Is it time for you to support Roll20?

Everything below is just my opinion and you should not get offended even if you disagree with some of it. Instead why don't you join in and tell us your opinion. Basically Roll20 subsciption is built with the idea that the GM of every campaign is either a Supporter (S) or a Mentor (M). If you play in a campaign where the GM is either S or M then you don't benefit in anyway from becoming S or M. Fortunately Roll20 can be used for other games than just RPG. For example I play Warhammer (Fantasy Battle) here as well so you don't have to GM an RPG campaign to benefit from S or M status. So basically as long as one person in every playing group is S or M the other players don't have to be to get all the benefits of S or M status. Because the people of Roll20 are being so nice to us that not even close to everyone has to pay for the service in order to get all the goodies I feel it's especially important that we all ask ourselves: "Should I be one of those people who supports Roll20 by giving some money back for all the goodies?" Here are few questions that can help you with that question: 1) Do you use Roll20 at least semi-regularly? 2) Do you GM at least one RPG campaign or "host" at least one tabletop/cards/etc. game? 3) Do you enjoy using Roll20 and feel that in many ways it is a very well done VTT service? 4) Do you see yourself continuing to use the service in the near-future? 5) Do you use similar quantities of money to other luxury goodies such as video games, movies, music, tobacco, alcohol, restaurants, fashion, consumer electronics, etc.? If you answered Yes to all the questions I personally think it's time for you to support Roll20 and become S or M! And remember that you don't necessary have to pay everything on your own. I mean you are already taking the time to provide a great RPG moments with your GMing or took the trouble to enable your gamig group to be able to play that tabletop game you all like so much etc. Your players/gaming group can pitch in. For example I GM a campaign and I require that my players pay half of my subsciption costs. And you know what, they do it with a smile. After dividing 50 bucks evenly among the players the cost per player is practically nothing. So what do you think? Is it time for you to support Roll20? Who do you think should support Roll20? What is the meaning of life? Oh, right it was 42, forget the last question.

I for example will become a mentor as soon as I have enough experience as a GM under my belt and stable players, who are willing to pay half of my subscription with a smile. Until then its blocky graphics and next to no features.

I found Roll20 a few months ago, and immediately fell in love. I've been playing in the same campaign for about several years, and once every six weeks I would make the multiple hour commute to my home town, and we would play for an entire Saturday. We're talking noon-2AM. Then when we finished I packed my stuff up and drove home. When I found Roll20 I saw the potential to really get our group back together and play a REAL campaign instead of just having these super long sessions once every other month. I convinced everyone to give it a shot, and after the first play test I bought my DM a month of the supporter level membership. I've since been asked to DM a campaign for the same people and have bought myself the Mentor level subscription. $10/month is a VERY small price to pay for the level of enjoyment that I've received out of this website.

I've put my money on the table as I just love this system. Good idea to encourage us to support roll20.

I got the Mentor subscription solely for the reason that this is an excellent service worth every penny and more. My $10 a month here gives me so much more enjoyment per dollar than a $15 MMO that it is indescribable. Features or not, this is a site well worth supporting, IMHO.

I too will voice my support for Roll20 users to upgrade to a paid subscriber account. I do not make full use of all the perks associated with a Mentor account but I do believe in supporting the developer's efforts. In fact, my current subscription expires in a couple of week but I will definitely be signing up for another year of Mentor-level access.

I don't use all the features either and I have been on the fence about renewing my mentor level since I'm not even playing much at all. It is worthwhile to support the site but only if I'm needing the site (my opinion).

Metroknight said: It is worthwhile to support the site but only if I'm needing the site (my opinion). Couldn't agree more. IMO it's the users' responsibility to support the service to make sure the service sees tomorrow. Just because one likes the idea of the service and feels it's well designed and run doesn't mean s/he needs to help it to exist. Hence question #1.

Worth pointing out: A Mentor/Supporter can create a campaign and elevate someone else to GM, then click "Re-Join as Player" once in the game. Everyone benefits! (Of course, if you've got a regular group and you're the person with disposable income, you could gift subscription time to your GM, too!)

Brian said: Worth pointing out: A Mentor/Supporter can create a campaign and elevate someone else to GM, then click "Re-Join as Player" once in the game. Everyone benefits! (Of course, if you've got a regular group and you're the person with disposable income, you could gift subscription time to your GM, too!) This is actually a thing that slightly concerns me. Since the players already aren't subscribers (unless they just wan't to donate money to Roll20) and this enables GMs to share an account it's possible that there are people who regularly play and GM campaigns with the benefits from S or M status but never contribute to keeping Roll20 alive in any way. Those people are one of the groups I'm trying to get to ask themselves whether they should become S or M themselves.

We've had nice number of posts from Mentors. Thanks for them! But I would love to 'hear' comments from non-subscibers and supporters as well. Is Kuldar really the only one with an opinion about the matter and high enough Guts die to come and share it with us?

Well, I answered yes to all three questions, but I feel I need to some others. 4) Do you see yourself continuing to use the service in the near-future? This is the major one for me. I don't want to pay money, and certainly don't want to ask for money from some players, only to cancel the campaign a couple sessions later. I'm also a little on the fence about the whole VTT thing. I like how I can roleplay with people that I wouldn't normally be able to otherwise, but I also prefer in-person games, so am considering just recruiting some friends to play around a table. The next one doesn't really apply to me, since I would be happy to support it if I continue to use it, but I can certainly see some people raising this concern. 5) Will you significantly benefit from the premium features? Now I know some (myself included) might argue that you should support it if you like it, but it also advertises being free. Since it sells itself as free, I don't see and issue with people wanting to use the service and not paying for it. Also, there are very few (if any) benefits of being a supporter/mentor if you are not a GM, so I can understand player-only folk not wanting to go premium.

I am not a Mentor. I am not a paid user. I purchase no token packs, nor map art, nor anything else on the marketplace. I do not pay a penny to Roll20 in any way. Does this mean I do not support Roll20? You tell me. The fact is, I'm dirt poor. (Well, American Poor. I have a computer, after all!) $100, or even $50, is a fairly large piece of my monthly budget. Yes, it's only $5 (or $10) a month, but paid all at once it's still a nice chunk of change to lay out for what is, essentially, a game. Frivolity. Something I do for fun, not to keep myself alive. Some months, $50 is the difference between having gas money or taking the bus; between eating ramen noodles or eating sandwiches with actual lunchmeat on them; between wearing that pair of shoes with the soles blown out or getting a new pair at Wal-Mart. Given the choice between those things, and paying for a computer game, I'm afraid I have to choose not to get the game. So I'm a leech, a user, a drain on resources? I don't think so. I am an active part of the Roll20 community. I post on the message boards, and give advice when and where I can. I participate in games as a player, and host games of my own for others to play. I spread the word about Roll20 in the 'real world' to people who I think might like to know about it. I actively work towards making Roll20 a better place; I have hosted tutorial sessions, I have run one-shots for new players, I have made wiki entries that help people use the system better. I have done extensive testing on various issues, helping the developers find and repair bugs. I push the limits of (the free parts of) Roll20's system, constantly learning new and better ways to use the resources available. I am even working on assets for that same marketplace that I don't use, which I think will be better and more innovative than anything already available! And I've done none of this in a vacuum; everything I've done has been with the help of others, many of whom are non-cash-paying supporters of Roll20 as well. Without their help and guidance, advice and support, I would have done little or none of what I have done, and it would have been much more difficult to say the least. So, do I give Roll20 money? I have not done so yet. I may do so in the future, I may not. Am I a Supporter? You tell me. -Phnord

Maetco said: 1) Do you use Roll20 at least semi-regularly? 2) Do you GM at least one RPG campaign or "host" at least one tabletop/cards/etc. game? 3) Do you enjoy using Roll20 and feel that in many ways it is a very well done VTT service? 1) About twice a month, sometimes more often. 2) I would think a non-flaky GM would be given free mentor status, but no, I have yet to GM on this site. 3) It is pretty good, but so is OpenRPG and other free VTTs. Without more games to play in, Roll20 just does not offer me that much. I want an opportunity to play, and I am willing to pay for that. Just putting up a site where 5 out of 6 games get cancelled before they even start, that is not something of value for me. I play one game that we moved over from OpenRPG because the GM thought the players here would be less flaky, and we have found a couple of new people that turned out to be reliable, but there are still a LOT of flakes to weed through. GMs should NOT be the ones supporting Roll20 IMO, it should be the players. GMs do enough work, at least the few that actually do run games... they should not be the ones paying if they are investing hours a week getting the background and world and adventures for the game prepped. Players who show up and enjoy are the ones that should be footing the bill if you ask me. There are other free VTTs right now. Roll20 is ok, but not so much better than the others that I just HAVE to play on it. If they started charging, I would be fine moving back to OpenRPG where I play 2 games a week now, compared to my one game a week here. If Roll20 wants to add value to my gaming experience, they can clean up the flakeage or give me tools to better weed out the flakes so I don't waste my gaming time on them. I am not big on bells and whistles and silly little shit, so making mods to the program would be of little value to me personally, although I know there are a lot of people that like that kind of thing. I started with pencil and paper and am still fine with pencil and paper, or type chat only. Bottom line though, if there are not good games for me to play in, why would I pay money to this or any site?

The OP is very privileged. He can easily afford to pay the recurring cost of roll20. No-one should be made to feel guilty about not being able or willing to pay the subscription. We aren't all in the same position. The last two posts are excellent viewpoints, I think. In addition to those, I find roll20 too hamstrung by too many arbitrary copying restrictions and limitations on macros for me to support it financially. I'd never pay for a subscription, especially the ridiculous annual cost of mentor level which is the level I'd need (the only benefits I'm interested in - the API, and copying stuff between campaigns - require mentor level). Roll20 needs a few features before I could consider supporting it financially: A fixed, non-recurring, non-subscription price. The ability to modularise the components of a campaign, and share them between my own campaigns and other people's campaigns (for instance, making a character sheet or monster template incorporating macros/abilities that could be imported to any campaign, likewise with handouts) The ability to define the layout of character sheets, adding extra multi-line text fields that I can change the location, moving abilities and attributes around and grouping them into sets. As a bonus, I'd like to see roll20 changing the focus on GMs paying the price: setting it up so that if anyone is a subscriber, the campaigns they join benefit from that level of subscription. Add features approximating those, and I'd be willing to pay some money. Until then I'll continue to support roll20 the way I am now, by contributing to the forums (helping people design macros and providing other advice, etc) spreading awareness of roll20's existing and recruiting players for it.

Tree Ant said: Well, I answered yes to all three questions, but I feel I need to some others. 4) Do you see yourself continuing to use the service in the near-future? An excellent point. I added it to my original post. Tree Ant said: 5) Will you significantly benefit from the premium features? Now I know some (myself included) might argue that you should support it if you like it, but it also advertises being free. Since it sells itself as free, I don't see and issue with people wanting to use the service and not paying for it. Also, there are very few (if any) benefits of being a supporter/mentor if you are not a GM, so I can understand player-only folk not wanting to go premium. Maybe I should have been more exact in my original post. I see two "problems" with this question: 1) If you compare the utility you get from buying something and come to the conclusion that your total utility is greater after the purchase and end up buying that thing you are not supporting the manufacturer/designer/merchant/etc. you are optimizing your own utility. So when you are thinking of "do I significantly benefit from a subscription?" you are (very easily) thinking "which benefits me more, having X amount of money or having the features I can get with X amount of money?". Supporting something is not (imo) about thinking about oneself but about thinking about someone else. 2) Question #2 is there for this reason exactly. In general only GM's/tabletop hosts "needs" the subscription. A person who practically only ever uses Roll20 as in player role or a pen&paper RPG shouldn't really answer yes to question #2 should they?

Daniel B. said: GMs should NOT be the ones supporting Roll20 IMO, it should be the players. G G said: As a bonus, I'd like to see roll20 changing the focus on GMs paying the price I too have always found this to be a problem. Only the GM (when playing p&p RPG) has any incentive to pay and then s/he needs to pay for everyone. I am to some degree privileged in having a steady dedicated group of players and have always had thanks to my method of getting players for my campaigns. This enables me a lot of things, charging half of the annual fee being one of them. An if we are being 100 % honest the only reason why I am willing to pay 50 % (signicantly more than the players) is that I have a steady very decent monthly income and most of them don't. Imo the best revenue model would be one where everyone (both players and GMs) would have an incentive to pay for the use but everyone could test out Roll20 to their hearts content before doing so. But I personally can't figure out a way to actually do this. What would the subscipiton "levels" give you?

Phnord Prephect said: I am not a Mentor. I am not a paid user. I purchase no token packs, nor map art, nor anything else on the marketplace. I do not pay a penny to Roll20 in any way. Does this mean I do not support Roll20? You tell me. The fact is, I'm dirt poor. (Well, American Poor. I have a computer, after all!) $100, or even $50, is a fairly large piece of my monthly budget. Yes, it's only $5 (or $10) a month, but paid all at once it's still a nice chunk of change to lay out for what is, essentially, a game. Frivolity. Something I do for fun, not to keep myself alive. Some months, $50 is the difference between having gas money or taking the bus; between eating ramen noodles or eating sandwiches with actual lunchmeat on them; between wearing that pair of shoes with the soles blown out or getting a new pair at Wal-Mart. Given the choice between those things, and paying for a computer game, I'm afraid I have to choose not to get the game. So I'm a leech, a user, a drain on resources? I don't think so. I am an active part of the Roll20 community. I post on the message boards, and give advice when and where I can. I participate in games as a player, and host games of my own for others to play. I spread the word about Roll20 in the 'real world' to people who I think might like to know about it. I actively work towards making Roll20 a better place; I have hosted tutorial sessions, I have run one-shots for new players, I have made wiki entries that help people use the system better. I have done extensive testing on various issues, helping the developers find and repair bugs. I push the limits of (the free parts of) Roll20's system, constantly learning new and better ways to use the resources available. I am even working on assets for that same marketplace that I don't use, which I think will be better and more innovative than anything already available! And I've done none of this in a vacuum; everything I've done has been with the help of others, many of whom are non-cash-paying supporters of Roll20 as well. Without their help and guidance, advice and support, I would have done little or none of what I have done, and it would have been much more difficult to say the least. So, do I give Roll20 money? I have not done so yet. I may do so in the future, I may not. Am I a Supporter? You tell me. -Phnord I have to admit that my original post was meant for the masses and you (among a lot of other people) are an exception. My guess would be that most of Roll20 users are people who could afford to pay they just choose not to for varying reasons (some of them being better than others). Imo one can support something in many ways and money is just one of those ways. I have always said that if one doesn't have the necessary money for something then they should find another way to "pay". Labor is one of those ways and being active and helpful aroung the forums and updating the wiki page is basically working for Roll20 "for free" aka supporting it. My original post was about whether one should become S or M because GMing/hosting is such a huge part of Roll20's revenue model. If you are only a player you have no other reason to become S or M other than to just give Roll20 money. Hence for question #2. Should Roll20 acknowledge the help it gets from people by giving away free subscriptions for the most active and helpful forum members? Anyway I did include question #5.

Maetco said: Tree Ant said: Well, I answered yes to all three questions, but I feel I need to some others. 4) Do you see yourself continuing to use the service in the near-future? An excellent point. I added it to my original post. Tree Ant said: 5) Will you significantly benefit from the premium features? Now I know some (myself included) might argue that you should support it if you like it, but it also advertises being free. Since it sells itself as free, I don't see and issue with people wanting to use the service and not paying for it. Also, there are very few (if any) benefits of being a supporter/mentor if you are not a GM, so I can understand player-only folk not wanting to go premium. Maybe I should have been more exact in my original post. I see two "problems" with this question: 1) If you compare the utility you get from buying something and come to the conclusion that your total utility is greater after the purchase and end up buying that thing you are not supporting the manufacturer/designer/merchant/etc. you are optimizing your own utility. So when you are thinking of "do I significantly benefit from a subscription?" you are (very easily) thinking "which benefits me more, having X amount of money or having the features I can get with X amount of money?". Supporting something is not (imo) about thinking about oneself but about thinking about someone else. 2) Question #2 is there for this reason exactly. In general only GM's/tabletop hosts "needs" the subscription. A person who practically only ever uses Roll20 as in player role or a pen&paper RPG shouldn't really answer yes to question #2 should they? Question number two address that players don't get any benefit from being a S or M. But I feel that GM's who won't use the premium features are in the same category as players with that regard. Neither of them gain benefit, but of course either of them could become and S/M to help support the site. Why the distinction?

Tree Ant said: Maetco said: Tree Ant said: Well, I answered yes to all three questions, but I feel I need to some others. 4) Do you see yourself continuing to use the service in the near-future? An excellent point. I added it to my original post. Tree Ant said: 5) Will you significantly benefit from the premium features? Now I know some (myself included) might argue that you should support it if you like it, but it also advertises being free. Since it sells itself as free, I don't see and issue with people wanting to use the service and not paying for it. Also, there are very few (if any) benefits of being a supporter/mentor if you are not a GM, so I can understand player-only folk not wanting to go premium. Maybe I should have been more exact in my original post. I see two "problems" with this question: 1) If you compare the utility you get from buying something and come to the conclusion that your total utility is greater after the purchase and end up buying that thing you are not supporting the manufacturer/designer/merchant/etc. you are optimizing your own utility. So when you are thinking of "do I significantly benefit from a subscription?" you are (very easily) thinking "which benefits me more, having X amount of money or having the features I can get with X amount of money?". Supporting something is not (imo) about thinking about oneself but about thinking about someone else. 2) Question #2 is there for this reason exactly. In general only GM's/tabletop hosts "needs" the subscription. A person who practically only ever uses Roll20 as in player role or a pen&paper RPG shouldn't really answer yes to question #2 should they? Question number two address that players don't get any benefit from being a S or M. But I feel that GM's who won't use the premium features are in the same category as players with that regard. Neither of them gain benefit, but of course either of them could become and S/M to help support the site. Why the distinction? The only reason for the distinction is how Roll20 payment method right now is handled. If they change that then the original post loses half if not all of it's points. Right now the situation is that practically only GMs benefit from subscriptions and therefore I feel that it's even more important that GMs who "really" use Roll20 help Roll20 pay the bills.

G G said: Roll20 needs a few features before I could consider supporting it financially: A fixed, non-recurring, non-subscription price. Assuming I understood you right I don't think that would a good thing. I mean if the revenue model is changed to buy it once use it for eternity it would easily mean either: a) a ridiculously high price b) a new version released every X years and I don't see either making Roll20 any better for me. Could you perhaps continue on the sugject a bit, please?

Personally I regard the current model as (a) already, so it would be hard to get too ridiculous! There's no way a one-off cost would be as pricey as an annual mentor subscription, for instance. That's a crazy amount for leisure software, and as an upfront cost, would be hard to justify. If they followed an "upgrade every few years" model, they'd need to justify each new upgrade with new features worth paying for, and it would inevitably be cheaper than the current subscription prorated over that many years (3 years of mentor subscription is how much again?). Plus, when software provides paid upgrades, current owners usually get a substantial discount. So I cant see how (b) would be worse for you.

G G said: Personally I regard the current model as (a) already, so it would be hard to get too ridiculous! There's no way a one-off cost would be as pricey as an annual mentor subscription, for instance. That's a crazy amount for leisure software, and as an upfront cost, would be hard to justify. If they followed an "upgrade every few years" model, they'd need to justify each new upgrade with new features worth paying for, and it would inevitably be cheaper than the current subscription prorated over that many years (3 years of mentor subscription is how much again?). Plus, when software provides paid upgrades, current owners usually get a substantial discount. So I cant see how (b) would be worse for you. Let me go through my thought process so you may comment on that since it seems that we just disagree with so much and I am starting to think that it is at least partially because we don't fully understand what the other person means / something important about the reasoning behind the other persons opinion never occures to us. Roll20 Mentor costs 100 USD per year. I have 4 players who pay their share of my subsription. If everyone would pay the same it would be 20 USD per year which is pretty much the same as 1 indie video game per year. There is no fixed number of hours one enjoys a video game but if we assume that we are not talking about a MP game the lengthiest games are usually cRPGs which can last something like 50 h. I have spent about 450 h playing and GMing Roll20 campaigns during my first year. During those 450 h I have played 4 different games (3 different p&p RPG systems and WFB) in 4 RPG campaigns and about 10 WFB matches. If I would have to make a wild guess about how many video games I would have needed to buy to get the same amount of fun time with friends and enemies, regardless of what I would guess it would be more than 20 USD. So Roll20 being ridiculously expensive, why not, but then normal video games are super-uber expensive. I feel that you are suffering from a quantity illusion (or I am :). You see Roll20 as one product like a game when in theory it is unlimited number of games. Of course this brings us to the fact that if one only uses Roll20 very little it will become expensive for them but they should not be answering yes to my question #1. I also feel you fail to take into consideration the fact that only 1 member of a gaming group is supposed to pay the subscription so the dollars/person/year is not 100 but 100/number of people in the gaming group. The problem in my b) is that with new versions they would easily not be compatible with each other. Like how you can't play with your friends if you have BF4 and they have BF3 and BF2. You all need to have the software to play with each other. It seemed that you understood my b) in that the patches in Roll20 would cost / they would release something like DLCs for it. From the users point of view that could work fine but my guess is that it would make it a lot harder for the devs. I know nothing about coding so I don't actually know though. As you can see I see Roll20 much like a game because that is exactly what it is to me. Except it isn't just a game but many. I play roleplaying games and strategy games inside/with the help of Roll20. "If they followed an "upgrade every few years" model, they'd need to justify each new upgrade with new features worth paying for" My guess is that you haven't been using Roll20 for long. In the past 18 months it has had a dramatic change. There are new updates about every 1 - 2 months and big ones about every 3 months. By subscriping that is exactly how I feel the situation is; I'm paying for the new features they keep implementing all the time. So I don't pay to use Roll20 I pay for the new and improved features. I just don't have to collect them from some shop and buy them individually. Don't get me wrong. When I made my account I was very sceptic about Roll20. I was asking myself: "Is this even here 1 year from now and if yes how many of the devs have left?" because all the VTT projects I had witnessed before had died thanks to lack of support. First everyone was really excited about it and when no revenue model was ever created the devs just left because they didn't have dozens of hours to put in some hobby project every week 52 weeks a year. Roll20 has completely surprised me. The devs really care about what the users want/need and they keep workin hard and innovatively and have been doing so for 2 years (?) now. And now that there is a revenue model to support Roll20s existance the devs seem more dedicated than ever. Trust me there will be blood...I mean new features and improvements to existing ones. Oh and with a ridiculously high price I meant something like 500 USD for a lifetime subsciption.

You pointed out (twice, in your 2nd and again 4th paragraphs) that you have the rare privilege of a group of regular players who are willing to share the subscription cost with you. I would be willing to bet that is by far the minority of people using roll20. The reality is, most people who are paying mentor or subscriber subscriptions, are paying alone. And most people who would like those subscriptions but aren't currently paying for them, would have to foot the bill themselves. Further, Roll20 is not marketed as shared-cost: you can buy gift subscriptions for others, but you cant buy partial gift subscriptions. If you could get partial subscriptions, or roll20 had some other mechanism for allowing a group to collectively pay for a subscription, that would led some support to your idea that roll20 is meant to be a shared cost product. One way, for instance, would be allowing any campaign to get mentor features, if any player in the campaign had a mentor subscription (or if a certain number of players had supporter level). But roll20 doesn't do that, or anything else that supports the idea that groups should pay for the GM. It's true that the people who get most benefit out of subscribing are GMs, but the roll20 devs (justifiably) don't care who pays for a subscription, and would be equally happy for everyone to pay. (This is why Supporter-level subscription exists: it provides hardly any benefits to anyone, but is a purely a means for people to supprt roll20.) Your other points: I don't consider roll20 as one game. It's a tool, that can be used for many games (like maptools), but it is still a single purpose tool. (I have built campaigns for 8 different game systems.) It provides some very basic features with some excessive limitations, paired with a very nice and easy interface, for allowing people to play together online. (Though, brainstorming, that does provide one possible avenue of monetisation: provide enhanced tools for specific games, along with a DIY suite for people who like to tinker.) Regarding your problem with (b) that products would not be compatible: I think this is wrong. Remember, the subscription model currently exists alongside the free version: some updates are rolled out to the free version, some updates are delivered only to subscribers, but those two groups can still play with each other. A one-off cost version would have to work the same way: you'd have paid users alongside free users just as now.

G G said: You pointed out (twice, in your 2nd and again 4th paragraphs) that you have the rare privilege of a group of regular players who are willing to share the subscription cost with you. I would be willing to bet that is by far the minority of people using roll20. The reality is, most people who are paying mentor or subscriber subscriptions, are paying alone. And most people who would like those subscriptions but aren't currently paying for them, would have to foot the bill themselves. Further, Roll20 is not marketed as shared-cost: you can buy gift subscriptions for others, but you cant buy partial gift subscriptions. If you could get partial subscriptions, or roll20 had some other mechanism for allowing a group to collectively pay for a subscription, that would led some support to your idea that roll20 is meant to be a shared cost product. One way, for instance, would be allowing any campaign to get mentor features, if any player in the campaign had a mentor subscription (or if a certain number of players had supporter level). But roll20 doesn't do that, or anything else that supports the idea that groups should pay for the GM. It's true that the people who get most benefit out of subscribing are GMs, but the roll20 devs (justifiably) don't care who pays for a subscription, and would be equally happy for everyone to pay. (This is why Supporter-level subscription exists: it provides hardly any benefits to anyone, but is a purely a means for people to supprt roll20.) Your other points: I don't consider roll20 as one game. It's a tool, that can be used for many games (like maptools), but it is still a single purpose tool. (I have built campaigns for 8 different game systems.) It provides some very basic features with some excessive limitations, paired with a very nice and easy interface, for allowing people to play together online. (Though, brainstorming, that does provide one possible avenue of monetisation: provide enhanced tools for specific games, along with a DIY suite for people who like to tinker.) Regarding your problem with (b) that products would not be compatible: I think this is wrong. Remember, the subscription model currently exists alongside the free version: some updates are rolled out to the free version, some updates are delivered only to subscribers, but those two groups can still play with each other. A one-off cost version would have to work the same way: you'd have paid users alongside free users just as now. Thanks for taking your time to deliver answers to my questions. Everyone else, please don't let my "conversation" with G G bewilder you. I (hopefully someone else too) am very interested hearing your comments/thoughts/etc. about the matter.

The problem with a one-off purchase is that even if they stopped making features/fixing bugs/etc for the site, they would still need to pay for server costs. Unlike desktop software, hosting a website has continuous, non-zero costs.

Zachary H. said: The problem with a one-off purchase is that even if they stopped making features/fixing bugs/etc for the site, they would still need to pay for server costs. Unlike desktop software, hosting a website has continuous, non-zero costs. That is true. And if was a desktop software they would still need to make compatibility updates even if they stopped implementing new features, fixing bugs, etc. or the software would die on its own in a couple of years.

Yes, as Maetco says, there is no real difference. The server and bandwidth costs for roll20 are dropping all the time. They are continuous, non-zero costs - but they are rapidly approaching near-zero. Bandwidth is very very cheap for companies. Whatever that cdost is, though, it's irrelevant, since the bandwidth heavy part of roll20 is available to all users for free. That said, there are obviously advantages to roll20 for using subscriptions over one-off cost. It's a more reliable steady income, if they can keep the numbers up. It allows them to present a cost that seems low, to encourage people to buy into it. Once a certain mass of subscribers is achieved, roll20 doesn't have to constantly be focussed on marketing to new audiences - it just needs to concentrate on keeping its current subscribers happy. That last point is actually very compelling. I do see those advantages to the company, and in fact, more and more software companies are going subscription too. But the main advantage for companies is: it increases the lifetime cost of ownership to their customers, and thus increases their profit margin. However, I'm not that interested in the triumph of companies learning how to wring every last possible penny from their customers. I just want a reasonable cost. Hundreds of dollars for several years ownership of a tool like roll20 seems ridiculously high (especially considering how much storage and bandwidth companies like dropbox, google, and others give for free). Most of roll20 users do get free use, and that's not going to change. Some of the tools available to mentors are worth paying for - I'd certainly pay money for them. Just not a permanent $10 a month.

I just upgraded to Mentor, but it wasn't something I did lightly. Over the Christmas holiday, I bought another VTT (not to be named) on sale for a TT friend who is moving half-way across the country in hopes that it could keep our group together. After we tried the other VTT, we figured out that, despite its email ad campaign promising awesomeness, the other VTT is abandon-ware. Not only was I disappointed, I was embarrassed that I gave away my money to fund something that was going nowhere. So I did my homework and eventually happened across Roll20. I liked what I saw. Dynamic Lighting absolutely blew me away! Looking under the hood, I found other features like the card decks and the art library that I liked. The promise of customization and progress around the corner were great, but one thing really did it for me - the players and Devs who have gone the extra mile to make YouTube videos, create the wiki and man the forums to explain how it all works. Great job, everyone! I am dragging 5 (or more) people to the site. I am not the normal DM for the group and normally I would rather be a player, but given the unique opportunity to expose my players to this site and make a positive impression on them, I am pulling out all the stops. If I am successful, I believe that there will be two or three more users who will upgrade to mentor status in the future. Better than that - our group will stick together despite being scattered across the country this summer. My one and only regret - not being the upgrade that pushed you guys over the latest hurdle. - X