|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 2,294
|
+1 Shadow.
The last year has been really damaging to LWD's reputation. I have also received almost weekly messages questioning the health of LWD. People wanting to know how risky it is to invest in your software with concerns that the company is on the brink of going under. I know you guys have had a really tough year, don't need to speak to anyone to see that writing on the wall. But it has been handled in a really poor way. Communication dropped off and you went silent. Just need to look at the Newsletter page to really see that. You hired a 'communication' manager which was the perfect opportunity to start fixing this but then he moved into manning the support mailbox and never communicated anything. At this stage I don't know if Rone knows any more than us as all we see him do is repeated known information and post his attempt to calm the masses with RPG tid bits. As a company who... Quote:
While we are on feedback.
And Rob. It's good to hear from you. Realm Works - Community Links Realm Work and Hero Lab Videos Ream Works Facebook User Group CC3+ Facebook User Group D&D 5e Community Pack - Contributor General Hero Lab Support & Community Resources D&D 5e Community Pack - Install Instructions / D&D 5e Community Pack - Log Fault / D&D 5e Community Pack - Editor Knowledge Base Obsidian Obsidian TTRPG Tutorials |
|
#1 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
Quote:
Quote:
I will make sure that BJ sees your list when she gets back, and we'll take it under advisement. |
||
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 216
|
Rob,
Thank you for your engagement! We may not agree on everything, but we can probably agree that the discussion is good and keeps all sides more informed (I think you're reading more about that above) <grin> Flyteach |
#3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 12
|
Thank you for taking the time to provide more detailed explanations. As well, I appreciate the consolidation of this discussion to one thread. I have some comments/questions/critique. Know that I do so with the upmost respect in the event that the phrasing does not read that way.
2. While I understand the need to innovate and add new features. Many of those features aren't things I would use. I use HLC for PC generation, sometimes GMing. While I recognize that having shared starship HUDs or similair group features could be useful. Most of my games have a hybrid of play styles (some use paper/pen, some use a free community excel sheet, some use hero lab, etc.). Even now, trying to open up someone else's HLC file when they have different packages throws off errors in HLC. I just feel like these communal features are better/easier to track ad hoc on a group-by-group basis. Alternatively, some of this functionality is already offered via products like roll20/fantasy grounds. 3. So would you be willing to build in a defined fixed rate as part of consumer's contracts for switching to HLO? Perhaps establish a 5 year rate with a set maximum you are allowed to increase the rate at the end of the 5 years on a per annum basis (e.g., $20.00 per year for 5 years with the right to increase the annual rate by 5% every year there after as the market requires?). Would a similair agreement be put into place for content prices? 5. You've made a decision to increase your overheads against the forecast of new user base that you will obtain. Its a bit of a slippery slope. It would be one thing to offer a product in two platforms. But at this point you aren't doing that. You are only offering new products in the new platform, which leaves your existing base in an awkward position (many of whom have asked for you to continue supporting your existing platform for this new content). Many of us might be more understanding if we knew what the increase in market was (e.g., 25,000 users to 50,000 users in 3 years) that drove you to this descision. Have you 'thrown' the baby out of the bathwater to appease 10% of the base who want to use an android phone or are you actually going to make a much better/more sustainable business from this decision? Have you guys developed off ramps for your 'road map' if you discover the change is not as popular as your forecast? 6. This approach would work better if you hadn't moved to a server heavy platform for providing services. The suggestion is implying that if your company was doing poorly financially that the fan base would be willing to support you by accepting increase content cost. However, if the subscription fee is only to pay for the addition of your servers and you aren't making money off of that change (except some risk based margin for server maintenance that might not get used) then you have only increased customer cost as any other business upsets will still require content cost increases to pay for your companies increased costs. This hasn't saved anyone money or made a positive impact on budget conscious customers who would just wait slightly longer to afford the more expensive content package. It sounds more like you are making profit off of the subscription in addition to the increase in overhead due to your platform switch. That means that you have made a business decision that precludes the suggested solution being equitable. That would be all acceptable if new content was being released in both HCL and HLO platforms, but that isn't true. As it stands if your existing customer base wants to use your product for the 2e playtest or Starfinder, they HAVE to move to this new business model even if it doesn't provide any feature addition that they would use. This is a big complaint of HLC users. That those bells and whistles, the server cost, etc. is being treated as a catch all reason for why you need a subscription fee. That doesn't feel completely honest. It is like saying that the new Android phone generation/model has now made the phone 20% louder. It is indeed an improvement. But is it a improvement that warrants purchasing a new phone and did we really need that upgrade? Or is this improvement a means to pushing a new product cycle? 7. So one of your presuppositions is "internet is or will be ubiquitous' for all your user base. It indeed makes it difficult to discuss the validity of this presupposition if you are not willing to state that it is wrong or that it is wrong for a non-negligible portion of your customer base. Clearly, from your forums, my small sample size of hero lab users, and my own anecdotal experience this presupposition is not fundamentally or necessarily true. This presupposition, I expect, will be the largest reason for any loss of customers going forward unless you commit to maintaining both platforms (timelines, milestones, etc.) 8. I applaud you designing proactively to minimize bandwidth in the future to help with 'bad' internet connections. That is good design and something you should do for all of your products. That being said, it doesn't address the presupposition in item 7. and fails to address the main concern. Performance at one convention is not ubiquitous with experiences at other conventions (or at homes/gaming areas) that take place internationally at sites with a varying degree of integrated telecommunication services. A online only model can't address this issue and your presupposition in 7. states that it is a issue that does not exist. 9. That is good to hear you say. However, that critique is purely a risk based hypothetical. Whereas steps can be taken to ensure subscription or content prices are not increased, consumers can't assess whether a private company will fail in the near or long term. The critique still stands that the customer base would not readily be able to recover content/service because everything is server side. One would expect there would be a lot of warning prior to a failed private business. But anyone who has investigated buying a custom wood gaming table knows the story of how quickly Geek Chic went out of business. This critique is based on the hidden unknown risk to customers buying into a long term subscription based product. 10. Let me be the first to say that 95% of what I want from HLC is a PC generator/character sheet for use in live play (spells, conditions, etc. included). If GM aids like campaign encounters can be added then that will be welcomed too. But if all you can achieve is a port that gives me the same reliable, stable, quick, and efficient PC generator then I accept that ANY other features (shared space ships, GM trackers for parties, etc.) can only be offered online! Perfect. That is the dual platform support that I want. Strip those 'bells and whistles' that I won't ever use and give me the HLC features for those new RPG rulesets. We understand that you have a small company and have put focus on HLO. I also recognize that you have not definitively stated that HLC is dead or will never have support. But you need to recognize that if the generation of new content (new rulesets, not adaption of existing content into pre-existing rule sets) is solely focused on a different platform, then you have somewhat abandoned the old platform. As HLC waits in limbo for you to decide if we are worth getting the new RPG rulesets it will still 'feel' like you have abandoned HLC. Perhaps even just increasing company communication can help. I only found out that the 2e playtest was on HLO by reading strange 2e posts in the forums. I didn't realize you were even supporting 2e until after you had thrown something out there. Again, it makes HLC feel somewhat abandoned. 11. Again it is good to hear you say this. But instead of more features, I want to use your existing product (HLC) to explore these new rule sets. My players and I haven't picked up Starfinder largely because it isn't being supported by you in HLC. That is a powerful sentiment. Your product is so integrated with our use of RPGs that we would rather be left in the dust (or move to other supported systems, like 5e) than play the new systems we actually want to play. My warning to you is that this likely won't last forever. If someone enters the market place with a comparable product, I think a lot of frustrated HLC users will move. Although, likely not feasible, I would much rather that your company had expanded your team to fully support both platforms than move 80-90% of your support to the new platform with no clear roadmap as to how the old platform would receive these new/exciting rule-sets. 12. So while a snapshot is nice. I think a lot of headaches or complaints could be removed if the snapshot was also minimally editable. That would mean allowing a 'lite' version of your server to be run client side as an offline application. But if I was in a no/bad service area I could at least modify bonuses via things like spells or conditions. Until then, the loss of connectivity won't be solved by a 'snap shot' because it basically means I am stuck in paper and pencil mode during active play. That means the average user needs to really understand their character and the mechanics behind them and the 'crutch/aid' that your program is providing is immediately nullified. Please keep moving forward with your solution, but if the snap shot can't achieve some of the stated goals above, it won't be fit for purpose for the strongest critiques of HLO. Some might even be willing to pay a little bit more to have that lite server app so we have assurances of uninterrupted offline play (although some might describe that as extortion). Again, I thank you for taking the time to have this discussion. I really appreciate having this much voice as a customer and think it reflects very highly on your company. It is part of the reason that I want to remain a loyal/committed customer to your company (even though we currently disagree on HLO). |
#4 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
Quote:
I also find it intriguing that you mention Roll20 – an internet-only tool – in a post that seems to not be in favor of an internet-based solution for HL. Quote:
The only option that I can think of at the moment – and that might make sense – is to give users the option to pay for a longer period of service up front at a further discounted price. There may be other possibilities, but that’s one that came to mind. Quote:
With respect to discussing the data upon which we based our decision, and the tradeoffs we assessed in coming to this decision, please see the reply I gave @flyteach at the top of post #9 in this thread. As for “off ramps”, there are a few that we’ve identified in our planning. Depending on how things unfold, we can employ one or more of them, as needed. Quote:
Quote:
There is definitely a downside to this. In the process of switching over to the new product model, it is likely that there will be some number of existing users that choose not to embrace the new model – and, in some cases, can’t. Is that ideal? Of course not. It’s an unfortunate reality of the situation. However, if we stick with the old model, we’ll lose a different – and we believe much larger – set of users as they abandon us because we don’t support the devices they choose to use in their games. We have to pick our poison, as we sadly can’t “do it all”. Quote:
Quote:
I’m sure the thinking is that a suitable hack could be instituted to get HLClassic working. Well, that might prove a bit difficult, as there have been very capable hackers who’ve tried to crack HLClassic (and Army Builder) over the years. To my knowledge, none have yet succeeded – one who proclaimed success didn’t actually come close to succeeding. So allow me to present a counterpoint. Let’s say there was one product that ran on a server that was continuing to pay for itself and another product for which the revenue stream completely stopped. The first product could be allowed to continue operating in its current state for a very long time. The second product would be losing money the next day after the revenue stopped and would make no sense to continue operating the servers. In this example, the first product is HLOnline, which could be kept running pretty readily if the hosting revenue continued to come in and cover the costs of running it. The second product is HLClassic, for which all revenues would stop the moment that new sales of content stopped. From this standpoint, I view HLOnline with the separate hosting fee as the vastly safer avenue for any consumer to prefer. Quote:
It’s absolutely not a question of deciding if you are “worth” getting the new game systems on HLClassic. It’s the harsh reality of severely limited resources, balancing our priorities, and practicality. Increasing company communication is definitely an option – this was echoed above by Tim and Josh. Quote:
Writing a capable character creation tool is not easy. In the 12 years that Hero Lab has existed, there have been numerous tools that sought to usurp it. The only commercial one that I’m aware is still standing is D&DBeyond, and it’s had its share of difficulties, even though it’s funded with an annual budget many times larger than ours. Creating an initial tool is vastly easier than ensuring the tool can evolve with the complexities and vagaries of the game system. And a tool that supports games like Starfinder and Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex to write than for D&D5e. Consequently, if another tool enters the market, I like to think we’ll be able to see it coming and have the opportunity to make adjustments if it’s something to worry about. Quote:
Thanks! |
||||||||||
#5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you allow me to make one cynical 'comment' then it would be this: "At this rate the PFS Additional Resources update (usually a delay of 1-2 quarters) for these products will be pushed out faster than you guys" We all know that your staff are being utilized on HLO. But actions speak louder than words and right now your actions are pointing towards a huge absence of support for HLC. The optics of your decisions do not align with the statements of intention from staff and I think you guys need to find away to lessen the gap. |
|||
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 2,294
|
Apologies for putting you in a position where you felt it necessary to tell us the details of your personal issues Rob. That was not my intention at all. I just felt it was necessary to ensure you are aware of the impact of the last year as the silence is being talked about in places outside of LWD circles and is impacting on your brand and consumers faith in your products.
I am really happy to hear you are coming out the end of it and wish you nothing but the best wishes. Realm Works - Community Links Realm Work and Hero Lab Videos Ream Works Facebook User Group CC3+ Facebook User Group D&D 5e Community Pack - Contributor General Hero Lab Support & Community Resources D&D 5e Community Pack - Install Instructions / D&D 5e Community Pack - Log Fault / D&D 5e Community Pack - Editor Knowledge Base Obsidian Obsidian TTRPG Tutorials |
#7 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago, IL (USA)
Posts: 10,729
|
Yeah I totally feel I caused this and I am SO sorry right now. I really need to learn to just shut my damn mouth....
Hero Lab Resources: Pathfinder - d20pfsrd and Pathfinder Pack Setup 3.5 D&D (d20) - Community Server Setup 5E D&D - Community Server Setup Hero Lab Help - Hero Lab FAQ, Editor Tutorials and Videos, Editor & Scripting Resources. Created by the community for the community - Realm Works kickstarter backer (Alpha Wolf) and Beta tester.- d20 HL package volunteer editor. |
#8 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
Tim/Josh:
If you guys didn't ask the questions, then I'm sure someone else would have. So it's water under the bridge now... |
#9 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
NOTE TO EVERYONE:
As valuable as this dialog is, I also have a ton of development work I need to do. I spent a huge chunk of the last few days writing the initial post and responding to all the questions here. So I now need to focus on all my development tasks. I think that the most common and pressing questions/concerns have been expressed and answered in the dialog above. So I'll return here to answer further questions in probably a few days. Thanks for your patience! |
#10 |
|
|