAQ. Of course some people will steal or find a way to exploit it. But many others want it for using in the correct way which is to not be required to have multiple accounts for people living in the same house.

I think that's just an extension of the HLC history. They sold extra licenses and so many people have purchased them that they want to offer some value to the people that transfer over.

I just hope they update their terms and agreements to allow the DM to purchase the licenses and share with their table. That just makes sense given a lot of DMs will purchase the technology they want their players to use at their table.

no we are asking for concurrent licensing I know i covered this in another post but they could make a group product make it cost 60 dollars to purchase and 9 dollars a month for continues access for a group of six (25 percent discount on access.) the system logs the email addresses you want to assign and only those email addresses can access. which is a legitimate way to deal with sort of thing ... you don't believe me look at adobe, google,dropbox,and microsoft they all offer similar options.

While I have no firm answers for you at the moment, we are currently discussing group licensing and how we might handle it. If we do implement it, it will be down the road a ways. :)

I have no problems with an online subscription model ... if online works. I play Starfinder once every two weeks on Tuesday night, and last night I couldn't use my character. We had a late outage notification, and zero explanation of why. If we're paying for an online model, I'd like to see a certain level of online service.

I agree with this statement. Paying for online means that certain usage levels should be expected. Outages and planned maintenance should be well communicated as well.

I absolutely understand your frustration Zarberg! You can learn more about what happened on Tuesday here.

While this was an isolated incident, once we get offline view properly implemented it should help eliminate some of the frustration for maintenance times. Also, be sure to keep an eye on our announcements area as we do post when we will be doing our scheduled maintenance.

As you guys move more and more into the "Online" model, I hope you guys grow and learn. Hopefully we'll start hearing words like Load Balancing, Disaster Recovery, and Multi-site High Availability.

I don't necessarily mind monthly "server" fees but in this day and age, I don't want to hear about maintenance windows. We're spoiled now and 0 downtime is somewhat expected.

I know this was a one off with your provider but still "avoidable".

PS Please don't take this as an angry post, I'm not. Read this as a friendly post as encouragement and hope that your experience will be growing over the next year as you manage your 24/7 server farm. :)

Even with load-balancing and high-availability, up-time is guaranteed up to a certain number of nines. Let's say it's five nines, 99.999% up-time. There's still a 0.001% chance of things going down.

Disaster recovery, if we're separating that out from multi-site high-availability, have recovery-point and recovery-time parameters, meaning that things won't necessarily be back up instantly, and won't necessarily be back up with up-to-the-second data, or even up-to-the-minute.

This shouldn't have happened. They've admitted that. They've isolated the issue. They've addressed it.