General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Don't underestimate piquing interest. Indeed, that was the real reason behind having the galleries online in the first place. It wasn't to give people art to use in a game (although it certainly did that). The art, mixed with an inside look at a class, a few feats, a location, and a few monsters, were there to get people to buy physical books. Now, moving the art and the classes behind a wall of subscription shows to me that it's not as much about the books anymore, as it's about getting people onto a subscription.
That's fine and dandy. That's not me. I'm not that target demographic.
As a note, they still have many more excerpts these days for all their upcoming products (along with the art posted in the previews themselves.) It may well be they feel that stands as a strong enough preview for showing potential customers what they have to offer.
I think the art would certainly be a good supplement to those previews, but I can understand their logic, and one should acknowledge exactly how much upcoming info they share freely these days.
As a note, they still have many more excerpts these days for all their upcoming products (along with the art posted in the previews themselves.)
That's news to me. I just assumed the little preview thumbnails were the same as the thumbnails for the gallery. That little tidbit leads me to re-examine my earlier critique about "all" the art going behind the wall. It's certainly not made clear that there's art associated with the excerpts.
Quote:
one should acknowledge exactly how much upcoming info they share freely these days.
As compared to what? No free info? Or compared to what they used to have?
Quote:
I am sorry, but that picture is more than enough to decide if you like it or not.
You really think so? Like honestly, wholeheartedly mean that you would be willing to spend $10 just to see it bigger or $40 to buy the book it's in? If so, you're much more generous with your money than I can afford to be. I honestly can't tell what that guy is, what he's holding, or what it's supposed to be illustrating.
You really think so? Like honestly, wholeheartedly mean that you would be willing to spend $10 just to see it bigger or $40 to buy the book it's in? If so, you're much more generous with your money than I can afford to be. I honestly can't tell what that guy is, what he's holding, or what it's supposed to be illustrating.
Yes, it tells me wether I like the style of the art or not. There are styles I do not care for, I don't need to see the details of the art.
Also, in reality, the art is secondary to the content that is in the book. The previews of the books do way more for me than the art.
If it was an art book, I could see what you are saying, but they are not. Art is secondary to content - after all it is a game.
__________________ Don't believe the excuses....
ISP caps effect everyone. Fight for a CAP FREE internet. http://stopthecap.com
That's news to me. I just assumed the little preview thumbnails were the same as the thumbnails for the gallery. That little tidbit leads me to re-examine my earlier critique about "all" the art going behind the wall. It's certainly not made clear that there's art associated with the excerpts.
Yeah - I mean, it isn't in large quantities, but there tends to be a full-size image with every excerpt, and that does give a decent sense of the art in the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio01
As compared to what? No free info? Or compared to what they used to have?
Compared to what they used to have. The build-up to 4E was really where they began the 'previews 2-3 times a week', and they have kept it going for pretty much every new product.
Previously, they mainly just had the 'In the Works' article at the start of each month that had generally one excerpt from each book in the next 2-3 months. Occasionally one or two previes here or there, but not with any consistency that I recall. Now they still have 'In the Works', plus the weekly previews - plus more previews that show up on Facebook, are shared with gamer blogs, etc. Plus the thumbnails to get a least some sense for the artwork, plus the Character Builder demo and all the Level 1-3 content in it, plus the Compendium to search for a summary of the content in any given book (how many feats, what classes/races/paragon paths/items), if not the details. (Plus even more stuff for DDI subscribers, in editorials, Ampersand, Playtest articles, Exlusive Previews, etc.)
That is an enormous devotion to sharing info on upcoming products and letting people get a sense of the product before deciding whether they want to purchase something or not.
Like I said - I think free art galleries was a stand-up move on their part and complimented the rest of their previews nicely. But I don't think it is fair to say the site isn't offering anything to non-DDI members, or that they aren't making an effort to let people 'browse before they buy'.
Yeah - I mean, it isn't in large quantities, but there tends to be a full-size image with every excerpt, and that does give a decent sense of the art in the book.
With that in mind, I'll certainly amend my thoughts on moving the galleries behind the wall.
Quote:
Compared to what they used to have. The build-up to 4E was really where they began the 'previews 2-3 times a week', and they have kept it going for pretty much every new product.
3E had maybe less "previews" but more articles--Characters with Class, Minds Eye, Rules of the Game, Use this Book Tonight, Vicious Venues, etc. So while there may be the same amount--or more--of preview material (which I'm not sold on), it seems to me that there is far less in the way of the other materials than there once was. "All About Sneak Attacks" is still an essential article for 3E rogues. Those articles were before Wizards took back Dungeon and Dragon, and those are the same types of articles that have been absorbed by Dungeon and Dragon, so what we used to get as support articles for free, are now part of a magazine.
3E had maybe less "previews" but more articles--Characters with Class, Minds Eye, Rules of the Game, Use this Book Tonight, Vicious Venues, etc. So while there may be the same amount--or more--of preview material (which I'm not sold on), it seems to me that there is far less in the way of the other materials than there once was.
This is certainly true (though really a different topic from what is at hand, in a lot of ways.)
But... in absolute honesty, many of those articles - the columns, the web enhancements - were generally not up to par in terms of quality. Some were great... many were unusable. I truly prefer paying money for them, and in return, having them be of the same quality of the rest of their products. Which, generally, they have been - occasional problem elements slip through, just like in their printed books. But those tend to be rare, and they do make the effort to later correct them.
I mean, it is always going to be a tricky situation when you previously gave something away for free, and stop doing so - and then offer something similar for sale. But the key question is simply whether the product they are offering is worth the price for it - if so, then it is a worthwhile product. If you don't feel it is worth the price, and did enjoy it as a free product... well, that is a shame. But it was free, right? One should be grateful for the free stuff one got, rather than retain the expectation that they are 'owed' that free stuff for all time to come...
If you don't feel it is worth the price, and did enjoy it as a free product... well, that is a shame. But it was free, right?
I don't feel that preview content should be paid for. That's like charging admission to an art gallery and having it consist of pictures of paintings rather than the paintings themselves.
Quote:
rather than retain the expectation that they are 'owed' that free stuff for all time to come...
People keep throwing that word out there, and even including it in quotes, as if to say that I actually said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth or pretending to have any idea what's inside my head beyond what I've said.
I noted that policy was nearly 10 years long with respect to the art galleries (which are incidentally NOT the art itself, but merely small, low quality copies), and that removing them to behind a paid subscription wall was a bad business decision. I cited direct examples based on my purchasing history and noted that the art plays a significant part in determining whether I'll buy an RPG product or not.
I think it stiffs longtime customers who, rightly or wrongly, over 9+ years have grown accustomed to being able to browse through the art galleries, and delivers nothing to paid subscribers that they weren't already getting. The galleries were the "preview" material I visited the Wizards website for. Removing them has removed my need to surf there (although it has been pointed out that the previews themselves have art, which was not very well advertised), and is just the latest in a series of disappointing decisions that have been made by Wizards since DDI was announced. It was the figurative straw for me, and as such I feel like I'll take my business elsewhere. Like here for instance. Soon as I can get some money into my PayPal account, I'll be buying a CSA for ENWorld. Wizards' loss is Morrus' gain.
well advertised), and is just the latest in a series of disappointing decisions that have been made by Wizards since DDI was announced. It was the figurative straw for me, and as such I feel like I'll take my business elsewhere. Like here for instance. Soon as I can get some money into my PayPal account, I'll be buying a CSA for ENWorld. Wizards' loss is Morrus' gain.
It doesn't stiff anyone, policies change over time, even long standing ones. While some people may not like it, no one can ever plan on everything being available the way it was, just becuase that is the way it was in the past.
That is too bad, as you will miss out on alot of good stuff.
I suggest you look at the previews going forward to see if you like what is coming out.
Going back to the website design. I like it alot. Much better than before. My only problem is it is not usefull to me at work any longer. We are still stuck at IE6 - while old, it is still around.
Has anyone looked at the site on cellphones and that kind of thing yet?
__________________ Don't believe the excuses....
ISP caps effect everyone. Fight for a CAP FREE internet. http://stopthecap.com
Last edited by rjdafoe; 2nd October 2009 at 05:35 PM..
I don't feel that preview content should be paid for. That's like charging admission to an art gallery and having it consist of pictures of paintings rather than the paintings themselves.
I am starting to feel a bit confused here, since you seem to keep changing the conversation. My quote you were responding to was in response to your bringing up the transition of articles and columns that were not preview content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio01
People keep throwing that word out there, and even including it in quotes, as if to say that I actually said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth or pretending to have any idea what's inside my head beyond what I've said.
Fair enough... but you do proceed to, not two paragraphs later, describe the situation as "it stiffs longtime customers who [...] have grown accustomed to being able to browse through the art galleries". How is that not implying that they have been deprived of something they have are owed? Isn't that the meaning of the term 'stiffed'?
I mean, 90% of what you are saying I have no problem with. The site no longer offers a reason for you to surf there - that is perfectly reasonable, perfectly logical. But talking about how it 'stiffs' customers, how it has inspired you not just to not visit their website, but apparently boycott WotC entirely... that does seem to be treating it as some sort of personal attack, as them taking something away from you, rather than what it actually is: them no longer providing you something for free.
Fair enough... but you do proceed to, not two paragraphs later, describe the situation as "it stiffs longtime customers who [...] have grown accustomed to being able to browse through the art galleries". How is that not implying that they have been deprived of something they have are owed? Isn't that the meaning of the term 'stiffed'?
You're using owed as a way to imply a negative connotation. I don't feel "owed" the galleries. I feel shocked that the policy was changed, that it was done so under the cover of a website redesign, that it wasn't announced, and that it was in fact a fairly large policy shift. Based on all previous communications, it was my understanding that the zipped compilations and easy navigation using the in-site browser were DDI subscriber content, but that the art would remain available to use. And that was indeed both what they said and what they did.
Quote:
But talking about how it 'stiffs' customers
Stiffs, as in removes content previously available.
Quote:
how it has inspired you not just to not visit their website, but apparently boycott WotC entirely... that does seem to be treating it as some sort of personal attack, as them taking something away from you, rather than what it actually is: them no longer providing you something for free.
Again, it's not just the art. If it were just the art that was leading me to stop giving Wizards of the Coast my money, it would be petty and absurd. Which is what I assume most people responding to me are wishing they could state out loud, despite the fact that I have disabused that notion multiple times. Again, it is just the latest example in a line of decisions which have negatively affected me as a customer and colored my perception of the company. It has become completely apparent to me now that I am no longer part of the target demographic as I don't want a "subscription" but rather a set of books and support for using said books. I never subscribed to Dragon or Dungeon, so those weren't selling points to me. The Character Builder is something I don't really need. The Monster Builder would be nice, as would the Compendium, but the Compendium is not what it was originally marketed to be.Preview articles and looks into the process (Design and Development) have been significant parts of the "support" for people who use the books since 3E started. The Game Table, Character Visualizer, and Dungeon Planner were the DDI items I was excited to use, and have been nixed. The GSL is still questionable, and the fan site policy is pretty much useless. Then the art, which was a major factor in my determining whether I would buy a book or not, was removed behind the subscription wall.
The combination of all of that history together is what is leading me to take my business elsewhere. I'm not "boycotting" as that implies doing it in protest and as a political statement. I'm simply not buying any other material from the company because they have alienated me personally as a consumer. I "boycott" Starbucks because I disagree with them on principles (but their coffee is excellent). By comparison, I don't shop at Whole Foods not because of a difference of principles (although that is there), but because I'm not the target demographic--Whole Foods is simply too expensive and delivers products that I simply don't want. Wizards of the Coast is far more like the latter than the former.
That reason they gave is the biggest load of hooey in the existance of everything. How in the nine hells is making art I've had free access to all along even when I didn't have a DDi sub DDi-only giving me more value as a subscriber? *facepalm*
They're really padding for content now. Seriously. Dungeon was never interesting to me since I'm not a DM for 4e, and Dragon has been getting steadily thinner and worse as well. The missing-the-point Bahamut article or the gods-awful franky crappy Domains of Eberron and FR article for example. The Bahamut D&Dg article wasn't about Bahamut at all, but a lame cliched organization I could have made up when I was six. The Domains article was inexcusably bad - Eberron missing domains, FR having horrible domain assignments and completely *wrong* fluff. For that matter, the issue they were in recieved no errata before the compilation. Supposedly there was going to eventually be a fixed issue, but if anything has ever been done or announced on it, I sure as hell missed it.
Seriously, how is taking away stuff that was already there for free giving me more value as a subscriber? It's not. Hell, it's not even really doing that for future galleries, because, yes, this stuff used to be free, so I have a hard time seeing how it's suddenly giving me more value for my money.
Seriously, how is taking away stuff that was already there for free giving me more value as a subscriber? It's not. Hell, it's not even really doing that for future galleries, because, yes, this stuff used to be free, so I have a hard time seeing how it's suddenly giving me more value for my money.
It gives subs more value becuase that is the only way you can get it now. That is more value for your sub.
Me, it doesn't effect me at all, even if I was not a subscriber. Just doesn't seem to be something to get all worked up about. If I stopped buying stuff from companies that I disagree with, I don't know if there is a company I *could* buy anything from, including food.
__________________ Don't believe the excuses....
ISP caps effect everyone. Fight for a CAP FREE internet. http://stopthecap.com
If I stopped buying stuff from companies that I disagree with, I don't know if there is a company I *could* buy anything from, including food.
Quick - Pepsi, Coke, or something else? Target, Walmart or something else? McDonald's, Burger King, or something else?
What I'm getting at is that all those companies try to gain the most consumers of their products, but invariably they cannot have all of the available consumers. So they make decisions that alienate one set of consumers in preference for another. It appears to me that Wizards has concentrated on the subscriber consumer (whether subscriber only or subscriber and print) at the cost of the print-only consumer. I'm the latter, not the former, so I'll take my money elsewhere.
I prefer Coke to Pepsi (Pepsi tastes too sweet), Target to Walmart (I currently work at Target and get a discount), and Burger King to McDonald's (I like the burgers better). In the last 2 years, I have seen Wizards make decisions and errors which have now made them into my Pepsi, my Walmart, my McDonald's--not my company of choice, and one that I won't be actively supporting with my money.
Stiffs, as in removes content previously available.
Ok, this may be part of the disconnect between what you are saying and what others are hearing. I think most would read that by the standard definition "to cheat someone of something owed".
Similarly, you mention that you aren't 'protesting' WotC because of their behavior, but that they have simply alienated you as a customer. I'm not sure I quite perceive a difference. You go on to make comparisons to other areas, where you don't purchase from a company because you can get a better deal elsewhere, or the company simply doesn't offer a product you are interested in. But it is hard to see how the extent of the freebies WotC offers makes the products themselves less valuable. There is a connection - as you say, not being able to see the art beforehand makes you less confident in the product's quality, thus providing a reason not to buy it.
But the way you have phrased things does make it sound like a protest. Stating that they have lost you as a customer means that, even if they released a product that you would be happy with, you would not want to purchase it out of frustration over the changes in their website content. That sounds a lot more like your Starbuck's situation than the other examples you gave.
Honestly, I suspect the answer is that you don't feel as strongly as you have come across, but have simply phrased things more forcefully because of the immediate frustration of having this change made. And, as you mention, not as much the change itself - since you have admitted they do still provide sufficient preview content - but more the way they have handled it. Not publicly announced, somewhat hidden by the website change itself, etc. I don't know whether they did so with such devious motives or not, but I can see how the appearance of it would easily make a frustrating change especially upsetting.
Would it be safe you say you do not actually feel that WotC is cheating their customers by not providing the artwork in their products for free?
You do, however, feel that it is a poor marketing decision not to provide it, and that you personally much prefer their previous policies (both on offering the artwork and other material that is no longer freely available on their website)?
And that the result of these changes is that you are no longer given a good reason to browse their website, and makes it unlikely you will be aware of their products or inclined to seek them out - but that if they did release a product that you were interested in for the right value, you would be willing to purchase it, rather than avoid it out of protest for their website changes?
That seems to be what you are saying your position is - I'm just trying to figure out for sure, since I do get the sense that most of the disagreement I have had with you in this thread has been more the result of the language that has been used, than the actual feelings behind it. The views I've tried to summarize above are ones I don't have any objection to - not necessarily ones I agree with directly, but ones I can certainly understand as reasonable viewpoints.
Quick - Pepsi, Coke, or something else? Target, Walmart or something else? McDonald's, Burger King, or something else?
How about whatever the store sells, whatever is closer, and wether I feel like eating at that particular fast food place at the moment? None of that precludes me from spending my money there at all. It is a decision I make, at the time, not activly saying -- ehh I don't like that Walmart doesn't give their employees good benfits so they get none of my money, and Target does - even if it is more expensive.
Quote:
What I'm getting at is that all those companies try to gain the most consumers of their products, but invariably they cannot have all of the available consumers. So they make decisions that alienate one set of consumers in preference for another. It appears to me that Wizards has concentrated on the subscriber consumer (whether subscriber only or subscriber and print) at the cost of the print-only consumer. I'm the latter, not the former, so I'll take my money elsewhere.
I don't think that comes into play at all. No matter what they do, they lose customers. The trick is to gain more than you lose. I am sure there are a subset of customers that loved the old website design and navigation and do not like the new one and will not go there anymore. (I of course, have no idea who those people would be, and probably would not understand them at all )
Even if they do *nothing*. There is no alienation unlesss the customer alienates *themselves*. (Disclaimer - on the stuff that you have mentioned)
I think the disconnect, at least with me, is the stong words that you have used. These words, with me, resonate more on the boycott side of things becuase I don't agree, rather than on the sad/dissapointed that their gone/hope they come back/less usefull side of things.
__________________ Don't believe the excuses....
ISP caps effect everyone. Fight for a CAP FREE internet. http://stopthecap.com
Last edited by rjdafoe; 2nd October 2009 at 08:59 PM..
And that the result of these changes is that you are no longer given a good reason to browse their website, and makes it unlikely you will be aware of their products or inclined to seek them out - but that if they did release a product that you were interested in for the right value, you would be willing to purchase it, rather than avoid it out of protest for their website changes?
That seems to be what you are saying your position is - I'm just trying to figure out for sure, since I do get the sense that most of the disagreement I have had with you in this thread has been more the result of the language that has been used, than the actual feelings behind it. The views I've tried to summarize above are ones I don't have any objection to - not necessarily ones I agree with directly, but ones I can certainly understand as reasonable viewpoints.
That is an apt and fair assessment. In hindsight, I posted angry at first and have since been trying to backpedal a bit. For instance, I'm excited about the Dark Sun possibilities, but since I won't really be able to see it develop, I won't have any real idea whether it will be worth picking up until I can see it in a store. And the problem there is that I don't like my LGS (any of the three that are close, really), and the local bookstores have crappy selections for things that aren't the core 3 books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjdafoe
How about whatever the store sells, whatever is closer, and wether I feel like eating at that particular fast food place at the moment?
I would cross the street (or a town) to eat at a Burger King rather than a McDonald's and go to the Target, which is farther than the Walmart, and would just drink water rather than settle for Pepsi. I guess we just have different ways of doing things at a fundamental level.
Quote:
I think the disconnect, at least with me, is the stong words that you have used. These words, with me, resonate more on the boycott side of things becuase I don't agree, rather than on the sad/dissapointed that their gone/hope they come back/less usefull side of things.
Fair enough, as I said above, I was angry (still am) with the decision and came across perhaps more belligerent than I really am.
) 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
