-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
Value to players?
- Thread starter pyremius
- Start date
Zaphod Beebledoc
Well-known member
It'll be free for players!
When it is set up, players will be able to download the program, then download the revealed info.
I assume that once the player has downloaded RW, the GM needs to list them as a player, before they can get the info.
When it is set up, players will be able to download the program, then download the revealed info.
I assume that once the player has downloaded RW, the GM needs to list them as a player, before they can get the info.
Last edited:
@Zaphod's statement is, at minimum, very premature here. What we have said from the beginning with the Kickstarter is as follows:
1. The web-based player access will be completely free. Please note that's the web-based portal and not the standalone client.
2. We would like to make the standalone client version of RW free for players as well. The problem with doing so is that the support costs will be roughly 5-6 times what they will be for GMs (based on the average gaming group size). Given that we've been having quite a variety of technical issues already with wildly varying computer configurations during the EA release, those costs will likely be significant. We have to pay for those support costs, which means the money to pay staff to provide that support has to come from somewhere.
There are three places from which we can derive the revenue. One option is to boost the initial price for GMs, putting the burden on them. Another option is to charge players a small amount to use the standalone client. A third option is to increase the monthly fees for the cloud to incorporate those costs, although this again puts the burden on the GMs. We haven't finalized this decision yet, but we'll definitely do so prior to launching V1.0.
1. The web-based player access will be completely free. Please note that's the web-based portal and not the standalone client.
2. We would like to make the standalone client version of RW free for players as well. The problem with doing so is that the support costs will be roughly 5-6 times what they will be for GMs (based on the average gaming group size). Given that we've been having quite a variety of technical issues already with wildly varying computer configurations during the EA release, those costs will likely be significant. We have to pay for those support costs, which means the money to pay staff to provide that support has to come from somewhere.
There are three places from which we can derive the revenue. One option is to boost the initial price for GMs, putting the burden on them. Another option is to charge players a small amount to use the standalone client. A third option is to increase the monthly fees for the cloud to incorporate those costs, although this again puts the burden on the GMs. We haven't finalized this decision yet, but we'll definitely do so prior to launching V1.0.
So the primary benefit to a player with no intention of becoming a GM would be offline access to the revealed information they would normally be able to access while connected to the internet?
Personally, I see no problem with charging for a player client that allows offline access. Under your current model they still have free access while online, and therefore the charge is related to the extra functionality they are receiving. For that matter, a small charge relating to adding player notes would be reasonable, especially if limited to a few dollars a month at most (the biggest argument against would be transaction costs and other overhead for Lone Wolf).
Personally, I see no problem with charging for a player client that allows offline access. Under your current model they still have free access while online, and therefore the charge is related to the extra functionality they are receiving. For that matter, a small charge relating to adding player notes would be reasonable, especially if limited to a few dollars a month at most (the biggest argument against would be transaction costs and other overhead for Lone Wolf).
Zaphod Beebledoc
Well-known member
Zaphod Beebledoc
Well-known member
What about when I'm a player? Do you envisage a charge then?
*IF* we charge for the standalone client, and that's a very big *IF*....
- GMs who purchase the product will incur no further cost to operate as players in another GM's realm
- Players who purchase the standalone client will most likely incur a nominal, one-time cost
- Players who later decide to become GMs will be able to upgrade their account at a reduced cost over purchasing the full product from scratch
- Players who are content to access realms via the web-based interface will incur no cost at all
Please remember that NONE of this is formally decided yet. This is merely one path that we are currently considering. So please don't take this as an official declaration of how things will work. I'm just trying to be open with some of the scenarios we're looking at.
- GMs who purchase the product will incur no further cost to operate as players in another GM's realm
- Players who purchase the standalone client will most likely incur a nominal, one-time cost
- Players who later decide to become GMs will be able to upgrade their account at a reduced cost over purchasing the full product from scratch
- Players who are content to access realms via the web-based interface will incur no cost at all
Please remember that NONE of this is formally decided yet. This is merely one path that we are currently considering. So please don't take this as an official declaration of how things will work. I'm just trying to be open with some of the scenarios we're looking at.
Ninja'd by the boss himself
I'll still go on record as supporting some kind of charge for the standalone client. Ultimately, it does represent an additional cost for Lone Wolf that needs to be recouped somewhere. Putting the charge with the user will tend to make them think about whether they really need the capability, likely reducing the total amount of support required.
I'll still go on record as supporting some kind of charge for the standalone client. Ultimately, it does represent an additional cost for Lone Wolf that needs to be recouped somewhere. Putting the charge with the user will tend to make them think about whether they really need the capability, likely reducing the total amount of support required.
Last edited:
Zaphod Beebledoc
Well-known member
Ninja'd by the boss himself
[Teal'c] Indeed! *raises eyebrow* [/Teal'c]
Enforcer84
Well-known member
will it bring me snacks?
My vote also goes with this.
I think players will realise the value of having access to the tool, and want to purchase it anyway.
As an example, when we started our current campaign, I had access to Herolab and advised my players that all characters would be vetted via Herolab for in game play (though the players could use whatever they wanted to manage their characters at the tabletop, including physical sheets and excel character builders).
Now 6 of our 8 players (including GM's - we co-GM) have Herolab access and use it for character management, 1 uses a custom excel sheet and 1 uses a physical sheet.
I think a similar situation will eventuate with our players, particularly once player information sharing becomes available.
*IF* we charge for the standalone client, and that's a very big *IF*....
- GMs who purchase the product will incur no further cost to operate as players in another GM's realm
- Players who purchase the standalone client will most likely incur a nominal, one-time cost
- Players who later decide to become GMs will be able to upgrade their account at a reduced cost over purchasing the full product from scratch
- Players who are content to access realms via the web-based interface will incur no cost at all
Please remember that NONE of this is formally decided yet. This is merely one path that we are currently considering. So please don't take this as an official declaration of how things will work. I'm just trying to be open with some of the scenarios we're looking at.
I support this fully. Hell, I'd buy the stand alone for my players if it is within the 5-10 dollar range.