I can't describe the level of contempt that the people saying "lol you can afford coffee, you can afford this" are demonstrating for anyone who doesn't pay. First off, being able to play music in my games without another tab, was one of many reasons I like Roll20. Having that feature essentially taken from me because of lame excuses like "storage is expensive" is preposterous. I would at least like a way to integrate another website into Roll20, if directly uploading music isn't a possibility. But even then, what has effectively happened is that we free users have had a feature taken away (not Roll20's fault), only to be essentially turned into a premium feature, as free user storage hasn't been expanded (Roll20's fault). I don't understand how anyone doesn't get this and why they think the end user should be expected to shoulder the burden for a website shutting down that they had no control over. If anything, the apologetics come off more as someone from the marketing team telling me why I should throw more money at Roll20 - except they don't even pay you to say it! No, instead of listening to rather reasonable criticisms of this change in business model and thinking of a compromise that can please everyone, the thread has largely devolved into people shaming those with less money or less willingness to pay. Instead of having a cogent argument for anyone affected by this change, I just see the word "entitlement" and comparisons to coffee keep coming up. Free users, like it or not, are the majority of users on the website.
None of them have asked for the same storage space as paying users,
even. Yet all you do by shaming those folks is not encouraging them to spend money, but to pack up and leave for an alternative. If you like Roll20 and want it to do well, that's fine, but how dare you slander free users who feel the same exact way? What has happened is the loss of a feature that free users have not been compensated for. I do not mind an alternative to the storage problem, one that is free for everyone. But, when the only solution provided is to give more storage exclusively to the paying users and the free ones just have to use the same storage, I have to feel like I'm being nickel and dimed. You can complain all you want about that being an entitled opinion, but that doesn't change the fact we've lost a feature that hasn't been compensated. If anything, it feels more like the people who are paying are the entitled ones, because they don't want to share their treehouse with the poorer folk.Kick and scream all you want about those people but learn to show some respect for people just because you don't agree with them. Oh, and another thing: storage is cheap, please stop saying it's "expensive." Victor B. said: Devily said: 1)
No, it's not that expensive. It really isn't. If they can bump free
gigas to the paying costumers giving free costumers a hundred or two
extra megabytes is really nothing. Prove
it. Show me the total costs in involved. Since you obviously know
their infrastructure (which could be in house, 3rd party hosting or
cloud), you know exactly what is needed, though this hasn't been done in
the past, bring up some numbers. How much bandwidth is needed? What's
the cost of that bandwidth? How much storage is needed? What is the
cost of that storage? How many servers, including servers to host the
music and load balancing servers, are needed to handle hundreds of
thousands (who knows how many) of free users uploading and playing
music? While your at it, throw in maintenance and support costs for
those servers. Okay, let's break it down then, sir. No free user is asking for a gigabyte of storage, but I'm going to be generous for the sake of this argument and say they are. If we assume all 2 million users of Roll20 are free users (which they aren't), then that means 200 terabytes of storage would be needed. The only way this would be particularly expensive is with enterprise-grade storage, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for just one terabyte. However, you can also very easily use consumer-grade storage at the expense of lacking some features. Given you can buy one for about $36 (at time of writing), just storage alone would cost $7,200 - and I'm sorry, but that's nothing as far as a business expense goes. Free customers eventually become paying customers, so I don't consider them to be leeching off Roll20 here. For just this one-time cost, Roll20 would need 144 users to sign up for a year of Plus (not Pro). Even if we round it off to a neat $10,000 necessary for other materials and perhaps labor just to set up, you still just need 200 users - not even 1/1000th of the people who use Roll20. In fact, you don't even need to spend this much, because plenty of services like Amazon S3. This particular example, Amazon, charges $0.0023 per gigabyte (not even a full cent), up to 50 TB, where the next 450 TB costs $0.0022 per gig, followed by anything over 500 TB costing $0.0021 per gig. These rates vary based on region, but data can be stored anywhere on cloud. I'm not sure why you think your attempt at a "gotcha" here was going to be successful when data in just about all forms is cheap. Nice try though.