In 2018 Roll20 announced that they hit 3 million users. 100 MBs for 3 million people is 30 million GBs of storage that they have to provide as a basic cost. To increase that to 200 MBs would be to double that cost, or to increase to 300 MBs as many are suggesting would triple it. That is one of the basic costs of the service. Now, I would imagine that Roll20 has some type of dynamic system to give space to users as they need it, but doubling or tripling their free storage would still be a massive increase to costs. While an extra 100 or 200 MBs is pretty small on a user to user basis, add in a few million users and that's a whole lot of cash! While Roll20 no doubt takes in a certain amount of advertising revenue, that is honestly unlikely to even touch their costs in bandwidth, storage, hosting and development. So while adding additional storage for free players in order to help them with their substitute for Fanburst would be nice - it's probably a pretty huge financial burden that Roll20 isn't going to be willing to take on. Unfortunately, Free users for Roll20 are most likely a loss leader - that is that they lose a small amount of money for each free user, but it gets people into the service and hopefully leads to them purchasing subscriptions which more than offset the cost of the free users. This is why Roll20 has always turned to other music hosting services to integrate in Roll20. As a side note - I really love the idea of integrating Dropbox as a music storage solution. Comparatively that would be enormously cheaper and much more financially viable. Axel said: Would a new level of subscription, between Free and Plus, that just provides additional storage space (1 GB or so), be a good suggestion one this topic? A great idea for the end user, but probably a very bad idea for Roll20. There is a lot of research into the "psychology of choice" especially in regards to marketing. As a general rule of thumb, when presented with three options, people pick the middle one the majority of the time. In fact, Pro Subscriptions probably exist mostly to make Plus seem like a better value! Right now there are three choices, Free, Pro, & Plus. Free makes up the vast majority of the user base, and those who are willing to pay for a bit of extra storage or convenience are going to go for Pro the majority of the time. Now, if a second middle option, a $1.00 option that just provided storage space was provided, you would see a lot of Pro users go to that option. $5.00 a month for the majority of roll20 users is not a lot, so when most GMs reach their cap on storage and are really invested in their group, they shell out a few bucks and that keeps the lights on. Turning that to $1.00 a month, even without features, would likely actually reduce the money they get from end users! Depending on what Roll20's costs and profit margins are, that could actually stiffle development and force them to start finding other ways to add value to Pro & Plus subscriptions, without doing any additional development (aka: Take features from Free users and put them on Pro users to offset the loss of Pro users who went down to the new $1 subscription). Plus, it would probably be viewed as a predatory thing to be honest. A lot of $1 users would get annoyed that they didn't get any storage at all. The truth is, Roll20 needs to be profitable to have the luxury of expanding features for Free Users. And while those people may be a loss leader, it does get people through the door. Teenagers, people in eastern europe / middle east and other nations, poor college kids, people on disability. All of that is a pretty important segment of the RPG space.