Pricing of Web Version for Players

[Davout_1806]

Could someone clarify this for me? Obviously work is being done on a web version. My question is, will there be a free non-trial web version for players?

Thanks.

 

[MNBlockHead]

If the DM subscribes to the cloud service the players will have access to a free Web version. If you want to share your realm with your players without subscribing to cloud services, the player will need to purchase a players version.

The Web version is limited in the amount of content that can be shared. You will not be able to share the entire realm. The exact limitations on the free Web version are to be announced.

For more information, read the following thread:

http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=52844&highlight=players+version

 

[Viking2054]

If you want to share your realm with your players without subscribing to cloud services, the player will need to purchase a players version.

I don't think you can share your realm at all without a "cloud service subscription" at least after the subscription that comes with the initial purchase runs out. My understanding is that the DM in order to do any sharing is going to have to be able to sync to the cloud service.

Unless your talking about Player View at the table with two monitors hooked to the GM's computer.

 

[the_redbeard]

Personally, I'm hoping that they'll be able to do everything EXCEPT enter their own journals. Otherwise I'm starting to get buyer's remorse, personally. There's a lot RW does that no other program does but I'm not sure how much I need it.

 

[MNBlockHead]

@Viking2054, you are correct. I rushed out my response without taking time to put my thinking cap on. Without a cloud subscription, the only way you can share is through the integrated player view functionality (displaying player view on another monitor during hte game). In the developer's words, from the thread I linked to above:

5. Access to anything via the web will fundamentally require cloud service. This applies to GMs wanting to access their content via the web and players accessing revealed content via the web. Without the cloud service, GMs will have access via the desktop application and can move their data between computers through the use of backups. In addition, the only means of sharing content with players without cloud service is through the integrated Player View mechanism.

 

[MNBlockHead]

@the_redbeard, if you bought RW primarily as a way to share information with your players, then yes, I think that the cloud subscription cost is rather steep if you are limited in what you can share with the players. The limitations should be on the players. Give players who buy the software cool tools, including journals, that makes them want to buy the player version rather than just accessing content with the free Web version.

It doesn't matter much to me as I didn't buy RW to share content. I bought it to make world building and campaign management easier. None of my players have the player version.

I think that this is LWD's challenge. How to make the player version compelling enough that players want to pay for it. Limiting the Web version, especially considering the cost of the cloud services to the GM, as a way to make the player view more attractive, seems shortsighted to me.

But I don't want to leave on a negative note. The developers have been VERY open with the community. They are still hammering out details, so we don't have all the answer yet, but overall, I'm optimistic. I want them to find the right balance and make lots of money so that they can continue developing a product I've come to rely on.

 

[Davout_1806]

It doesn't matter much to me as I didn't buy RW to share content. I bought it to make world building and campaign management easier. ...

I bought it for both. It's easy to organize content for my campaign and easy to mark what to share. But if I can't share everything via the web version (I was aware of the need to pay for the cloud service, which I'm willing to do.) I have to agree with the_redbeard about buyer's remorse.

Thanks for the link MNBlockHead, I'll go read that.

 

[Acenoid]

Well hopefully you could pass the realm data around... and the player version just displays the necessary files? But... no probably that won't work

 

[AEIOU]

Data storage and serving costs money. If you want to share data with players, it makes sense that you need to pay for the cloud service in order to do so. How else will bandwidth and server maintenance be paid for?

 

[Davout_1806]

Data storage and serving costs money. If you want to share data with players, it makes sense that you need to pay for the cloud service in order to do so. How else will bandwidth and server maintenance be paid for?

Who are you asking your question of? If it's towards me, please refer to http://forums.wolflair.com/showpost.php?p=216460&postcount=7 where I explicitly state "(I was aware of the need to pay for the cloud service, which I'm willing to do.)"

 

[Viking2054]

If your players have a problem paying the fee for the Player Edition then they will be stuck with access to your current story arc as far as I know. It is a one time fee on the players part, so I don't see an issue. They can choose free but limited or one time purchase with full access. Only the GM needs the GM version and the cloud subscription.

It has also sounded to me that the web based version will have two tiers. Players that create a login for the free version and players that have purchased a player or GM license and login using those credentials. The GM license may even grant greater access and abilities then the paid player license, at least for their own realms.

 

[Davout_1806]

OK let me explain my situation. I purchased the GM license (obviously), 4 Player Edition licenses for my local group, and plan to pay for the cloud service. Its my campaign so I didn't want to expect my players (who may or may not have disposable income) to pay for those licenses. That's just how I am.

But if I start an open table on-line campaign, I don't want to pay for a license for someone who might join once. Nor do I want someone to pay for license, then discover my campaign just isn't compatible with their style and leave after 1 session. Sure they have PE license and can use it for other campaign - if they join with another GM who is is using RW.

So for my local group I'm set. But for the other, maybe not. For the free version I don't need the players to be able to add their own journals, etc. But I would hope to be able to share everything I enter, basically read-only access. If not, I'd like to know what limitations will exists.

Please don't take this as a rant against the developers. I know first hand the difficulty of developing software.

But is it too much to ask if there will be limitation on sharing regarding a free PE web version? I do not want to enter my stuff then discover I can't share it and have to find another means. Because then it's more than money it's my time and will be become

Thank you.

 

[Davout_1806]

If your players have a problem paying the fee for the Player Edition then they will be stuck with access to your current story arc as far as I know.

I'm sorry I'm confused. What does that mean, "current story arc"? Only 1 realm?

Thanks

 

[Dark Lord Galen]

The way realm works is it is setup by the DM (GM if you prefer) being able to choose to setup multiple "realms" (sub file databases) under their account.

With that ability, you could choose to setup different story arcs or even entirely different games. One example could be the realm account owner (DM) could choose to set up a D&D type game world (realm) utilizing 3.5 edition with house rules , another using pathfinder , a 3rd using 5th edition , or even an entirely different game system such as Star Wars setting, traveler ,or whatever and not have the information from one setting poliute the others.

He might choose to do this for various reasons such as not all players play in all his varied realms (game worlds) would be just one possibility.

Hope that clarifies.
DLG

 

[Viking2054]

Well, good for you for ponying up the money for your regular gaming group.

I can understand not wanting to pay for one off games at a convention or a gaming store. But I also think the hassle of getting everyone's e-mail and sending out invites for a one-off game at a gaming store, convention or some other location isn't worth my trouble. I'd just describe things to them in game and if they can remember the stuff then good for them. If they can't, then they can't. I also wouldn't bother with bringing a second monitor to hook up to show them the player view. Those kind of games are about the GM having access to the information he needs and the descriptions he needs to read off to the players. At least that's my opinion.

As a side note, for the online games such as Play by Post or Virtual Table Top, I can see not wanting to pay for remote players that may not become regulars. I'd just tell them that I was using Realm Works to disseminate my game world information and if they want to pony up for more access then they can, if they don't then tell them how to use the web based app once it becomes available. The onerous is on them and not you, again in my opinion.

 

[MNBlockHead]

Keep in mind that the developers have not explicitly stated what, exactly, the limitations will be, but it does seem that they are trying to address the needs of users like Davout_1806. From the post I linked to earlier in this thread:

7. There will be two levels of web-access for players. There will be a free level that all players can access and the Player Edition. The free version will provide access to topics, maps, plots, and everything else. The difference is that the free version will only provide access to a subset of revealed information, while the Player Edition will provide access to the entire realm – just like it does on the desktop. The GM will be able to control what subset of information is made available to players through the free version, and it can morph as the game progresses. The focus is on something that casual players will find useful, and we expect this solution to work well for more than 50% of all players (based on our own experiences and the anecdotal data from numerous users).

This quote is from item number 7 in Rob's first post at this thread: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=52844&highlight=players+version

My guess is that their thinking is that casual or trial players will only need access to a limited set of information the current and recent adventures. If they want all content, they need the full license.

Personally, I find this a bit awkward. I would rather that I be able to share all my content, but that freemium players will not have access to journals and other tools without paying for a player's license.

In practice, how happy I am with this depends on what "a subset of revealed information" is. At this point, the developers are not ready to provide further detail:

I have to ask patience regarding further details on the free web-based player access. It's premature for us to be going into the details on that at this point in time. With the clock not expiring, nobody actually needs that information until further down the line, so we'll provide more info before it's actually needed.

Given that the decision has been made that the free version of player's web access will be limited to a subset of your realm's revealed information, it is useful to consider *how* limited of a subset is acceptable/useful.

Some will demand "the whole" realm and all realms. The developers have already stated that this is not their plan.

Some may be happy with the whole realm for one realm, but are limited to one realm, so that if they want to play in multiple campaigns with one or multiple DMs they will have to pay for a license. I would be very happy with this as it would give casual players and new players free access to all my revealed information, but only for one game. More hard-core players would want to, and should, get a license. But it seems that this is not what the developers have in mind.

Limiting it to a specific view would only work if you couldn't share the default all-content views and if views were limited by number of topics. I wouldn't want to cripple view functionality for my own use, though, so I don't think this would work unless they create a special "Web view."

Limiting by number of topics is how I'm guessing the subset will be defined. But I have no idea how LWD could determine the appropriate number of topics. It would have to be a very generous number to keep most DM customers happy. If this is the approach taken, I would hope the number would be generous enough that for many DM's it would cover all of their realm's content and would really only be needed for realms with large volumes of content or DMs running multiple campaigns in multiple realms.

Another option would be to allow unlimited topics to be shared, but no articles. So you can share all the flavor but none of the crunch. I would be happy with this, but I'm sure many DMs would not like this.

Again, I would rather you limit free players to what they can do WITH the content and how they can interact with the DM and other players, rather than limit how much of my content they can access. Still, when I bought the program, I never expected that there would be ANY way for players to access my realm without a players license. The free player accounts to web access is something they just offered, unless there was some promise back in the kickstarter days (I was not a backer, so don't know).

 

[Lexin]

I also wouldn't bother with bringing a second monitor to hook up to show them the player view.

I think I would...I have discovered that if I use an app called "Duet" and a wire (I bought a six foot wire, though finding that was a non-trivial task) I can use my iPad as the screen, which worked very well when I used it at an event. I'd definitely do that again.

The only irritation I found was that as people were used to an iPad being interactive, they wanted use things like scroll on the iPad. Obviously, if it's being used as a screen for RW, it's just a dumb terminal, and they have to ask me as GM to show them anything they want to see, including having to ask me to scroll down any long pages.

But it did work well.

I look forward, though, to the web version, even if some of my players won't pay for it, or it's not worth it because we don't get together often enough, I will pay for it for my regular groups.

Plus, to explain about different games, I have three "Realms" currently. Two are Call of Cthulhu, but totally different worlds, and one is AD&D2e.

 

[Viking2054]

I think I would...I have discovered that if I use an app called "Duet" and a wire (I bought a six foot wire, though finding that was a non-trivial task) I can use my iPad as the screen, which worked very well when I used it at an event. I'd definitely do that again.

Well, I'm not an apple fan boy. I don't own a single apple product and haven't touched one in years. It's not worth my time to take my desktop's flat screen monitor to the not so local gaming store that holds RPG events and I wouldn't do it for conventions either. Now if I had one of my regular gamers at the event and playing in the game, I would let them join the realm and share information through a web based app and he/she could look up the info and share it with the rest of the table or else they can just listen to and interact with me as well as each other.

At the table, I can actually see those kinds of things taking away from the game. Already you have kids tweeting, snap-chatting, and whatever else to communicate with each other when they are all of three or four feet apart. There are times the devices should be put away and you should look up and socialize with the persons around you. Don't even get me started on the people that go out to dinner with someone and are constantly looking down at their iPhone or Android device just to see some inane instant message, tweet or whatever instead of talking to their date.

 

[Lexin]

Well, I'm not an apple fan boy.

Sorry to have stepped on your toe, there. There's probably something similar for Android tablets, in case anyone's interested in the concept but also has a dislike of Apple. Personally is M$ that annoy me, but I use their products anyway.

I couldn't carry anything large to events; I don't drive - I had 30 lessons when I was 17 and couldn't get the hang of it - so I use the train to travel any distance.

I would think, though, that if you're (general you, not specifically Viking2054) going to a large convention and want to use RW, it might (might!) be possible to arrange that the organisers supply something at the venue that you can use as a screen. Lots of hotels have TVs on stands or in conference rooms that are available to use.

At the table, I can actually see those kinds of things taking away from the game.

I was worried about that, but in the event it didn't happen. People would look things up - they had to ask me to show what they could see on the screen as the current iteration of RW isn't interactive on a screen - and they didn't try to play with the iPad I was using.

Of course that may have been partly because it was mine, I shall be very interested to see what happens when RW is available online and (presumably) becomes interactive to a degree. At least, I think that's what's supposed to happen - unless I've misunderstood again.

There are times the devices should be put away and you should look up and socialize with the persons around you.

Oh, absolutely. Having recently had an experience where I was GMing and a player was constantly looking at his phone during the game, I think next time I GM I'm going to specify that everyone turns their phone off - completely off, not just to silent - unless they have a very good reason to keep it on. By that I mean they have a panicky elderly parent or sick child and may need to be contacted urgently.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable that participating in an RPG be treated like being at the cinema or at the theatre, or indeed, on a date, and the pings and bleeps be kept to an absolute minimum, if they can't be reduced to nil.

 

[MNBlockHead]

I don't DM at conventions or the local game stores. The local game stores are not a great venue for RPG even if you don't have to worry about electronics. The noise of other games going on nearby and of shoppers, make it hard to build any atmosphere to your game. Conventions can be the same way. I've only played RPGs at conventions and while I enjoyed the games, it was distracting having people walking around you and other games going on in close proximity.

One exception is that at one of the smaller conventions in my area (Con of the North) if you can organize with a couple other game masters you can get your own conference room with 2-3 tables as long as you are offering a game during nearly all time slots. This is the ideal way to play RPGs at a convention. You generally have plenty of table space, easy access to electric outlets, any plenty of room for your stuff.

The trick, however, it that you still usually have more than one table that you have to keep running games at, so you don't want to run two RPGs in the same room, that's worse than playing in a main hall. With so many games going on in a large hall, they became background white noise. But when it is you and another game in a smaller room in close proximity, that can be very distracting. Better to have to other table(s) running board or card games.