Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Create a free account
This post has been closed. You can still view previous posts, but you can't post any new replies.

Being able to buy more storage from the Marketplace

This seems like a no brain-er, but if I were to buy *anything* from the Marketplace, it would be more storage for my personally made textures. Right now (for free, mind you) we get only 100MB. In the last week I have uploaded 13MB. In one week alone I have uploaded more than a tenth of my quota. Being able to buy more storage quota is a must. But it also must be price reasonably! Right now the price for a GB of hdd space is at about $0.06 a GB. Now I am not saying that we should only have to pay six cents for each gigabyte we want, just that this needs to be taken into consideration when creating the price(s). $5-$10 (one time fee) seems reasonable for a gig of net storage, $10 being the most I would pay.
I'm also an upload junky. More storage space sounds like a great idea.
It is in the plans so keep your eyes open for an announcement in the forums and on the roll20 blog.
Yes! This means I can now share my other idea!
Theyain, Do tell?
Here ya go Jose.
Question to Eric, will it just be a one time fee for X amount of Gigs or monthly? Edit: Monthly would suck and would not be a good idea.
Going beyond the beta stage. This is really great. However, some people dislikes monthly subscriptions . . . I can see the need for them, though.
However, some people dislikes monthly subscriptions . . . I can see the need for them, though. GMs already bear almost all the burden of running a game. We spend a lot of time dreaming up stories, creating NPCs, setting up boards, etc., and the players (for the most part) just show up, play, and have fun. IMHO, forcing the GM to also pay a monthly subscription would add insult to injury. PLEASE don't make us pay every month for the same few gigs of storage. Let us pay up front whenever we need more space. This will also eliminate the monthly decision to 1) pay the monthly fee, or 2) quit Roll20.
If linking images to other sites worked most of the uploads wouldn't matter.
If linking images to other sites worked most of the uploads wouldn't matter. Yes, but how do you propose to support Roll20? Even if there was only the storage and servers costs to cover, I don't think that we can expect the devs to pay for us in the long run. The kickstarter money covered the initial costs, but if you want Roll20 to continue, there must be a way to pay for it.
The kickstarter money covered the initial costs, but if you want Roll20 to continue, there must be a way to pay for it. Advertisements and the market place?
GMs already bear almost all the burden of running a game. We spend a lot of time dreaming up stories, creating NPCs, setting up boards, etc., and the players (for the most part) just show up, play, and have fun. IMHO, forcing the GM to also pay a monthly subscription would add insult to injury. I know a lot of groups that split paying for things like D&D Insider and the like. We're a similar service. Sorry you feel that way. Advertisements and the market place? Advertisements would be a portion of costs, but not enough to make development worthwhile. The vast majority of the marketplace funding goes directly to the creators, not to Roll20.
Advertisements would be a portion of costs, but not enough to make development worthwhile. It would help though ^_^ The vast majority of the marketplace funding goes directly to the creators, not to Roll20. What about hiring artists to make assets and then selling those?
What about hiring artists to make assets and then selling those? Just using a 30 second google seach, it looks like a crappy wage for an artist is around 35 000 in the states. That's like 7000 5 dollar token packs, if you didn't need to pay for the software/material/bandwidth etc to create them. When only the GM needs to buy them, so say only 1 in 6 people needs to actually shell out (assume 1 GM and 5 PC's per group), that's only 8830ish (53000/6) people that would actually purchase, maybe (you know, assuming that people wouldn't rather just draw them up themselves, or just use free stuff, and that the token pack was universally applicable). There are a lot of assumptions and simplifications to that, but I don't really think it makes a great case for actually hiring a dedicated artist.
*OR* you could commission the artists. No one even said hire them as a dedicated staff member. There are thousands of commission-able artists on sites like deviantART that will gladly sign over their rights to the work as long as it's negotiated beforehand.
*OR* you could commission the artists. No one even said hire them as a dedicated staff member. There are thousands of commission-able artists on sites like deviantART that will gladly sign over their rights to the work as long as it's negotiated beforehand. In my defense of that, you do have hiring written in your previous post. In regard to commissioning artists, how do you feel that is different than what they currently do, other than the artist working for less than they would be using the current system?
Seems easier (and more predictable) to use a buy storage scheme.
Hire is a synonym for commission . Generally when the copyright ownership of the work is on the table, artists charge a bit more. Still it's less than the price a years wages for the artist. Seems easier (and more predictable) to use a buy storage scheme. I agree, just if the current prices were not so silly.
Firstly, some of the sets on the marketplace were created as work for hire-- and the model was not sustainable to properly support Roll20. The assumption that we've not thought of these things is odd. Looking at this system... the amount of man hours sunk into planning and programming is massive. We've done continual surveys, and will continue to do so as well. And we've been reading and interacting on the forums since May. This discussion isn't particularly effective. It's not effective from your vantage point because you don't have all the figures / aren't working on this full time. It's not effective from our vantage point because it's completely hypothetical. For example: "Of course we'd support you by buying items on the marketplace." To which the results of which can range from: "Oh I wanted sci fi tokens" to "I don't like the art style". Similarly with advertisements. Firstly, they'd never be sustainable... but how many people use ad blockers? Where do we put the ads that balance them actually being seen with them being unobtrusive. Who do we get for the advertising? And this means that we'll be hoisting something negative upon all users instead of perks to specific users... If you don't like the current support method-- which INCLUDES storage space, but is not that exclusively, and will ALSO be expanding in the future as more features are added-- then don't support it. If you want to be involved in figuring out what the futures features are, if you want to support the site developing, etc. sign up. We will respond if the method isn't working-- or is working well enough to change restrictions. As it is, it's two days old.
Advertisements and the market place? For what is worth, placing advertisements (always disruptive) inside the Roll20 app would be, to my mind, catastrophical, because they would ruin the mood and immersion required for (most) role playing games.
Please let me clarify. I know what it's like to feel unappreciated. I LOVE Roll20 and would happily pay to support it, even if that involves a monthly subscription. What I would not like is to pay a HIGHER MONTHLY subscription simply because I want to upload more images. For additional storage, I would much prefer a one-time charge. Keep up the great work.