Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Update

Honestly, I am not willing to pay $29 to use VP. $2 would be great, $5 would be acceptable and $10 would be pushing it. But $29 is too much for me. I know I am not the only user who will be departing VP; the average amount of games in the lobby has shrunk from 20 to 3.

If you are not going to lower the price, may I at least suggest allowing us to use all Standard or all Modern cards? VP is useless beyond THEROS BLOCK if that is the case.

The reason we use VP is because it is cheap. If we wanted to pay money for our cards, we'd join the huge marketplace that is MTGO. I am very disappointed.

I would be surprised if many people buy the full version. By raising the price so significantly, you are losing a huge part of your audience. That takes the vast majority of players away from the lobby. When there are less players in the lobby, it is harder to find a game in the format you want, and people will become frustrated and leave. I will not be surprised if Virtual Playtable is a ghost town in a year or so if no changes are made.


  • You lied to us.

    "Don't bother about registration until version 1.0" -Detonator, April 13

  • edited July 2014
    Database limitations implemented only in deck builder (sets filter), if you want search all possible cards and build deck by yourself - it is possible in registered version only.

    If you want only to play online, go
    Choose deck and save it as "Save MWS/.dec", then you can load it in Virtual Playtable and play for free. You can load and play decks with any cards available, any format.

    I will think about adding all Standard cards in unregistered version.

    > "Don't bother about registration until version 1.0" -Detonator, April 13

    Situation changed, I going to fix all small bugs, write some documentation and release 1.0 in one or two months. Collection management and other cool features will be after 1.0.
  • High price for terrible shuffler.
  • Oh, come on guys. VTP is like the awesome version of MWS that doesn't rape your eyes with poor aesthetics. Which means that the creators put a lot of investment into this project. I, for one, would love to support the development of this app.
  • Aelvr: I agree with you. VP is by far the best platform out there. I just think a jump from $0 to $39 is a bit much. Even on sale. Maybe give us faithful users who used it before the update a free pass or something?
  • I am for the support of a good application like VPT but this is way too much. Uninstalling
  • I dont mind to support this project, but like i said before, the price is too damn high. 15$ would be more reasonable.
  • I was very sceptical when I read this and other threads about the update introducing limitations for non-subscribers, and the same thing that TheAmazingKamahl said (2nd post) came to mind.

    Now I installed it and looked at the restrictions myself. I have to say, it really feels like a ball and chain, and the vast restriction to less than standard is really harsh. That being said, as someone who isn't a stranger to XML, it's a piece of cake to add missing cards to decks myself. Because it has been suggested to use another webpage to create decks, I assume modifying decks outside of Virtual Playtable is encouraged and will not be removed in the future.
    From that point of view, the evaluation version seems to be a full-featured program nevertheless, without the convenience of the card search and filter options - that's something I could see passing.

    Another thing I noticed is that creation of own card bases (iirc, that was announced for this release) have not been implemented, which is something I was looking forward to.

    As far as the price goes, I think as with everything on the market, the seller determines the price, and the buyers decide if they want to pay it. Summing up how many hours I've used VPT, and how many decks I've built with it, 20 bucks don't seem unreasonable. However, for me to actually spend that amount, it would need another couple of features (own card bases, collections, more deck metadata, ...) as well as a guaranteed faster update of newer editions - possibly a live update from gatherer instead of jar files (see Conspiracy, for an extreme example).
    In other words, once I could rely on VPT being the tool of choice for me at any point an without having to jump to other pages because there hasn't been a database update yet, I could see me spending that money.

    Of course, coming from where I'm coming from, I'd like to see a Linux-compatible, donation-funded open source implementation much more than a proprietary one (in which case you would have already gotten a donation from me very likely), but again, that's up to the developer.
  • I have a much different problem with this virtual play table update. Right now, I am willing to pay the asking price for this software. It is incredibly convenient, and I use it more than often enough to justify the asking price. However, there are two big issues which make me hesitant to give up the money.

    1. I am not sure how legal the software is once it becomes a paid service. If I end up paying just to watch the thing get taken down, that isn't a good use of my money.

    2. Many of my friends are unwilling to pay, making much of the utility of VTP useless. The asking price is quite a step up considering the software was free to use up until this point. There is not a large number of players on this software, and putting up any barriers can only decrease the number. Ever since the update, I've seen about a quarter of the online traffic. The VPT that I have gotten accustomed to is likely not going to exist anymore if this site doesn't have plans for expansion. If VPT does not have plans to expand its playerbase, I don't want to use this program anymore.
  • Like Luna said, me and my 3 friends we have dropped the game. Just because there is not people to play with. This is a dead game now. Good luck.
  • edited July 2014
    What do you think about next restriction:
    You can see all cards, but only one or two sets at same time (any two sets from Sets filter).

    I don't want to include any other functional or time restrictions in software.
  • The restriction is fair, but I again think that the discussion of placing up restrictions should be paired with what you will do to make the software more widely used. I think loosening the restrictions to play with two sets is more desirable for someone who wants to play for free, but it is still going to result in a fundamental problem. People who pay will be at an advantage in any format. This means unless coordinated in advance, you will still have the issue of players not using the online feature, which is the primary reason why people use VPT over deck builder.

    Now, I'm not saying you should avoid placing restrictions at all. You need money to make VPT better, and you put a lot of work into the program. However, I want you to use some of the money to get a lawyer to help you through the legal barriers. You currently have no Quality of Service Agreement, and I'm not even sure if this operation is legal now. You could lose VPT in its entirety if you are making ill-gotten-gains. Please consider this, as I'd prefer you were successful.

    Secondly, when asking for money, it is important for people to understand what they gain from paying rather than what they lose by not paying. New users will be more willing to pay if you use language like "unlock" rather than "limited". In addition, the unregistered message should contain links to future improvements that are in the works. Letting people know they are paying for future improvements as well as the current state of the software might help increase the number of people using the software. For example, if you told me that you would be the only software to support multiplayer draft, I would throw so many moneys at you, like, all of the moneys. I'm sure most players have a similar feature which they would just throw their money at. Maybe one guy wants to make their own card bases, maybe another wants to create custom sealed sets, or play multiplayer games; the list goes on. But the point is, you have the power to motivate players with features they desperately want, features they can get nowhere else. You are much more likely to get people to purchase your product if they understand what they have to gain.
  • edited July 2014
    Will lose 99.9% of his player base guaranteed. If I wanted to spend money I would be playing MTGO. The remaining players will drop the game because no one will be left to play with.

    Dead game.
  • @Luna

    I hope Detonator hears you
  • @Detonator: Not including any other restrictions seems fair and reasonable, as otherwise you couldn't fully test the software (which I assume is your reason for that). As I said before, that seems very reasonable.

    @rhs123: Keep in mind that it's not just a game, but also a deck building tool. Personally, being familiar with other tools of the sort (that also mostly cost money), I prefer VPT by great lengths, and as I said before, I could see myself affording it if certain ground features were included.
    Also, try making a program like this by yourself and update and distribute it for free. I'll assume it's worth the 30 bucks long before it's worth the amount of time you'd have to put into it. Software doesn't develop itself.

    @Luna: The way I understand it, you can still add cards from any set to your deck, but can only see cards from two sets at the time in the card list. That way, noone would be at a disadvantage in play, just would... take more time and effort to build their decks, I assume.
  • edited July 2014
    > People who pay will be at an advantage in any format.

    No, they could use any set (consequentially) to build deck, but could not browse all sets (or big amount of sets) at one time.

    > However, I want you to use some of the money to get a lawyer to help you through the legal barriers.

    I know. It's gray zone. We can't sell digital copy of cards. But it's legal to build software for deck building and collection management of your own' items. Deck testing with "real card images" is the most disputable feature.

    > Secondly, when asking for money, it is important for people to understand what they gain from paying rather than what they lose by not paying.

    Yes, I understand it. And want that users paid for deck building tool (and collection management in future) with the most completed multilanguage cards database (multilanguage interface in closest plans too).
    Online play part is implemented only to help testing decks. I sure people who don't buy cards never will pay for such tool. But may be remaining users community will be more professional and enough to find opponents.
  • Thanks for responding to my comment. I see your logic, and I'm glad you've seen and considered what I have to say.
  • Oh, I should add. I misunderstood what you meant by browsing two sets at a time. That is actually a very generous restriction. It wasn't until I reread the comments that I realized I misunderstood. Thanks for respecting my intelligence despite the mistake.
  • If you're offering a free version then the free version should be worth it compared to the free versions of competing programs and the way it is in the latest update it doesn't offer anything better than the others.

    Looking at your features page I think these should be free
    >Build, validate, and optimize decks with point-and-click simplicity.
    >Test your decks in solo mode and play online
    And these should be for registered only
    >Generate sealed decks and simulate booster draft.
    >Detailed deck analysis, including probabilities, statistics, and profiles (coming soon)
    >Easily manage collections: track inventory, trade lists, want lists, and colleciton value (coming soon)
  • "What do you think about next restriction:
    You can see all cards, but only one or two sets at same time (any two sets from Sets filter).

    I don't want to include any other functional or time restrictions in software."

    This. This is perfect. It puts a restriction on VPT that shows it's potential without annoying the hell out of prospective deck builders. This is what you want: good that can become better, not bad that can become good. Thank you so much. Implement this and I will consider buying it just to support you.
  • ok, will be implemented in 0.9.1 this week.
  • I'm glad we as the community worked this out.
  • "What do you think about next restriction:
    You can see all cards, but only one or two sets at same time (any two sets from Sets filter)."

    I disagree, I think this is also terrible. I already posted in another topic, but I simply don't understand why you want to remove features from the free-version instead of adding features to the pay-for-version. This just isn't a great way to motivate people to upgrade.
  • Daichi, I don't have "free-version". I have evaluation version to check available features before you bought it.
  • If that is the way you want to argue it. But you are still removing features that were available in past evaluation versions. That is the part I simply don't get.

    The most recent application I've worked with that had a demo version is Spriter. They never removed features, they finished everything they for the the featureset they wanted for the demo version. Then they started adding features to the licensed version. This makes the most sense to me. They never added something to the demo that they removed later. They only made the licensed version much much better.

    If you are going to lock down the deckbuilding features, I might consider upgrading somewhere down the line, but as it stands the only thing to gain is what the product had before. It's just really hard to recommend this product to my friends now.
Sign In or Register to comment.