'Dungeons & Dragons' fights for its future

[billd91]

With some of the complaints about the bias of the article, I find myself asking, "Did we read the same article?"

The coverage is pretty even handed and the bias I can detect is more about promoting the idea that there is an element of uncertainty in D&D's future. But since a large proportion of gamers I know and interact with on these boards ponder the long-term future of tabletop RPGs from time to time, it's not exactly an unheard-of idea.

 

[xechnao]

$10 a month if you sign up for a year.

Anyway, I'll pay it. For the character generator, all the Dragon and Dungeon content, and access to a rules database that gives me all classes, feats, and rules for ALL published books whether I own them or not?

I consider that a fantastic deal.

120$ for 1 year's worth of personal use of the character generator, able to read online a database like the SRD online and some online articles is not something fantastic at all in my POV. Actually it is kind of laughable.
But then this model has been tested somehow. Hundreds of specialized press papers and magazines follow this online subscription model. Fact is that subscribers to these are usually professionals. I don't know if hobbists are like that but it seems so since they pay this to play WoW so I guess it could work out for Wotc -why not?
If WoW was around 30$ a month and with the same number of subsribers, DDI's price could be there too.

 

[Jack99]

120$ for 1 year's worth of personal use of the character generator, able to read online a database like the SRD online and some online articles is not something fantastic at all in my POV. Actually it is kind of laughable.

But it is not just like the SRD. The SRD was the 3 core books, and a smattering of a few more. This will be every single book they release. Big difference IMO.

I agree with Klaus, that alone is worth $120 a year.

 

[el-remmen]

The article seemed okay to me. Perhaps not quite as informed as many of us are, but the article was not meant for us.

As for 4E imitating its imitators: Does anyone actually not believe this to be true?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Right now, DDI sounds like it would take the role that the Laptops do in my current DND games.. nothing yet can replicate the experience of describing the slide down the ballroom stairs, latch onto the chandelier, steal a kiss from the princess, some expensive plonk, a trencher of meat and bread, then dissapearing out the window to freedom. (I'm going to miss my bard )

I'm not 100% certain what you meant by this, but remember DDI is a toolset for playing the same D&D we now play. You can do exactly the same things using DDI as you can around the kitchen table. The Virtual Game Table is designed less for the face-to-face group, and more to bring together players who cannot meet in person due to geography, time, or inability to leave the basement. With voice chat, a DDI run game can replicate the experience you described above, except that you can't see the other players faces, can't high-five each other, and you can't share snacks.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm sure they did. I remember filling in a survey where they asked what I would pay for a service like DDI. So yes, I believe that they've surveyed the market.

/M

So it's your fault then?

With some of the complaints about the bias of the article, I find myself asking, "Did we read the same article?"

The coverage is pretty even handed and the bias I can detect is more about promoting the idea that there is an element of uncertainty in D&D's future. But since a large proportion of gamers I know and interact with on these boards ponder the long-term future of tabletop RPGs from time to time, it's not exactly an unheard-of idea.

I didn't see it as biased, but I see it was a bit pessimistic.

120$ for 1 year's worth of personal use of the character generator, able to read online a database like the SRD online and some online articles is not something fantastic at all in my POV. Actually it is kind of laughable.
But then this model has been tested somehow. Hundreds of specialized press papers and magazines follow this online subscription model. Fact is that subscribers to these are usually professionals. I don't know if hobbists are like that but it seems so since they pay this to play WoW so I guess it could work out for Wotc -why not?
If WoW was around 30$ a month and with the same number of subsribers, DDI's price could be there too.

Many hobbies are expensive and have yearly costs. Sports fan spend money on tickes pretty regularly. Car fans jiggle around with their games constantly. Computer Game fans buy games regularly and upgrade their computers constantly, and these days, some of them also have to spend money on game subscriptions (previously, the only real subscription was probably to game magazines). Golf players have to pay for their golf club membership. The list goes on. "Subscriptions" are nothing new in general, but they are relatively new to games and role-playing.

I am not sure if the software itself alone is worth the price - I don't like having to buy subscriptions to use my software. But the DDI also offers an expanding rules data base and magazine content. I think that is worth some money, since it is traditionally something that you need to pay for anyway.

 

[xechnao]

But it is not just like the SRD. The SRD was the 3 core books, and a smattering of a few more. This will be every single book they release. Big difference IMO.

I agree with Klaus, that alone is worth $120 a year.

How much more do you expect it to have (at least in the 1st year). Double that content -triple, what?
Even if it had 10 times more content it would still cost them not much actually to put it in place. What costs first place a bit is the technology on which this service is based -not the service itself. But how much does this technology cost? I believe zero in respect to what they are asking.

 

[Dragonblade]

120$ for 1 year's worth of personal use of the character generator, able to read online a database like the SRD online and some online articles is not something fantastic at all in my POV. Actually it is kind of laughable.
But then this model has been tested somehow. Hundreds of specialized press papers and magazines follow this online subscription model. Fact is that subscribers to these are usually professionals. I don't know if hobbists are like that but it seems so since they pay this to play WoW so I guess it could work out for Wotc -why not?
If WoW was around 30$ a month and with the same number of subsribers, DDI's price could be there too.

One man's treasure is another man's junk. I have ZERO interest in WoW or online gaming, so Blizzard will never see a dime from me no matter how cool WoW looks.

But D&D? I consider that money well spent. Heck I spent $10 a month on the paper subscription to Dragon and Dungeon. Now for the same money I get that content and a lot more. Like Klaus said, I consider the rules database alone worth the money. The virtual tabletop is just icing on the cake.

 

[TrainedMunkee]

What I find weird is that D&DOnline is not competing with WoW even if the same media. People claim that WoW has allienated the market due to a media advantage. But I do not believe it is only because of this. It is because it appeals for various reasons. IMO a tabletop could evolve to appealing too. You have to find the right formula. Harry Potter for example found it. Tabletops could find it too.

I saw WoW start up CDs at WalMart, at the register. $$ DDi will never achieve this. You will have to have an established group in order to use DDI. The only way DDi will succede in getting new players, is to appeal to established groups, like WoW groups. I don't see it happening.

I run games at my local library. I didn't hear about the DDI push for Teen Tech week until after it had happened. WoTC had no presence at the last library conference. They had a presence at the conference in Seattle, but that was a couple blocks away.

 

[I'm A Banana]

MSNBC is just as biased and inaccurate with this as they are with, well... everything else

The article was from the AP (in other words, it didn't come from MSNBC reporters).

And....okay, I'll bite.

How was that article biased and inaccurate? It took numbers it presumably got from WotC, and said "Here's what's up with D&D right now!" Note that it also was a tech/gaming article, so the focus on the hot new computer aspect is targeting for it's section, and note that it's a reporting news article, so saying "D&D is still an itty bitty business, but this new edition might grow it...but it's a gamble!" is pretty much the same story they'd use with any business undergoing some big changes that isn't very big itself. The "Plucky Underdog Gambles It All!" story.

That's all pretty much standard newspaper fare, no matter what news outlet you prefer. The fact that it's an AP article goes a bit further to confirm that, since MANY news outlets will pick it up and run with it.

I didn't see it as biased, but I see it was a bit pessimistic.

Journalism 101, baby: Every article tells a story.

This story? "Plucky Underdog Gambles It All!"

It's not really inaccurate. I mean, 4e will probably do fine, but from the outside, it looks like a tiny business trying something bold and new in the hopes of gaining a larger audience, so that's the story.

"Small industry with obsessive fans issues sure-fire success!" isn't really news-worthy.