Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 432
|
Quote:
In fact, when I told her about the results LWD have given us, she basically bounced when she heard that Journals were up there. I doubt my other players completed the survey, to be honest, but that's two respondents I know of who both ranked Journals highly, and only one of us rated Calendars. I can basically say that if my supposition is correct, then "player desire" had a drastic impact on the survey results, and is part of the reason I just can't complain about calendars not getting love for a while - since RP is a social activity, it makes sense for RW to offer something to both sides of the GM's screen, even though the bulk of the work happens on one side. And, frankly, if I'm allowed to use hindsight, I think I'd agree with Journals being more important than Calendars (won't stop me asking), simply because it offers greater engagement from more people. It's the same reasoning that says player-focused books sell more than GM-focused ones: If you have 1 GM and 4 players, that's 5 potential sales, because they're all players in one way or another. But a GM-only product is only one potential sale. Chief Calendar Champion Chemlak Join the unofficial Realm Works IRC channel! Join #realm-works |
|
#111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 432
|
Quote:
Can't wait to hear what this idea is, Rob. Outside-the-box can be a cracking good way to solve problems. Chief Calendar Champion Chemlak Join the unofficial Realm Works IRC channel! Join #realm-works |
|
#112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, all of this means that Rob is going to be spending even MORE time away from his IDE. |
|
#113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,458
|
|
#114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Oak Harbor, WA, USA
Posts: 616
|
Quote:
"Key Realm Works FeaturesI am willing to say that "Conveniently manage game notes and preparation tasks with full linking to game content," would be the Journal, but this feature was listed AFTER the calendar feature. You guys have put a lot of work on the calendar feature and users wanting/needing the calendar feature may not, obviously, be the majority who responded to the survey but they have been the most vocal. All those involved deserve to have the feature completed. If not them then at least for Kickstarter backers who were told it was a "Key Realm Works Features" (emphasis my own). In my opinion what was listed on the Kickstarter should be at the top with everything listed below. Journals and Content Market was not featured in the Kickstarter. Web-Based Access was addressed in the FAQ as a feature that wasn't a high priority. That FAQ even ended with, "We've designed Realm Works to meet the future demands of gamers, but we're doing it without sacrificing the needs of gamers today." Not having calendars at the top of the list is sacrificing the gamers who supported the dream through Kickstarter and expected the feature of multiple calendars. |
|
#115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 1,520
|
Quote:
Quote:
One other thing: Quote:
I don't know how much your team was affected by self-selection (50ish Beta team members should be those who were willing to pay many times the cost of the app for the privilege, according to the Kickstarter) but I hope it helped. Last edited by Parody; February 6th, 2015 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Adding more stuff. |
|||
#116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dayton, Nevada--USA
Posts: 129
|
The issue I have with the lack of the calendar feature (and this is from memory) is when the kickstarter was released in the beta version we were told that the calendar was removed but all the code was in place for it. They (LW) did not have a good visual interface to make is better streamlined.
I do not know enough about programming, did they lose all the code or is all the code that already exists within the program no longer applicable (new function made the old code obsolete)? As I stated in a previous post, I am not using Realm Works right now as it really is not a big help to me. I tried to use it as a 'this is what happened' or (insert James Earl Jones's voice here) "Last time with our floundering hero's..." and I even bought the players 10 pack. I gave away 3-5 of them and after 2-3 weeks, no one that I know of had used it. That might be a good question to ask, "How many players are using the players edition?". |
#117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 1,520
|
The same calendar code runs the single calendar currently exposed (the Gregorian Calendar) so I doubt anything has made it obsolete. They still want to make a better interface for creating new calendars.
Last edited by Parody; February 5th, 2015 at 09:38 PM. |
#118 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 865
|
Quote:
GM version (even without continual cloud access, in which point player version is pointless) costs a minimum of 5 times as much as the players version (with bulk pricing, the players version is even cheaper). So in the example given in the previous post, 1 GM at 50.00, vs 4 players at 10.00 each (assuming no bulk, less if they purchased in bulk (as low as 25 for the four players total)) there is no argument about how LWD is making the bulk of the income from. This is foremost, a GM tool and is priced accordingly. From a business model perception, it makes more sense to weight the GM survey results much higher than the player version. And of course, unlike a product like hero lab, the player version depends on the GM version. The player version is worthless without a GM using it, but the GM version is not worthless without players using it. So if a group of say 5 people, 1 GM and 4 players all had the product, all took the survey, would each person be an "equal" vote, or would the gm get more votes. I would suggest that it only makes sense if the GM gets a minimum of 3 votes... If it was done that way, thats great. If it wasnt then you are likely getting a very skewed result. If entire groups use the product, you are going to have singinifcantly more player versions than GM versions, but that still doesnt equate to actual usage of a product. Unlike a product like HeroLab, a pure decromatic survey doesnt make sense for a product like this. There are absolutely "more important" and "less important" users. LWD is a fairly long lived company, so I would assume they know this, and I'm going to assume all of this was taken into account. I hope I'm right. Last edited by mirtos; February 6th, 2015 at 05:11 AM. |
|
#119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Oak Harbor, WA, USA
Posts: 616
|
Quote:
|
|
#120 |
|
|