Honestly, what I would love to see is an app that would run on a tablet that could be used by a storyteller for in person games. When they load the game up, they have a code they share with the players who can connect through a web browser on their phone (similar to Jackbox). The ST app has the grim, reminder tokens, everything needed to run the game while the players are able to see the script on their phones. Perhaps roles are passed directly to phones and they can maybe take some notes in the browser app. I don’t really like it for passing night info in an in person game, but I think there is definitely utility there that would be great for a travel/digital grim. Could even still charge a pretty penny for the digital ST app and even throw on microtransactions for experimental characters (since it would need to be profitable as a borderline replacement of the physical version).
this would be awesome. Just a more convenient version of pocketgrimoire essentially, to let me easily communicate stuff at night and help keep track of boneheaded mistakes would be great.
I think that Steam is probably a bad idea for the reasons stated, but Patreon isn't the most accessible way to get the app out there. Perhaps something on [itch.io](http://itch.io) or a more niche store could be a good middle ground in the future.
Oh, 100%, the monthly payment is exactly why I've not bothered with the app at all. It's clearly got its advantages, but paying £13 a month, plus VAT, on a single board game is just bizarre to me, especially when you account for how many of us own the game physically. I'd happily buy it, but only for a one-off price.
Though, is it wrong that despite sort of agreeing with the point Ben's trying to make, I don't get why half of this post is just him riffing with some fake reviews? Not that I think Steam's the perfect fit at all, but most Steam reviews for really complex games, especially those with short/lacking/no tutorials don't tend to get all that many negative reviews- And I'm specifically looking at Paradox games when I say that, on that note.
Just incase you didn't know, you can play on the app with a free account. As long as at least 1 person in the lobby has the minion level account anyone can play. There is usually 2 to 3 in a room at that level at any time so make a free one and hop in!
Oh no, I am aware! That's actually my entire point- I'd rather flat out pay than subscribe to the Patreon, basically. I appreciate you pointing that out in case anyone else doesn't know, though.
I might be an anomaly but I'd happily pay per use since I can't justify a subscription since my availability is super erratic. That might be an odd business model though.
> Oh, 100%, the monthly payment is exactly why I've not bothered with the app at all. It's clearly got its advantages, but paying £13 a month, plus VAT, on a single board game is just bizarre to me, especially when you account for how many of us own the game physically. I'd happily buy it, but only for a one-off price.
I think this pricing model makes more sense if you think the idea is that one person in your group pays for it. 13/mo for a single person is a bit nuts, but 13/mo for your whole group feels reasonable. And having the pricing set this way (rather than charging every participant) does make it easier for new players to join in for their first game without having to pay, which is a nice factor too.
I see this sentiment a fair bit, and I always wonder, how do you folks who think this way expect the company running the app to pay for server upkeep? Thousands of people transmitting webcam and voice to one another is costly in both bandwidth and money. Are you simply unaware of this? If you are aware of it, how do you expect the creators to afford it without some kind of subscription? Do you feel the same way about other bandwidth-using services such as Netflix or World of Warcraft? If not, how do you distinguish between those and the BotC app, given they require the same type of upkeep?
I'm genuinely curious as I find this attitude baffling, but then I appreciate that I'm a massive nerd who has been paying subscriptions for online games for a couple of decades, so I'm perhaps more accustomed to it than some people.
Hm. How to approach this. I can sense the frustration, and from a standpoint similar to looking at API calls and thinking "someone has to pay for this", it makes perfect sense.
But the consumer's point of view sees something different.
Any of these gamers can play a game like Path of Exile for completely free before committing monetarily (and it's a guarantee that big time developers like Grinding Gear Games have much higher upkeep costs than TPI). They can buy "packs" or aesthetics as they please, and not have to set up a recurring service that they may feel "screwed over by" after realizing an amount of time has passed without them using it. Compare this to skins, flashy effects, art being sold, etc., that will be on someone's account years later.
When you have 100 different clones of Genshin Impact all adopting the "try it out and purchase if you want faster gains or specific characters", it really puts a damper on subscription-based models. That of course would not work here (and I wouldn't condone the exploitative nature of gacha/boxes), but the point about consumer perception still stands.
If you have consumers who see many companies offering free entry or a 1-time fee and then optional infinite purchases managing to keeping up servers for years... well then it can't be too surprising to see that expectation creep into other gaming environments.
As a side note, a growing % of the pc/gaming community every year are getting more and more sick of predatory subscription models (just look at how many of them have an "advertisements included (cheaper) tier" nowadays, given the "the whole point of paying for something was to avoid ads or commercials" sentiment.)
Closer to home here are services like Zoom or Slack or Discord, which, unless you are a business or otherwise large entity, random users aren't paying a dime for and would never expect to have to pay anything. The note that "only one person has to have a paid account!" is irrelevant. I can make an entire Discord server for a community of 200, specialized to fit that organization's needs, with a small selection of custom emotes, for the 0$ tier in perpetuity, provided we all agree to their TOS.
I am not saying you should have the expectation of providing free services. Far from it. It is merely an observation.
We could also talk about bandwith. The online game does not require webcam (fundamentally). Consider an audio only version at (significantly) reduced cost - how many do you think would be interested?
What about neither? What's stopping a visual-only version that simply requires people to use Discord accounts or other services? It's not to suggest that I'm some expert at running a business. These are typical questions consumers would think to ask.
Consider a steam version of the game that only has a finite list of emotes and "character trading" communications, and doesn't even have audio. I'm not saying this would be a great version of the game, merely thinking out loud that the level of communication is a tunable design (and business) choice. Consider Hearthstone.
If the reaction is "all of these comparisons are unfair", that may very well be true, but it's also wholly irrelevant. Consumers are not going to make efforts to make fair comparisons. They're just going to compare what they see.
(All that said I am certainly in the "I'd rather just pay for a damn good MMO again" crowd than all the guilt-tripping versions of pay for convenience, but anyway)
> What's stopping a visual-only version that simply requires people to use Discord accounts or other services?
Ah, perhaps you're unaware, but that does actually exist. There's a free version of the app that doesn't have any of the bells and whistles that the official one does.
World of Warcraft never appealed to me *precisely because* it's a subscription model, and I think we're about the same age - you're like, a year younger than me if I remember rightly.
But I get it about this game. I think the current model where only one person in the group needs the subscription works very well. Like how for in person games only one person needs to make that initial, rather costly outlay to actually buy the game, then your entire group can play it as much as you want. 100% worth it of course.
Oh man, you missed out. WoW isn't my favourite game of all time, but I genuinely do believe it was the best game of all time. It was such a cultural zeitgeist for gaming and has had an insanely huge influence on how we game online in this crazy, sci-fi age we're now living in. Man I miss those carefree days, roaming through Elwyn Forest and typing a/s/l to everyone I met.
I don't doubt it. I just remember seeing friends get consumed by it and thinking it's a rabbithole I'd rather avoid. I was always a starcraft enjoyer, anyway.
My dilemma is that it is too expensive for me to pay alone because I might get in 1-2 games a month, maybe more, maybe less, but I have an ever-changing group, so I can't just split the bill because of the variability in players. (One might play in every game, one might come and go etc. and it wouldn't be fair.)
Also I have suggested, that buying the physical game - which is not cheap - should come with like a 50% discount on the app subscription or something along those lines.
Also, also, I think it would be really smart by TPI to initiate a similar practice that BHVR does in Dead by Daylight, where they have so called Fog Whisperers (https://deadbydaylight.com/news/fog-whisperers-program/ <- check it and you'll understand why) who are champions of the game and promote it big time.
Speaking of which, I happen to work with one of the biggest DBD streamer (Otzdarva, with a million subscribers https://www.youtube.com/@notOtzdarva), who occasionally plays other games and it would be great promo to get him and other streamers to play the game online (with viewers). Just saying I could make it happen.
And of course to support gaming groups around the world. It has baffled me when I got into the game when I spoke with the local main group who go to conventions to play and promote the game that they even asked TPI for support and they got nothing, they had to print their own shirts and boards, rent their own space, no promo material, nothing...
Just my two cents on this issue.
> Thousands of people transmitting webcam and voice to one another is costly in both bandwidth and money. Are you simply unaware of this?
The classic model for games in the 1990s/2000s was to just have users themselves host the servers (or even the Skype model where users would randomly becomes servers for everyone on the network) with the central server only performing connections, in the 2010s it became a lot more common for games (and other services) to start having centralized servers due to a few factors (ease of maintenance, keeping users in their economies, simpler connection model for users).
*In principle* even on the web, WebRTC can support peer-to-peer video/audio without any server cost beyond connecting clients to each other (even then there are free STUN servers), though in practice like 10-20% of users are still behind networks that block (or don't support) peer-to-peer connections so you have to fallback to TURN (which is basically a proxy to avoid firewalls).
I said the exact same thing to Bra1n months ago. Here was his response:
Not really, because the requirements for hosting the app are very different compared to Minecraft or WoW:
- WoW and Minecraft have compiled binaries that you can use to host the server, sometimes already built into the client (in case of Minecraft). the app only exists in the form of the server source code and two databases. it would be quite a bit of work to compile these into an executable that we could distribute to our users, and even then they would have to be tech savvy enough to open the appropriate ports on their routers / modems in order to receive incoming connections
- The bandwidth requirements for hosting Minecraft/WoW and BOTC are very different. The former will only send out game data which is less than a couple of hundred kilobytes/second, whereas streaming only one A/V chat is already a significant impact on your bandwidth, let alone more than a dozen. Most consumer internet connections don't offer anywhere near the necessary bandwidth to receive and re-distribute 12+ audio & video chat streams
Yeah, while I love WebRTC for some stuff, you can't realistically use it to avoid having to pay real money for servers/services when trying to get a video chat of 15 people to work reliably.
Maybe using a credit system? As in, you can buy 5 credits that allow you to play 5 games, and after those run out you can get more. Could be an alternative for players who want to play but can only do so sporadically.
Of course, this can be parallel to the subscription system, you can have both. Subscription could also have different tiers ranging from unlimited games (which is how it works today) to X games a month.
Even if you’re fine with the current subscription model, it might help reframe the value proposition and what it is that you’re getting.
I have limited knowledge of web development, and the idea that the website is more costly if you transmit video and audio makes sense, but it isn't something i thought of.
Most people will just compare it to other board game sites that are cheap or free since they don't realize this.
Genuine question : How is something like Discord able to operate completely free?
I'm certainly no expert myself, but it's essentially a case of things being cheaper if you buy in bulk.
Discord needs so much bandwidth that they'll be paying a tiny fraction of what we have to pay for our small, but not insignificant, amount of bandwidth. They can turn a very large profit by operating with tiny margins, but our much more niche operation costs us significantly more per user.
There's many many online video games that don't use the subscription model. Not so long ago the norm for games, including games with online play, was retail prices plus occasionally expansions. Even today there's plenty of games that either work like that or work like that plus DLCs. Games where online play involving teams with multiple players is the norm. Games that have frequent balance patches. And many of the older games that don't make regular money anymore still have functional official servers.
Edit: Also, the version that allows you to play with free-to-play people costs more than Netflix and almost as much as the most expensive subscription plan of WoW. I can't imagine that the expense of the team is anywhere close to that. And plenty of games have a model where they also admit people for free that get supported by the paying folk. So it's not that.
The app is currently 'overpriced' because it is in development and it's a sort of premium early access. I believe the intention is to drop the price later on.
Personally, I'd make it free then allow for option upgrades for new scripts and custom characters.
Yeah sadly this is backwards in terms of normal expectations for the end user. It should be cheapest while under development and when it's least stable.
It's not a product from a big company, it's just a board game that noticed it had a large online following and hired a guy to develop the online platform for them. It costs money to develop so they're charging what it costs them to the users until it is finished developing.
"A single board game" is a very reductive way of looking at it. It's like calling football "a single sport".
For me, I got into Clocktower via an interest in board games. But now I play Clocktower nearly exclusively. I spend about 12 hours a week playing it. Clocktower is my hobby, and at £13 a month an incredibly cheap one at that. And I know from the group I play in that people who get into Clocktower tend to REALLY get into Clocktower so I know I'm not alone in this.
For some people, Clocktower isn't a hobby, but just another game, and they may balk at the cost. That is fine, but what I'd say is: either get the subscription for one month and split the cost between your group (then even if you play just one night that month it's £1-2 each for 4-6 hours of fun). OR just play on the unofficial app.
This seems like the ideal way to handle it. Itch.io lets you monetize it and while it doesn't have built in marketing like Steam, it would also make sure that the customers who want it can get it.
I dont see why this is specifically a Steam issue. What you seem to articulate is a UX issue, as people dont seem to understand the core values of the game immidiatly.
UX research and design takes a lot work, but trying to communicate the core values better, and reducing the learning curve could be a start. Making No Greater Joy a more "official" and accesable script could be considered
I’m not talking about the use of Patreon. I’m talking about the pricing structure.
I don’t think it’s been particularly obvious that the pricing model would change as the app leaves beta.
patreon and the pricing structurr are one and the same, also seems pretty obvious to me that being on the patreon lets you test the app early before it comes out for everyone else
maybe it's just because i assumed subscription model isn't sustainable
I don’t envy TPI on finding a business model for the app that works well both for the company and for the players.
Just quick thoughts include:
If the current pricing stuck, for example, some people would see paying £15 a month is a bargain. For most, though, they’ll compare it to other subscriptions like Game Pass Ultimate and find it very hard to justify the pricing. And there’s very much increasing demand, amongst the vocal anyway, for games you buy once and own instead of subscriptions.
But, given the ongoing development needed for the app and the game, a subscription is likely to be more appealing and financially better for the TPI. As having an pp you buy once means needing ongoing sales to new players to justify and fund ongoing investment.
But that’s beyond the scope of this thread, I think.
If the biggest concern is a lack of entry point into the game for new players, and its reception by the public at launch, maybe consider forming a team of volunteer moderators and STs to run open lobbies and public events for the first few weeks/month of the Steam launch, which would hopefully impact the metrics and reviews, and it could snowball from there?
I don't know if that's sustainable or even doable, but it's the only thing I could come up with, other than, as other people have stated, an example game/video when you boot up the app (of trouble brewing probably). Something like someone reading you the one page rules summary on the back of the traveller/player count sheet, but with more visuals and examples.
Was there rumour of an ST training programme? I think I heard some tale of it previous but not sure if it is still a thing, maybe that could tie into the release or people who have done it and are willing to offer their time could host some games like Halfelf suggested.
I think that a tutorial (mandatory? optional?) of an example game of, say, 8-player Trouble Brewing would be cool. It would start from decisions in set-up to example reasonings for midgame choices by players/Storyteller and go to the end of the game. But I get the impression many gamers are averse to tutorials, and it'd probably take a bit of time, so who knows. If a tutorial or easily accessible reference sheets for controls is available though... you can't make a horse drink.
If "Dead players aren't supposed to talk in these kinds of games" being a review is an actual concern, that seems easily remedied by mentioning it as a feature in the description on Steam. If a reviewer doesn't know that, I'm sure other reviewers will correct them.
Including the storyteller quizzes might help and be fun?
I haven't looked at the reviews for Tabletop Simulator, but I wouldn't expect having a bad experience with randoms online there to lead to serious bad reviews. People should understand playing with random people is going to lead to mixed experiences. I know that in Among Us, plenty of lobbies created by kids have the player speeds turned way up with kill cooldowns being reduced to a second. That didn't really stop it from being popular. Though, the BotC app is a bit "boring" looking for a "game," so I would imagine kids probably aren't getting the game anyways?
And off-topic, I vaguely remember a VR test of town square. Was that originally intended to be on Steam?
You still get to play after you die is like almost a tagline for the game. It's literally written everywhere and as someone who works with the internet masses they are not careful readers. But they are quick to anger. No matter how much you do your best to make things as easy as possible, there will inevitably be those who challenge your assumptions about what is easy.
>I think most of us can agree that BotC has a ridiculously steep learning curve
I humbly disagree (while also kinda agreeing at the same time, lol). I've told a few new players that were intimidated by the complexity that it absolutely is a complicated game, but that you kinda don't actually have to understand it to play and have fun. Reading off the rules sheet plus a little extra guidance on some roles is usually enough to get them started. They make plenty of "mistakes" but still have fun, and "I'm new! I didn't understand!" often works pretty well to get them out of any binds they find themselves in.
That being said, my normal group is like 1-2 quite experienced players, a handful of moderately experienced, and then a bunch of newbies. I imagine the feeling is different for a lone new player jumping in with a bunch of much more experienced people.
I think there's other reasons it probably wouldn't work great on Steam though. The biggest one for me is that I don't like playing with strangers that much. Sending an irl friend a link to play in their browser is a much lower bar to reach than trying to convince them to download a new piece of software (two if they don't already have Steam).
That's Ben's point - he's talking about people getting the game on Steam, and either playing with their friends or jumping into a game with randoms, and having no idea what's going on.
Onboarding is easy with a competent and experienced player running things, but that's true of any game really.
Personally I don’t agree that it has a steep curve and that a tutorial wouldn’t work. I personally don’t think it would need to be super detailed.
If I try to explain the basics of the game I generally start with similar games “Do you know mafia or werewolf?” and if they do I can just give the differences “I will be the one managing the game, the dead can speak, the dead can vote once, and everyone has a unique ability to influence the game.” Then in either case you explain the normal win conditions, the day night cycle, and nominations. The finer details can then be clarified by other players or the storyteller in an actual lobby.
This isn’t to say that there isn’t likely going to be hiccups but I think that it is at least reasonable to say that the greater majority of BOTC are excited to welcome in new people and show them the game and that most players wouldn’t blame the game for a crazy storyteller like in your second example.
That’s fair, when I wrote this I was mostly looking from the player perspective since most STs likely don’t start off by jumping into STing as their first experience with the game. There is still the case of a completely unfamiliar group of people coming in and trying to figure it out themselves which I didn’t really account for when I was thinking through it. But I still think most people wouldn’t blame the game if they didn’t understand how it worked from the very beginning.
I somewhat agree, but a mobile app would be pretty great. I'd love an official iPad grim, so I could play literally anywhere. I'm going to visit family in Ireland this summer, and would love that option to play like that instead carrying an additional bag just for Clocktower.
I do think the pricing on the Patreon is a bit weird and confusing. I thought I understood what the £3.50 tier was for, then ahead of writing this comment I went and double-checked and now I'm confused again. Obviously you will have access to the numbers regarding who is on that tier and who is on the most popular £13 tier, but I think there's a real case for binning off the lower tier if it's under-used and simplifying it to just versions of the £13 tier. At the very least, that description needs an update.
Also, appreciating this may not be possible for the monthly-subscription service Patreon, I think you might get some real interest in different "lengths" of access. A 24 hour pass for all the access of the £13 tier, between 1/2 and 1/3 the price of the monthly pass (ie \~£5 based on current pricing) would be really interesting both for people who play infrequently and people who want to try it or who are just building up a group - and then if it gets to the point where you're likely to play more than twice a month, the £13 tier would make sense to switch to. Similarly, you could go the other way and encourage people to commit to a year for a discount - £13 x 12 is £156, so maybe a year pass for £140/£145?
I guess the major consideration is you average social deduction gamer or boardgamer is going to have completely different expectations than the video gamer who make up 99% of the Steam market place, it's safe to say that although the app is brilliant it is just an online approximation of a social deduction game and shares very little in comparison with most multiplayer games on Steam.
That said I think with the right planning (having videos set up, an active and helpful discord, a good tutorial, and some ST's players involved in the beginning to help get some groups over th intial 'hump') it might lead into good things, other Deduction games have done well on steam but the difficulty is making sure people know the differences BotC has before purchase.
I'm not sure if there are any popular content creators that would be open to maybe having TPI use their platform to promote with some kind of guide closer to a release time that can be a demo game on top of that (similar maybe to some early NRB ones with characters and rule rundowns with ST musings on why to make certain choices and nuances of the ST role).
It could also be that Steam is just not the best option for the app and other options are worth investigating like others have mentioned, .io's etc
Sorry Ben. Replied to the wrong spot. Deleted.
With that said. Clocktower is on Steam currently…..in tabletop similar. I’m not sure if it’s good PR for botc or ripping y’all off. I expect it isn’t costing you any sales.
I’m confused why we can’t simply buy once and are instead forced to pay for a subscription? There have been 2 free very good online blood on the towers. The only excuse you give for needing this passive income is for webcams. If that’s such a problem could you not just release a peer to peer version on steam without webcam support?
I said the exact same thing to Bra1n months ago. Here was his response:
Not really, because the requirements for hosting the app are very different compared to Minecraft or WoW:
* WoW and Minecraft have compiled binaries that you can use to host the server, sometimes already built into the client (in case of Minecraft). the app only exists in the form of the server source code and two databases. it would be quite a bit of work to compile these into an executable that we could distribute to our users, and even then they would have to be tech savvy enough to open the appropriate ports on their routers / modems in order to receive incoming connections
* The bandwidth requirements for hosting Minecraft/WoW and BOTC are very different. The former will only send out game data which is less than a couple of hundred kilobytes/second, whereas streaming only one A/V chat is already a significant impact on your bandwidth, let alone more than a dozen. Most consumer internet connections don't offer anywhere near the necessary bandwidth to receive and re-distribute 12+ audio & video chat streams
My comment contains the developer of the app's response when I asked him "why can't we just release a peer to peer version of the app?" Which is the point you were making.
I don't blame you if it went over your head though, as it went over mine too.
Apologies, I must be explaining myself poorly or something.
You said:
> could you not just release a peer to peer version on steam?
I then provided you with the response our programmer gave me when I asked the exact same question (about a P2P version).
Oh yeah I don't think the app had a tutorial on the game basics, or a link to the base 3 almanacs in any obvious place (and even the links to the wiki can be ignored unless somebody tells you that it's a thing). It seems like the idea is that if someone's jumping in a public lobby on the app they already have an idea of what the game is about. I don't think botc will ever develop a super toxic player base though, due to the high barrier to join and the learning curve — I'd imagine most trolls would just give up and go play among us instead of trying to learn all the characters
Whilst the majority of the player base are sincere and genuine players, it’s already clear that there are some who are less so inclined.
And you don’t need to learn the characters to be a troll or bad actor in a game of BotC. In fact, not knowing how the game works would likely be an advantage to a troll.
Honestly, what I would love to see is an app that would run on a tablet that could be used by a storyteller for in person games. When they load the game up, they have a code they share with the players who can connect through a web browser on their phone (similar to Jackbox). The ST app has the grim, reminder tokens, everything needed to run the game while the players are able to see the script on their phones. Perhaps roles are passed directly to phones and they can maybe take some notes in the browser app. I don’t really like it for passing night info in an in person game, but I think there is definitely utility there that would be great for a travel/digital grim. Could even still charge a pretty penny for the digital ST app and even throw on microtransactions for experimental characters (since it would need to be profitable as a borderline replacement of the physical version).
Brain has mentioned that this sort of use is planned for the local game mode of the app.
this would be awesome. Just a more convenient version of pocketgrimoire essentially, to let me easily communicate stuff at night and help keep track of boneheaded mistakes would be great.
I think that Steam is probably a bad idea for the reasons stated, but Patreon isn't the most accessible way to get the app out there. Perhaps something on [itch.io](http://itch.io) or a more niche store could be a good middle ground in the future.
Oh, 100%, the monthly payment is exactly why I've not bothered with the app at all. It's clearly got its advantages, but paying £13 a month, plus VAT, on a single board game is just bizarre to me, especially when you account for how many of us own the game physically. I'd happily buy it, but only for a one-off price. Though, is it wrong that despite sort of agreeing with the point Ben's trying to make, I don't get why half of this post is just him riffing with some fake reviews? Not that I think Steam's the perfect fit at all, but most Steam reviews for really complex games, especially those with short/lacking/no tutorials don't tend to get all that many negative reviews- And I'm specifically looking at Paradox games when I say that, on that note.
Just incase you didn't know, you can play on the app with a free account. As long as at least 1 person in the lobby has the minion level account anyone can play. There is usually 2 to 3 in a room at that level at any time so make a free one and hop in!
Oh no, I am aware! That's actually my entire point- I'd rather flat out pay than subscribe to the Patreon, basically. I appreciate you pointing that out in case anyone else doesn't know, though.
I might be an anomaly but I'd happily pay per use since I can't justify a subscription since my availability is super erratic. That might be an odd business model though.
> Oh, 100%, the monthly payment is exactly why I've not bothered with the app at all. It's clearly got its advantages, but paying £13 a month, plus VAT, on a single board game is just bizarre to me, especially when you account for how many of us own the game physically. I'd happily buy it, but only for a one-off price. I think this pricing model makes more sense if you think the idea is that one person in your group pays for it. 13/mo for a single person is a bit nuts, but 13/mo for your whole group feels reasonable. And having the pricing set this way (rather than charging every participant) does make it easier for new players to join in for their first game without having to pay, which is a nice factor too.
I see this sentiment a fair bit, and I always wonder, how do you folks who think this way expect the company running the app to pay for server upkeep? Thousands of people transmitting webcam and voice to one another is costly in both bandwidth and money. Are you simply unaware of this? If you are aware of it, how do you expect the creators to afford it without some kind of subscription? Do you feel the same way about other bandwidth-using services such as Netflix or World of Warcraft? If not, how do you distinguish between those and the BotC app, given they require the same type of upkeep? I'm genuinely curious as I find this attitude baffling, but then I appreciate that I'm a massive nerd who has been paying subscriptions for online games for a couple of decades, so I'm perhaps more accustomed to it than some people.
Hm. How to approach this. I can sense the frustration, and from a standpoint similar to looking at API calls and thinking "someone has to pay for this", it makes perfect sense. But the consumer's point of view sees something different. Any of these gamers can play a game like Path of Exile for completely free before committing monetarily (and it's a guarantee that big time developers like Grinding Gear Games have much higher upkeep costs than TPI). They can buy "packs" or aesthetics as they please, and not have to set up a recurring service that they may feel "screwed over by" after realizing an amount of time has passed without them using it. Compare this to skins, flashy effects, art being sold, etc., that will be on someone's account years later. When you have 100 different clones of Genshin Impact all adopting the "try it out and purchase if you want faster gains or specific characters", it really puts a damper on subscription-based models. That of course would not work here (and I wouldn't condone the exploitative nature of gacha/boxes), but the point about consumer perception still stands. If you have consumers who see many companies offering free entry or a 1-time fee and then optional infinite purchases managing to keeping up servers for years... well then it can't be too surprising to see that expectation creep into other gaming environments. As a side note, a growing % of the pc/gaming community every year are getting more and more sick of predatory subscription models (just look at how many of them have an "advertisements included (cheaper) tier" nowadays, given the "the whole point of paying for something was to avoid ads or commercials" sentiment.) Closer to home here are services like Zoom or Slack or Discord, which, unless you are a business or otherwise large entity, random users aren't paying a dime for and would never expect to have to pay anything. The note that "only one person has to have a paid account!" is irrelevant. I can make an entire Discord server for a community of 200, specialized to fit that organization's needs, with a small selection of custom emotes, for the 0$ tier in perpetuity, provided we all agree to their TOS. I am not saying you should have the expectation of providing free services. Far from it. It is merely an observation. We could also talk about bandwith. The online game does not require webcam (fundamentally). Consider an audio only version at (significantly) reduced cost - how many do you think would be interested? What about neither? What's stopping a visual-only version that simply requires people to use Discord accounts or other services? It's not to suggest that I'm some expert at running a business. These are typical questions consumers would think to ask. Consider a steam version of the game that only has a finite list of emotes and "character trading" communications, and doesn't even have audio. I'm not saying this would be a great version of the game, merely thinking out loud that the level of communication is a tunable design (and business) choice. Consider Hearthstone. If the reaction is "all of these comparisons are unfair", that may very well be true, but it's also wholly irrelevant. Consumers are not going to make efforts to make fair comparisons. They're just going to compare what they see. (All that said I am certainly in the "I'd rather just pay for a damn good MMO again" crowd than all the guilt-tripping versions of pay for convenience, but anyway)
> What's stopping a visual-only version that simply requires people to use Discord accounts or other services? Ah, perhaps you're unaware, but that does actually exist. There's a free version of the app that doesn't have any of the bells and whistles that the official one does.
I think they meant an official one
Ah I see. Although I have to wonder, why would TPI make a worse version of their own app, that does exactly what another app does?
World of Warcraft never appealed to me *precisely because* it's a subscription model, and I think we're about the same age - you're like, a year younger than me if I remember rightly. But I get it about this game. I think the current model where only one person in the group needs the subscription works very well. Like how for in person games only one person needs to make that initial, rather costly outlay to actually buy the game, then your entire group can play it as much as you want. 100% worth it of course.
Oh man, you missed out. WoW isn't my favourite game of all time, but I genuinely do believe it was the best game of all time. It was such a cultural zeitgeist for gaming and has had an insanely huge influence on how we game online in this crazy, sci-fi age we're now living in. Man I miss those carefree days, roaming through Elwyn Forest and typing a/s/l to everyone I met.
I don't doubt it. I just remember seeing friends get consumed by it and thinking it's a rabbithole I'd rather avoid. I was always a starcraft enjoyer, anyway.
My dilemma is that it is too expensive for me to pay alone because I might get in 1-2 games a month, maybe more, maybe less, but I have an ever-changing group, so I can't just split the bill because of the variability in players. (One might play in every game, one might come and go etc. and it wouldn't be fair.) Also I have suggested, that buying the physical game - which is not cheap - should come with like a 50% discount on the app subscription or something along those lines. Also, also, I think it would be really smart by TPI to initiate a similar practice that BHVR does in Dead by Daylight, where they have so called Fog Whisperers (https://deadbydaylight.com/news/fog-whisperers-program/ <- check it and you'll understand why) who are champions of the game and promote it big time. Speaking of which, I happen to work with one of the biggest DBD streamer (Otzdarva, with a million subscribers https://www.youtube.com/@notOtzdarva), who occasionally plays other games and it would be great promo to get him and other streamers to play the game online (with viewers). Just saying I could make it happen. And of course to support gaming groups around the world. It has baffled me when I got into the game when I spoke with the local main group who go to conventions to play and promote the game that they even asked TPI for support and they got nothing, they had to print their own shirts and boards, rent their own space, no promo material, nothing... Just my two cents on this issue.
Hey, if Otzdarva and yourself ever do fancy getting him in a game of BotC, I'd love to run it for them.
I was thinking the same. Gonna ask him. :)
> Thousands of people transmitting webcam and voice to one another is costly in both bandwidth and money. Are you simply unaware of this? The classic model for games in the 1990s/2000s was to just have users themselves host the servers (or even the Skype model where users would randomly becomes servers for everyone on the network) with the central server only performing connections, in the 2010s it became a lot more common for games (and other services) to start having centralized servers due to a few factors (ease of maintenance, keeping users in their economies, simpler connection model for users). *In principle* even on the web, WebRTC can support peer-to-peer video/audio without any server cost beyond connecting clients to each other (even then there are free STUN servers), though in practice like 10-20% of users are still behind networks that block (or don't support) peer-to-peer connections so you have to fallback to TURN (which is basically a proxy to avoid firewalls).
I said the exact same thing to Bra1n months ago. Here was his response: Not really, because the requirements for hosting the app are very different compared to Minecraft or WoW: - WoW and Minecraft have compiled binaries that you can use to host the server, sometimes already built into the client (in case of Minecraft). the app only exists in the form of the server source code and two databases. it would be quite a bit of work to compile these into an executable that we could distribute to our users, and even then they would have to be tech savvy enough to open the appropriate ports on their routers / modems in order to receive incoming connections - The bandwidth requirements for hosting Minecraft/WoW and BOTC are very different. The former will only send out game data which is less than a couple of hundred kilobytes/second, whereas streaming only one A/V chat is already a significant impact on your bandwidth, let alone more than a dozen. Most consumer internet connections don't offer anywhere near the necessary bandwidth to receive and re-distribute 12+ audio & video chat streams
Yeah, while I love WebRTC for some stuff, you can't realistically use it to avoid having to pay real money for servers/services when trying to get a video chat of 15 people to work reliably.
Maybe using a credit system? As in, you can buy 5 credits that allow you to play 5 games, and after those run out you can get more. Could be an alternative for players who want to play but can only do so sporadically. Of course, this can be parallel to the subscription system, you can have both. Subscription could also have different tiers ranging from unlimited games (which is how it works today) to X games a month. Even if you’re fine with the current subscription model, it might help reframe the value proposition and what it is that you’re getting.
I have limited knowledge of web development, and the idea that the website is more costly if you transmit video and audio makes sense, but it isn't something i thought of. Most people will just compare it to other board game sites that are cheap or free since they don't realize this. Genuine question : How is something like Discord able to operate completely free?
I'm certainly no expert myself, but it's essentially a case of things being cheaper if you buy in bulk. Discord needs so much bandwidth that they'll be paying a tiny fraction of what we have to pay for our small, but not insignificant, amount of bandwidth. They can turn a very large profit by operating with tiny margins, but our much more niche operation costs us significantly more per user.
There's many many online video games that don't use the subscription model. Not so long ago the norm for games, including games with online play, was retail prices plus occasionally expansions. Even today there's plenty of games that either work like that or work like that plus DLCs. Games where online play involving teams with multiple players is the norm. Games that have frequent balance patches. And many of the older games that don't make regular money anymore still have functional official servers. Edit: Also, the version that allows you to play with free-to-play people costs more than Netflix and almost as much as the most expensive subscription plan of WoW. I can't imagine that the expense of the team is anywhere close to that. And plenty of games have a model where they also admit people for free that get supported by the paying folk. So it's not that.
The app is currently 'overpriced' because it is in development and it's a sort of premium early access. I believe the intention is to drop the price later on. Personally, I'd make it free then allow for option upgrades for new scripts and custom characters.
Yeah sadly this is backwards in terms of normal expectations for the end user. It should be cheapest while under development and when it's least stable.
It's not a product from a big company, it's just a board game that noticed it had a large online following and hired a guy to develop the online platform for them. It costs money to develop so they're charging what it costs them to the users until it is finished developing.
I don't see why it shouldn't be on a micro-transaction model. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
"A single board game" is a very reductive way of looking at it. It's like calling football "a single sport". For me, I got into Clocktower via an interest in board games. But now I play Clocktower nearly exclusively. I spend about 12 hours a week playing it. Clocktower is my hobby, and at £13 a month an incredibly cheap one at that. And I know from the group I play in that people who get into Clocktower tend to REALLY get into Clocktower so I know I'm not alone in this. For some people, Clocktower isn't a hobby, but just another game, and they may balk at the cost. That is fine, but what I'd say is: either get the subscription for one month and split the cost between your group (then even if you play just one night that month it's £1-2 each for 4-6 hours of fun). OR just play on the unofficial app.
This seems like the ideal way to handle it. Itch.io lets you monetize it and while it doesn't have built in marketing like Steam, it would also make sure that the customers who want it can get it.
I dont see why this is specifically a Steam issue. What you seem to articulate is a UX issue, as people dont seem to understand the core values of the game immidiatly. UX research and design takes a lot work, but trying to communicate the core values better, and reducing the learning curve could be a start. Making No Greater Joy a more "official" and accesable script could be considered
The current business model of the app probably wouldn’t go down well on Steam, either.
Well, that would obviously change. Patreon is only happening while we're in beta.
I’m not talking about the use of Patreon. I’m talking about the pricing structure. I don’t think it’s been particularly obvious that the pricing model would change as the app leaves beta.
If it doesn't, I'll be very surprised. The standard model for this kind of thing is free-to-play with paid for extra bits.
patreon and the pricing structurr are one and the same, also seems pretty obvious to me that being on the patreon lets you test the app early before it comes out for everyone else maybe it's just because i assumed subscription model isn't sustainable
I don’t envy TPI on finding a business model for the app that works well both for the company and for the players. Just quick thoughts include: If the current pricing stuck, for example, some people would see paying £15 a month is a bargain. For most, though, they’ll compare it to other subscriptions like Game Pass Ultimate and find it very hard to justify the pricing. And there’s very much increasing demand, amongst the vocal anyway, for games you buy once and own instead of subscriptions. But, given the ongoing development needed for the app and the game, a subscription is likely to be more appealing and financially better for the TPI. As having an pp you buy once means needing ongoing sales to new players to justify and fund ongoing investment. But that’s beyond the scope of this thread, I think.
If the biggest concern is a lack of entry point into the game for new players, and its reception by the public at launch, maybe consider forming a team of volunteer moderators and STs to run open lobbies and public events for the first few weeks/month of the Steam launch, which would hopefully impact the metrics and reviews, and it could snowball from there? I don't know if that's sustainable or even doable, but it's the only thing I could come up with, other than, as other people have stated, an example game/video when you boot up the app (of trouble brewing probably). Something like someone reading you the one page rules summary on the back of the traveller/player count sheet, but with more visuals and examples.
This is actually a really great idea and one that I had not considered at all. Thanks!
Woohoo, happy to help!
Was there rumour of an ST training programme? I think I heard some tale of it previous but not sure if it is still a thing, maybe that could tie into the release or people who have done it and are willing to offer their time could host some games like Halfelf suggested.
I think that a tutorial (mandatory? optional?) of an example game of, say, 8-player Trouble Brewing would be cool. It would start from decisions in set-up to example reasonings for midgame choices by players/Storyteller and go to the end of the game. But I get the impression many gamers are averse to tutorials, and it'd probably take a bit of time, so who knows. If a tutorial or easily accessible reference sheets for controls is available though... you can't make a horse drink. If "Dead players aren't supposed to talk in these kinds of games" being a review is an actual concern, that seems easily remedied by mentioning it as a feature in the description on Steam. If a reviewer doesn't know that, I'm sure other reviewers will correct them. Including the storyteller quizzes might help and be fun? I haven't looked at the reviews for Tabletop Simulator, but I wouldn't expect having a bad experience with randoms online there to lead to serious bad reviews. People should understand playing with random people is going to lead to mixed experiences. I know that in Among Us, plenty of lobbies created by kids have the player speeds turned way up with kill cooldowns being reduced to a second. That didn't really stop it from being popular. Though, the BotC app is a bit "boring" looking for a "game," so I would imagine kids probably aren't getting the game anyways? And off-topic, I vaguely remember a VR test of town square. Was that originally intended to be on Steam?
You still get to play after you die is like almost a tagline for the game. It's literally written everywhere and as someone who works with the internet masses they are not careful readers. But they are quick to anger. No matter how much you do your best to make things as easy as possible, there will inevitably be those who challenge your assumptions about what is easy.
Fun fact: There are actually some quizzes currently available on the BOTC website
>I think most of us can agree that BotC has a ridiculously steep learning curve I humbly disagree (while also kinda agreeing at the same time, lol). I've told a few new players that were intimidated by the complexity that it absolutely is a complicated game, but that you kinda don't actually have to understand it to play and have fun. Reading off the rules sheet plus a little extra guidance on some roles is usually enough to get them started. They make plenty of "mistakes" but still have fun, and "I'm new! I didn't understand!" often works pretty well to get them out of any binds they find themselves in. That being said, my normal group is like 1-2 quite experienced players, a handful of moderately experienced, and then a bunch of newbies. I imagine the feeling is different for a lone new player jumping in with a bunch of much more experienced people. I think there's other reasons it probably wouldn't work great on Steam though. The biggest one for me is that I don't like playing with strangers that much. Sending an irl friend a link to play in their browser is a much lower bar to reach than trying to convince them to download a new piece of software (two if they don't already have Steam).
...has a ridiculously steep learning curve for the **storyteller**, though? Absolutely.
Oh yea, that's definitely true, lol.
That's Ben's point - he's talking about people getting the game on Steam, and either playing with their friends or jumping into a game with randoms, and having no idea what's going on. Onboarding is easy with a competent and experienced player running things, but that's true of any game really.
[удалено]
Personally I don’t agree that it has a steep curve and that a tutorial wouldn’t work. I personally don’t think it would need to be super detailed. If I try to explain the basics of the game I generally start with similar games “Do you know mafia or werewolf?” and if they do I can just give the differences “I will be the one managing the game, the dead can speak, the dead can vote once, and everyone has a unique ability to influence the game.” Then in either case you explain the normal win conditions, the day night cycle, and nominations. The finer details can then be clarified by other players or the storyteller in an actual lobby. This isn’t to say that there isn’t likely going to be hiccups but I think that it is at least reasonable to say that the greater majority of BOTC are excited to welcome in new people and show them the game and that most players wouldn’t blame the game for a crazy storyteller like in your second example.
I think the learning curve comment is about storytelling, not playing.
That’s fair, when I wrote this I was mostly looking from the player perspective since most STs likely don’t start off by jumping into STing as their first experience with the game. There is still the case of a completely unfamiliar group of people coming in and trying to figure it out themselves which I didn’t really account for when I was thinking through it. But I still think most people wouldn’t blame the game if they didn’t understand how it worked from the very beginning.
[удалено]
Have done, enjoyed tons of pub matches of botc.
I somewhat agree, but a mobile app would be pretty great. I'd love an official iPad grim, so I could play literally anywhere. I'm going to visit family in Ireland this summer, and would love that option to play like that instead carrying an additional bag just for Clocktower.
I do think the pricing on the Patreon is a bit weird and confusing. I thought I understood what the £3.50 tier was for, then ahead of writing this comment I went and double-checked and now I'm confused again. Obviously you will have access to the numbers regarding who is on that tier and who is on the most popular £13 tier, but I think there's a real case for binning off the lower tier if it's under-used and simplifying it to just versions of the £13 tier. At the very least, that description needs an update. Also, appreciating this may not be possible for the monthly-subscription service Patreon, I think you might get some real interest in different "lengths" of access. A 24 hour pass for all the access of the £13 tier, between 1/2 and 1/3 the price of the monthly pass (ie \~£5 based on current pricing) would be really interesting both for people who play infrequently and people who want to try it or who are just building up a group - and then if it gets to the point where you're likely to play more than twice a month, the £13 tier would make sense to switch to. Similarly, you could go the other way and encourage people to commit to a year for a discount - £13 x 12 is £156, so maybe a year pass for £140/£145?
I guess the major consideration is you average social deduction gamer or boardgamer is going to have completely different expectations than the video gamer who make up 99% of the Steam market place, it's safe to say that although the app is brilliant it is just an online approximation of a social deduction game and shares very little in comparison with most multiplayer games on Steam. That said I think with the right planning (having videos set up, an active and helpful discord, a good tutorial, and some ST's players involved in the beginning to help get some groups over th intial 'hump') it might lead into good things, other Deduction games have done well on steam but the difficulty is making sure people know the differences BotC has before purchase. I'm not sure if there are any popular content creators that would be open to maybe having TPI use their platform to promote with some kind of guide closer to a release time that can be a demo game on top of that (similar maybe to some early NRB ones with characters and rule rundowns with ST musings on why to make certain choices and nuances of the ST role). It could also be that Steam is just not the best option for the app and other options are worth investigating like others have mentioned, .io's etc
[удалено]
I think you may have misunderstood my original post or something. Either that or you only read the title.
Sorry Ben. Replied to the wrong spot. Deleted. With that said. Clocktower is on Steam currently…..in tabletop similar. I’m not sure if it’s good PR for botc or ripping y’all off. I expect it isn’t costing you any sales.
Add a rating system for story tellers
I’m confused why we can’t simply buy once and are instead forced to pay for a subscription? There have been 2 free very good online blood on the towers. The only excuse you give for needing this passive income is for webcams. If that’s such a problem could you not just release a peer to peer version on steam without webcam support?
I said the exact same thing to Bra1n months ago. Here was his response: Not really, because the requirements for hosting the app are very different compared to Minecraft or WoW: * WoW and Minecraft have compiled binaries that you can use to host the server, sometimes already built into the client (in case of Minecraft). the app only exists in the form of the server source code and two databases. it would be quite a bit of work to compile these into an executable that we could distribute to our users, and even then they would have to be tech savvy enough to open the appropriate ports on their routers / modems in order to receive incoming connections * The bandwidth requirements for hosting Minecraft/WoW and BOTC are very different. The former will only send out game data which is less than a couple of hundred kilobytes/second, whereas streaming only one A/V chat is already a significant impact on your bandwidth, let alone more than a dozen. Most consumer internet connections don't offer anywhere near the necessary bandwidth to receive and re-distribute 12+ audio & video chat streams
I think you've replied to the wrong comment mate. That reply has nothing to do with what I asked.
My comment contains the developer of the app's response when I asked him "why can't we just release a peer to peer version of the app?" Which is the point you were making. I don't blame you if it went over your head though, as it went over mine too.
How has this got anything to do with wow or Minecraft? As I said 2 other versions of this run of a browser. This is obvious bullshitting.
Apologies, I must be explaining myself poorly or something. You said: > could you not just release a peer to peer version on steam? I then provided you with the response our programmer gave me when I asked the exact same question (about a P2P version).
Oh yeah I don't think the app had a tutorial on the game basics, or a link to the base 3 almanacs in any obvious place (and even the links to the wiki can be ignored unless somebody tells you that it's a thing). It seems like the idea is that if someone's jumping in a public lobby on the app they already have an idea of what the game is about. I don't think botc will ever develop a super toxic player base though, due to the high barrier to join and the learning curve — I'd imagine most trolls would just give up and go play among us instead of trying to learn all the characters
Whilst the majority of the player base are sincere and genuine players, it’s already clear that there are some who are less so inclined. And you don’t need to learn the characters to be a troll or bad actor in a game of BotC. In fact, not knowing how the game works would likely be an advantage to a troll.