Free Client?!

[EliGrim]

In my opinion, the biggest issue with most VTTs is that either all players have to buy the app or it's a subscription model. Basically it's like playing a PnP or any other TT game and forcing all players to have their own edition of the game. That doesn't make any sense in my mind.

As I understand it, it seems possible here that the GM creates maps, then installs the demo and switches to the demo branch and so can play with players who install the demo as well.
However, I don't think this is a truly satisfactory solution.

Are there any plans for a proper client that players can install for free while the GM is using the actual game/app?
In addition to the currently called purchase price, I would be happy to buy a (e.g. GM-Edition) DLC for up to 30 bucks that would make this possible.

A response would be greatly appreciated, as at the moment I'm still a bit hesitant about buying The RPG Engine, although it gives a really good impression.

[Pyrophase]

Hey Eli, Thanks for the question.
The pricing of The RPG Engine has been a hot discussion topic over on the discord, you can read all about it on the #pricing discussion in the official discord: https://discord.gg/mJntEJ2kzC

Currently Anyone who owns the game can have users join their sessions in the main game. There's description of how to do so in pinned comments of #help channel.

I am currently talking with Steam to change way the game is setup on the store. Although I would love to be able to let everyone play for free there has to be a balance to make it fair to the players and us devs. here is a brief explanation of the planned pricing structure:

Guest Pass (FREE):
- no hosting.
- Limited Map building (similar to current demo)

World Builder DLC ($20-$30):
- Can host -> 1 Free user can join per DLC player in lobby (so if the host and player own theDLC, then 2 people can join their session with the free pass).
- All features unlocked

DLC + Story Teller Subscription($5 a month {with options for yearly / lifetime subscription})
- Can host -> any number of Free and DLC player.
- All features unlocked

Although this is very close to the final pricing model there may still be some slight tweaks.

I hope this answers your question! If you you require any more help or would like to follow the game as it progress, please feel free to join in on discord.

[Neo Scully]

Subscription model? Bye.

[Jector]

That regular purchase will unlock everything, so yes the "world builder" is the full game and gets everything. A different breakdown:

Demo -:- No hosting, limited map building/assets, can join other games.

Full game (world builder) -:- Hosting, all features and assets, one demo player can join you (1 demo player per full game owner in current game).

Subscription (story teller) -:- Host any number of demo players.

[Pyrophase]

Thanks, Jiggy007, you got it spot on.
After months of discussions and considerations, this seemed the most logical and fairest pricing model to account for a variety of player groups and individuals.

As a side note, when the game is fully released (tentatively aiming for the end of the year) Anyone who already owns the game will of course unlock the builder's edition for free as well as some free subscription months as a thank you for supporting the game early.

[Neo Scully]

I play a lot of games and never ever would pay for a subscription.

[Pyrophase]

This model gives you the option to not have to..
If you want to play with your friends, either 1 player buys the game and pays a small subscriptions, or half your player buy the game.

I will also be adding a lifetime subscription option for those who would rather pay as a 1 off.

[Neo Scully]

Are you anyhow part of the development or design decision, because if not then your opinion is worth as much as from anybody else, no matter how many words you are using. btw despite of how worthy and fair you find the subscription model, I know that I am not the only one who would never pay for a subscription.

[EliGrim]

As the opener of this thread, I would like to chip in my 2 cents.

First of all, I would like to say that I am not a fan of subscriptions either. That's why I said goodbye to Adobe and even though every day I use alternative programs I increasingly want Acrobat, Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects back, Adobe won't see a dime from me anymore.

However, you have to clearly distinguish between the types of subscription models.
In my Adobe example, I cancelled my subscription because I don't get why I, as a casual hobby user, should pay the same price (or even more) per seat as a company does that uses the apps on a daily basis and makes money from it. With TRPGE it's a little different.

The subscription model of TRPGE can not be compared with, for example, the Adobe subscription, in that you pay money monthly and that for a fixed number of months.

With TRPGE you buy the game (or unlock it via DLC after release if you don't already own it) and can build, create and do all the prep work without spending any extra money.
Then, when it comes to the actual game with friends, you pay a certain amount, either for one or more months, or for a year, or for a lifetime access to unlimited player invitations. It's hard to compare this to a traditional subscription model, where you're stuck in a contract for months or years.

The model proposed by the developer is flexible to fit virtually any GM and saves invited players from having to buy the game and also offers the possibility of playing with rotating players. While the word subscription may seem off-putting at first, I don't think there can be a more fair offer from a developer for a niche product.

Personally, I bought the game in EA and will purchase lifetime access after release. Then I will have all the freedom and will not have to worry about the number of players and when and how I will organize games with friends, forever. In my eyes, it's hard to label this as a subscription.

In conclusion, I believe that enough different opinions have been heard on this subject and this thread can now be closed.

[Pyrophase]

I like to think everyone who is throwing opinions out about this game are part of both the development and design decision. I read through all the messages on all the different platform and do my best to keep everyone happy.
In some situations, such as the pricing model, this is extremely difficult as the opinions vary so much. Here some of the groups I've identified:

Every day gamer are used to "everyone who wants to play has to buy a copy of the game".
GM type 1 - Is happy to pay a much higher price (I've been told $100 wouldn't be unreasonable), in order to have any player join for free.
GM type 2 - has a small dedicated party of friends.
Roll20 GM - Used to a low subscription monthly cost.
Solo Builder - Just wants to buy the game at a reasonable price and build fun stuff in it.

So I had to come up with a way which makes it fair to everyone...
If I make the base price too high then it's not fair on Solo Builders or GM type 2
If you don't like subscriptions - how many players do you have? lets say 5..
3 of you buy the game once and all 6 of you can play together forever, that's $10 per player. Pretty cheap for an average game on steam.
If you run many sessions with many different people, it's a small subscription in exchange for none of them having to buy it. Covering GM type 2.
And for GM type 1 they can just buy the life time subscription as a one off and they can always host anyone they like.

It boils down to how you want to pay...
Much higher but as a one off?
Make half your party buy their own copy?
Or pay a small amount monthly?
Not using it for TTRPGS but just as a map build? no subscription, no high price.

I understand many people are not a fan of the subscription model and this gives you alternatives...
What model would you propose?

[Valas]

Originally posted by Dozenbeer:

2. Only inviting 1 other free player is unrealistic. There is almost no situation where 2 people would play a PnP and the others would buy the software, when they saw that another person didnt have to - who gets the free place?. It should be default 3 invites. Larger DnD groups would then have to pay for additional copies, that would be fair, so 4 people are in a session.

Comparing it to the competition:
Fantasy Grounds: $3.99USD/mo or $39USD once to own (no free users), vs $9.99USD/mo or $149USD to own (unlimited free users).
Talespire: Each player needs to spend the $28.99CAD (no free users) - and it absolutely has less features in a lot of ways.
Foundry: 1 License, unlimited players - $50USD. You probably want to hire someone else to host your game server for you though if you're not very tech savvy, which will run you another $4.50USD/mo.
Roll20: What you get at each price point is finnicky; it's ALL subscriptions; and there's no truly "unlimited" package. You can do more than I thought with the free copy, but its still pretty limited. $49.99USD/y for 'Plus', and $99.99USD/y for 'Pro'.

The only one that's comparable in price value is Foundry. And someone still needs to spend the $50 for that unlimited license. Foundry has more mechanical automation support but can't easily do 3d terrain (multiple isometric maps for the same location from different perspectives being the workaround).

Talespire is most comparable in features offered, but it gives you less functionality, at a higher price point.

I agree, 1 demo user per full user isn't my favorite, but when he offers an unlimited package, if its a reasonable price, I will probably pay for the unlimited package (assuming that like foundry it comes to around a total of $50USD and not like Fantasy Grounds or Roll20). I could see a one time "players only" between demo and basic GM license making sense though. Especially if they could upgrade that to a full GM license in the future.

Originally posted by Dozenbeer:

3. If you draw the comparison to Tabletop Simulator

In my experience, Tabletop Simulator is *AWFUL* for running RPGs. I tried it a couple times and would not do it again. It's a clunky physics simulator meant for playing boardgames just like you would in person, and (IMO) it works very poorly for RPGs.

FYI - You could also probably manage some wargaming in TRPGE, if you wanted to. There are a couple things it could benefit from I think (custom / weird dice support) - that I've heard are in the works - but you could do it.

[Greentongue]

The biggest fear of subscriptions, at least in my case, is that if the subscription lapses for whatever reason, I lose everything and have to start over with a new subscription.
I may be reading this wrong but it seems your personal content is not lost, just the ability to connect for free. Is this correct?

[EliGrim]

Originally posted by Greentongue:

Is this correct?

Yes, as things currently stand, you have the full game with the Early Access version or, if you don't have it, after release with the World Builder DLC, giving you access to all content and features without restrictions and without having to make any further payments.
You can also play with as many players as you want without having to make any further payment, as long as half of the players own the full game (EA version or WB DLC).

Only if you want to invite players, of whom more than half do not own the full game, then the subscription comes into play and only for the GM (the host).

That's the current state of affairs.
Of course, I can't say if the dev will still make changes to the payment model currently being considered. So far it is only an idea and not yet implemented.
Personally, even though I'm generally not a fan of subscriptions, I think the current model is very fair for the players/buyers.

[Jector]

Of the various approaches TA had talked about, he'd never mentioned any kind of sub requirement to access parts of the game. Once you buy the game, you have full unfettered access to all parts of it. The sub is only ever likely to be for extra demo player seats.

[Feldspar]

I hope you're successful. At least one of the competitive platforms I wont name require EVERY player and DM to buy their software. Frankly, based on my experience in the D&D/tabletop world, players are cheap as ♥♥♥♥ and lazy, so I dont think that business model will work for those other platforms. ♥♥♥♥, even the big players like Roll20 and Foundry its like pulling teeth to get even a tiny investment from players. So yeah, I like what you're proposing a LOT and I highly recommend you stick with it. I honestly think any platform that requires every participant to buy their software is doomed to fail unless its ridiculously cheap (like $5 or less).

[arrow_2536]

I am kind of new to this. I have AppGameKit Studio which requires a lot of programming. My question is how different is AppGamekit Studio from TRPGE? I want something I don't have to keep paying for over and over again. I am not sure what I need but I know what I want. I have a feeling that it would be worth trying. I would like more information on what you need to get started. I hope this turns out to be more of what I look for in a creation kit.