I wouldnt be so sure about the having more money in the bank. I stopped playing in about 93, but discovered SFBOL back in October of 2010.

I started playing and was using my old rulebook but it was hopelessly outdated there were quite a few changes. So I bought a paper copy of the MRB and G3, and G3A, the CDH, module C5 and the Omega MRB and module C3A.

Then when e23 products started being released I bought the eMRB, E2, E3 Rules and E3 SSD book, R107, the FC eMRB, and Captains Logs 1-19.

You can try to deny it but the truth of the matter is without Paul Franz and SFBOL and one guy named Tugger who taught me how to use the interface you never would have sold those products to me.

From the brick and mortar store I had all but 2 of the Captains logs that I bought on e23, so that was not new stuff for me just a better format. I had also bought 2 copies of the Doomsday rules back then so my gaming friends wouldnt get there dirty paws on my precious rulebook.

Im not going to add all that up but its a significant amount and you can no doubt confirm most of it since I bought the paper stuff from ADB directly and the e23 stuff from them.

But that stuff is just a drop in the bucket I had module J and K and like R1-R7 from the 90's.

So while I can totally understand your frustration over piracy I dont think I really deserve both barrels of buck shot, after all Leanna can confirm that wasnt on my order.

So why not send Robert aka Tugger a nice email saying wow you got that Baltar guy good he's swallowed the hook and keeps sending cash. And Paul should probably get one too he baited the hook.

I just think SFBOL has not been that bad of a thing for your company, im sure we both have different perspectives but from where Im sittig next to this mountain of SFB modules and rulebooks its been a very good seller of your products.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:50 am: Edit

Maybe these will help you confirm what I have pruchased off e23.

e23-110115-253462 9:27 pm CST Jan 15, 2011 1 $65.00 APPROVED

e23-120106-181702 5:15 pm CST Jan 6, 2012 1 $7.50 APPROVED

e23-120204-276735 3:04 am CST Feb 4, 2012 1 $15.00 APPROVED

e23-120204-295947 5:55 am CST Feb 4, 2012 2 $135.75 APPROVED

e23-120225-292815 1:50 am CST Feb 25, 2012 $23.75 APPROVED

There were a couple books I got from e23 that were not ADB products but the vast majority was, you owe those sales to SFBOL as much as anything, and Im sure im not the only one because ive helped people put shopping lists together when they have signed up for SFBOL.

I think I made 2 mail purchases the first was probably around $200 that should be in your October 2010 records possibly early November. And another shipment when C3A came out I got other stuff then too that i forgot to mention like Triagulum and the Galactic Smorgasboard. `

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:56 am: Edit

Josh, while there no doubt are some like you who bought stuff because of SFBOL, there are far more who did not buy stuff because of SFBOL. On net, ADB loses. It is now a struggle to find a way to serve the honest customers like you without also making it easy for those who are not honest.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:05 am: Edit

Terry, I disagree. Something Josh touched on that SVC seems to underestimate is the value SFBOL added to the game and company. I probably would not have bought the last five-plus years of SFB products were it not for SFBOL as a gaming venue. Without it, I'd have no reason to continue as a customer beyond nostalgia. It's not a matter of "only wanting it my way", it's a matter of, this is the ONLY way I can play these days. And I DID purchase all the new books as they came out - not just "to do the right thing" (of course, that) - but because of all you get with a module that is NOT on SFBOL. Charts, R-section, annexes, history, scenarios. I once ran a thriving campaign (the Farthest Stars, on this BBS) and would always buy the new modules... often multiple copies, to give to players that weren't going to be able to buy them themselves.

As I purchased MOST of my stuff from my local game shop (to "Support my FLGS" and "Keep ADB in the stores"), I may or may NOT be able to use them online, depending on what is instituted...

I have the products (all of them) and purchased them legitimately. But I certainly didn't keep store receipts from a local game store stockpiled with my tax forms, for the past couple years, to prove I didn't buy them from an online vendor.

I'm sure my local retailer will be thrilled to learn I won't be buying any further SFB products from him in the future (since I can't use them online if not purchased directly from ADB)... is that the message we want sent?

I have never supported online piracy and have bought every product as a loyal customer. But like Josh says, it feels like we (the loyal customers who can only play these days on SFBOL) are getting it with "both barrels" as he so aptly put it.

None of us want ADB's business to suffer. I have a huge shelf full of paper product and multiple bins of painted and unpainted 2400 minis to prove otherwise. Certainly we wouldn't want SVC's marriage to suffer or anything horrible like that. I appreciate that he "went to bat" and kept SFBOL up when there was pressure to kill it.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:13 am: Edit

I have no doubt that there has been loss of profits, what I am trying to show the powers that be is how SFBOL can be tied directly to certain sales to me.

I had completly stopped playing the game but when I saw SFBOL and how these 2nd generation SSD's looked and played online I was hooked its really a great service and I just hate seeing it demonized.

It was the combination of the work that Paul puts into the interface and the help I got from guys like Tugger and CrashandBurn, and many others that got me hooked and i have stayed hooked.

If 3rd generation SSD's keep SVC and company from losing more and more money Im all for them.

My personal feeling is alot of people download stuff of the internet just because they can, so when you see x number of downloads and speculate that such and such a percent would have been actual sales you may or may not have that percentage right.

Clearly somebody has tried to quantify the loss, has anyone tried to quantify the sales that SFBOL has generated that you may have assumed were just people deciding on there own im going to take up a classic game of space combat from the good old days of wargaming because I cant stand my Xbox buddies anymore.

For me it was different I looked up SFB to see if the game was alive and saw that you could play online and there was a free demo version. I tried it and the people were great, they helped me so much and I have tried to pass that on to the demo's I see log in.

Some of those people decided to get back into the game and I was the one telling them what there top priority should be when purchasing products, got to have the MRB, got to have G3 you know put the modules in order of whats most important to have right away.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:15 am: Edit

Thanks Dale its good to know im not the only one bitten by the SFBOL bug.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:19 am: Edit

Josh, I once had the under-appreciated blessing of having a bunch of guys to play locally with. As they drifted apart and moved away, one of them (Jeremy Gray) badgered me into trying SFBOL. Had I not done so, I would have stopped buying the game because, honestly I would have stopped being ABLE to PLAY the game.

So yes. SFBOL directly impacted, in a very positive sense, my motivation to buy said product. Which even continued and contributed to my (expensive) miniature habit. Though I wasn't putting them on the table save for the rare blue moon convention any longer, SFBOL kept me buying products which kept me interested in the ships, and therefore the minis.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:26 am: Edit

Even in the good old days we had a small group I think we did some playtesting and got mentioned as Battlegroup Oregon in CL 17.

Those were fun days but not nearly so fun as now, SFBOL has changed everythig instead of 3 guys, one who's arm needed serious twisting because of the massive tome of a rulebook SFB has I have dozens of potiential gaming buddies and none of that was possible before.

Im sorry but PBEM just does not compare to what you can do with SFBOL and I think they should really think about how the client brings in a whole new group of players who live in rural area's and just cant find local players. I have played online so much I dont even miss the FtF experience, to be honest rolling internals over and over and over got kindof boring I love how the client automates that boring task.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 07:43 am: Edit

Folks, we know that SFBOL is a Good Thing in many ways. That is why we are working so hard to make it viable for you and the company.

We also have a long history of trying to support the local game stores and if we could do it this time, then we would. If we have to make a choice, then it will be to benefit our customers.

When we talk about lost revenue, then you should know there was a direct correlation between when the ships started showing up -- all of them and directly after publication -- and our sales figures. We just couldn't figure out why until someone told us about the work that Aaron had been doing.

Now, we've already stated that the ships already on SFBOL are grandfathered in. The big issue seems to be the play test modules on e23 and maybe we can figure something out there, but I don't know.

Remember that ADB doesn't make oodoodles of money from SFBOL. If you think about it, you know that has to be true -- Paul has to turn a profit and at only $5 a month, that's going to be difficult. We have to pay Paramount their share, too. We have to sell books to stay profitable.

I know it doesn't seem fair to have honest people have to suffer for the acts of those who are less honorable. However, we do it every day with locked DVD cases, protecting ourselves from identity theft and malware, and other such things. Surely asking you to buy new stuff from the cart and only new stuff that you would play online isn't that onerous?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 08:31 am: Edit

Also this doesn't cut out local stores entirely. Cap logs, products like G3, eventually G4, minis, etc. Have no SFBOL presence and could still be bought locally. This deals with one or two SFB products (or Fed Com? Eventually F&E) with SSDs a year.

Although my local store doesn't carry SFB, and has gotten so bad about ordering, taking over a month to get readily available stuff in that I have given up on that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 10:48 am: Edit

What is the total registered player count for SFBOL. Is this known?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 10:50 am: Edit

We are fully aware that SFBOL has had benefits. We can track them. We can also track the losses. And the losses are massive. We know exactly when generation two SSDs appeared, because sales of SFB modules dropped like a rock. In all seriousness, had we not put a stop to adding new products to SFBOL, there probably would not have been any new SFB products in the last three years, or ever again.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 11:28 am: Edit

All this is great.

But the INTJ in me wants to know, when do we get started in fixing this?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 11:30 am: Edit

I got to the office a minute ago to find a fascinating email saying that something over 90% of SFBOL is tournament ships only, and that all of the non-tournament SSDs could be deleted today and only a small fraction of users would be affected. That's not what you guys have been telling me. Anybody got real numbers?

Randy: My question, too.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 11:56 am: Edit

Well, FWIW, the only play I did on SFBOL when I was playing regularly on it was tourney ships.

Sample set of 1 and all that, but...I don't find the statement ridiculous as a knee-jerk reaction, anyway. Doesn't mean it's RIGHT, but...I can't refute it...

(Now, the real question, though, is...even if I didn't actually *play* with anyone else using the non-tourney ships, would I still have sub'd if regular ships were not even an *option*? Probably not - I certainly used the 'offline' mode a few times in my battleforce articles to help test out positioning and tactics. So even if the statement is true about the actual play volume of tourney vs regular...it may not be safe to draw conclusions from that, alone...)

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 11:57 am: Edit

Steve,
If anyone can actually answer that, it would be Paul. There is an excellent record of most tournament games kept by Robert Schirmer, which includes all tournaments and Net Kill games, which I have to think represents a huge portion of the tournament ship play. I have no idea how you would get the non-tournament ship play numbers.

That said, though I am a 100% tournament ship only player, I can tell you that I see non-tournament rooms active almost every time I log on and that I see fewer than 10 rooms 100% of the time, so in terms of pure number of rooms, non-tournament play has got to be more than 10%.

Whatever the number is, I am certain that tournament ship play is by far the majority of play. I don't know who has been telling you different.

That said, for many players (though, again, certainly the minority), non-tournament games are an essential part of their SFBOL experience and the problem with that becomes the need to have a huge non-tournament ship library to handle the very small number of times any one ship might be used. As a more concrete example, I have been asked to run some Fed Com scenario based tournaments, but have chosen not to so engage because of the limited library available for Fed Com. Without a good library, you just can't run things like campaigns (of which, for SFB, I know several are active).

In short, I think the answer is likely to be "a significant but minority of players on SFBOL actively use the non-tournament offerings" and their experience would be significantly diminished without the ability to play non-tournament games.

I think the other answer is, whomever wrote that email, if they are not Paul Franz, has no factual basis for their opinion.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:19 pm: Edit

On the face of it, I think the email is basically right. I probably do (well, did) more Netkill playing than campaign playing in the first 6 months of my subscription (this is my first year in SFBOL. Much thanks to Troy, who got me going).

However, Without the option of playing with the non-tourney-library, I would not continue with SFBOL. Very likely, SFB would get put on the shelf because I have no one willing to play, and ADB would lose my future sales. (Future sales are funny: Everyone cares about past "lost" sales, but not future "lost" sales)

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:29 pm: Edit

I don't think that anyone has ever said that we don't care about future "lost" sales. I certainly do and in my role as Marketing Director I can tell you that keeping SFBOL strong is part of preventing future "lost" sales.

I have already emailed SVC reminding him about the campaigns run through SFBOL. These are an important aspect of the total SFB experience to many people. I feel confident that he will continue to listen to you all -- that is why he posted what he'd been told and asked for real numbers.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Of course we dont have real numbers, Paul's never told me that he has numbers on who plays how many games of regular SFB or tournament SFB.

[Edited at his request.]

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Josh,
You need only look at my past posting to find that I am not a person who just knee jerks a pro-ADB reply. I have been suspended from these forums for stating plainly and directly my opinion on a matter related to Fed Com and not bothering to sugar coat it or care that someone might be offended by it.

So, believe me when I say this, I think you have Steve's posts completely wrong. I think he is earnestly fact seeking and is interested in taking steps to ensure SFBOLs continuation. I think he is completely wrong on the piracy thing, but that is no matter.

From everything I have read, Steve and ADB are just looking for ways to change SFBOL (I think, frankly, if the Fed Com hybrid style SSDs are implemented, for the better) to satisfy both his interests (which, again, I think might be misguided) and the player's interests.

Nothing I see in anything he has written suggests that he is planning on shutting down SFBOL or restricting the current library. To the contrary, at least one post was very clear on the fact that everything currently in the library should remain so and it is only new modules for which he wants to employ some sort of "did you buy the paper version?" check.

Really, I am always strongly skeptical about everything anyone says and don't mind being banned/suspended for saying so publicly, and in this case I really think you have Steve wrong here.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:00 pm: Edit

[Deleted as no longer necessary -- Jean]

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Quote "I got to the office a minute ago to find a fascinating email saying that something over 90% of SFBOL is tournament ships only, and that all of the non-tournament SSDs could be deleted today and only a small fraction of users would be affected. That's not what you guys have been telling me. Anybody got real numbers?"

Then how does that small fraction of users account for the drop in sales of Modules? Is it possible that the drop in sales have factors other than the switch in SFB Online SSDs to second generation. Did other things happen and SFB Online is talking all the blame?

I can't speak for other players but only myself for the most part. I buy every SFU item. I have all the products, some in multiple copies and generally I have all of the different versions. The product update list is a checklist for purchasing, but I know I am not the norm. I know people that have only bought basic and advanced missions and nothing else. I know that where there used to be 10 game stores in the 90s between Rapid City and Spokane there are now 4. While I was in Denver two huge old game stores closed. The number of people that I played SFB with regularly in the 80's 90's was in the thirties. Of those 30 people I know three that still play, and the three of us play on SFB Online. When I moved to SD in 96 the player base was just me. When we played regularly we for the most part played with basic and Advanced mission ships. Rarely Tournament ships. Occasionally ships from the early R Modules (BBs from R5). For most of the 2000's I haven't played a single game but continued to religiously buy ADB products including F&E, FC, Starmada, and ACTASF products I have no intention of playing. I have been on SFB online for a year and two friends I played with in the 90s have also subscribed. We have started and finished 10 games in that year (we have all been busy with RW stuff) Of those 10 games 2 were Tourney and 8 were games that could have been played with basic and advanced missions. The point is there are what 1000 sfb scenarios and we play duels, there are 1000s of ships and we play with 20 or so. (Klingon, Fed, Tholian, Romulan, Kzinti and Gorn). Someday we would like to play more scenarios, we have talked about trying more empires but there is a learning curve, and my two friends have a ton of SFB stuff to catch up on. Our sessions are so far apart you forget your tactics and how to use the client in between but without SFB Online the three of us would not be playing at all. They will quit buying products to get caught up, and I will just be a collector instead of a player without SFB Online.

The third generation SSDs we can live with, and only buying new future modules from the Starfleet Store we can live with. Security features and even an increase in SFB Online costs is tolerable. As I get more time and am more familiar with the client and rules I will start playing in online tournaments, but do not turn SFB Online into SFB Tournament Online ONLY.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Yeah, let's not antagonize SVC, shall we? While I'm definitely in the pro-SFBOL camp, and personally I'm one of those would probably nearly abandon SFB without SFBOL, SVC has indicated his desire to keep SFBOL. Antagonzing him is not going to get us anywhere, even if we strongly disagree with policy changes.

Honestly, I like the new SSD format - especially if we can have FedCom-style silhouettes. The technical issues with the new SSD formats are minor and, at worst, can be overcome by note or mutual agreement during play.

As for new SSDs going forward, well, I don't like having to buy from the online cart and not supporting a brick and mortar store - but that's SVC's decision to make knowing the costs and the benefits. Honestly if that's the highest price to be paid to keep SFBOL, great. I have an alternative idea for that, though - next post.

Anyway, I guess the bottom line for me is "it's not that bad, let's not get all bent out of shape."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:32 pm: Edit

SVC,

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but what about paying a specific one-time fee to SFBOL to open up content for new products going forward. This fee is not a "premium" for access to new products, it's a specific fee paid to Paul F's company with a known kick-back to you for access to the next-generation SSDs in a given new product. This fee is in addition to whatever you pay for the paper product.

This idea has the benefit of not imposing additional work on Leanna to give Paul F the go-ahead for each person who purchases a product. While some folks might not buy a paper product, and only buy the SFBOL access for SSDs to that paper product, because you're charging for both you should still make money (I would hope). In some cases (like me and at least some others I know) you'd get paid twice - once for SFBOL and once for the paper product (and yes for sure I would do that anyway).

Is that workable?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 01:39 pm: Edit

I have no wish to antagonize SVC, I had no wish to start such a big fight by asking what was happening with SSD's for the newer products, but nobody had even brought the subject up for around a year.

I do like the new SSD's also, and last night went to sleep feeling like this was all going to work out.

For me I would say 80 percent of my games are tournament the rest are either scenario's or campaign battles, I hope that data helps.