Hasbro makes money, everyone wins

[DEFCON 1]

It proves nothing until you demonstrate that said person would have bought the books in question if there was no other option, otherwise it is meaningless.

There are all sorts of factors involved when you are dealing with content theft. You have to consider whether or not the 'lost sale' was actually lost first of all. This involves 2 factors. First would they have bought the product if they couldn't steal it? Second how many other products that they might never have bought did or will they now buy because they are now exposed to your product?

The second factor is meaningless to the point DracoSuave was making. Whether or not a pirate spent money elsewhere on product does not in any way impact the proof that the piracy of the CB lost revenue from the revenue stream of the CB. So we can put that factor completely aside.

DracoSuave made a very specific and provable point: Piracy of the CB takes away revenue from the potential revenue stream of the CB. And as he said... you'd need only a SINGLE person who pirates the CB instead of buying a subscription to DDI to prove that the revenue stream lost revenue.

Thus... the only way for this point NOT to be proven is if EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO PIRATES THE CB WAS NOT GOING TO GET A SUBSCRIPTION TO GET IT OTHERWISE.

And I'm sorry... but if you honestly can sit here with a straight face and tell us that of the thousands upon thousands of people who pirated the CB that not a single one of them would have gotten a subscription to get it if they weren't able to just pirate it... you are just not being honest with us (or really, more to the point being honest with yourself) to try and make your point.

Look, it's okay... it is completely fine to admit that piracy DOES affect revenue for a company. The question then becomes HOW MUCH does it affect revenue... and for that, all we can do is speculate. But to try and say tell us it DOESN'T affect it AT ALL... even for a single $9... is completely untrue, and I think we all know this.

 

[renau1g]

MY biggest issue with microtransactions would be they'd be encouraged to have power creep as you likely would need to be enticed to buy the shiny new spell if it's better/cooler/whatever than your current spells.

Now if "micro" would be whole source books that may be better. I.e. a free CB with some basic stuff in it (maybe like half the PHB, the core four classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) and half their options or something) and you can add on other stuff if you want, or do the annual sub. and get everything...

 

[Ryujin]

Proving there is piracy is easy. Go to torrent site. Find it. Get torrent. Run bittorrent client. Count seeds. Count leeches. Prove established.

And again, as for proof of lost revenue, it only needs to be proven there's a guy out there who doesn't pay for the books. I know that guy. But that isn't proof to you, just to me. However grabbing that proof is simple: Find that guy.

Again, me being pointy-headed, but even proof of piracy isn't proof of lost revenue. It's evidence; nothing more, nothing less.

You really think there wouldn't have been as big an outcry if WoTC forced you to buy a year at a time?

There are plenty of people that still will only buy short term subscriptions, who couldn't care less about it being online.

This announcement at least comes with some good (Mac users can now use it among other things.) Killing all but the year subscription is just a sucky announcement.

In fact I'm betting that once the new CB comes out, people start using it, and they iron out a few bugs (exports and possibly increase the number of savable characters) the outcry will mostly die off.

Especially if they make another announcement soon. The arguments and complaints will shift focus, and horrors of an online CB will be largely forgotten.

Perhaps there would have been LESS of an outcry. An awful lot of people complaining about losing CBC, both here and on the Wizards site, are saying that they were annual subscribers. For those of us who signed up annually, a change to annual-only is no change. The only people who would complain, would be those who did the hit-and-run subscriptions. If those were split evenly between people who left and people who subbed for a year, it would be a gain for Wizards.

If they wanted to bring in Mac users, then a recompile for Mac use would do the job. It might be easy. It might be complex. I'm a hardware and network jockey though, so I don't know that angle.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Perhaps there would have been LESS of an outcry. An awful lot of people complaining about losing CBC, both here and on the Wizards site, are saying that they were annual subscribers. For those of us who signed up annually, a change to annual-only is no change. The only people who would complain, would be those who did the hit-and-run subscriptions.

Well, you know what... right now the only people who are complaining are those who don't want an online builder. The rest of us don't give a rat's ass whether it's downloadable or online, which is why it only seems like a big outcry.

So there's no way to prove one way or another whether the outcry would have been bigger or smaller for annual subscriptions, so the whole debate is meaningless.

It simple comes down to this... WotC was making A CHANGE. Those who like the change are happy and a few of them come online to say so... those who don't like the change are upset and MANY of them come online to say so... and those who don't care one way or another mostly don't bother saying anything because they just don't care to waste their time. So to try and put a proportion to the numbers is a waste, and the real proof will be in the pudding in six months time when we'll see what the numbers will actually be like.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, you know what... right now the only people who are complaining are those who don't want an online builder. The rest of us don't give a rat's ass whether it's downloadable or online, which is why it only seems like a big outcry.

So there's no way to prove one way or another whether the outcry would have been bigger or smaller for annual subscriptions, so the whole debate is meaningless.

It simple comes down to this... WotC was making A CHANGE. Those who like the change are happy and a few of them come online to say so... those who don't like the change are upset and MANY of them come online to say so... and those who don't care one way or another mostly don't bother saying anything because they just don't care to waste their time. So to try and put a proportion to the numbers is a waste, and the real proof will be in the pudding in six months time when we'll see what the numbers will actually be like.

If speculation has no value then we might as well turn out the lights and lock the doors on the internet, because it'll be closed for business

 

[renau1g]

On an unrelated aside, Hasbro is making money right now, outperforming rivals...just in the "core" business line. Shares are up 70% in the last 12 months. I wonder if teh WotC guys get Hasbro stock compensation? I hope so...

Playing the market: Why Hasbro is hot - The Globe and Mail

 

[DEFCON 1]

If speculation has no value then we might as well turn out the lights and lock the doors on the internet, because it'll be closed for business

Oh it definitely has value... it keeps me entertained and gives me something to read if nothing else.

 

[Sunseeker]

On an unrelated aside, Hasbro is making money right now, outperforming rivals...just in the "core" business line. Shares are up 70% in the last 12 months. I wonder if teh WotC guys get Hasbro stock compensation? I hope so...

Playing the market: Why Hasbro is hot - The Globe and Mail

Well lets just hope Hasbro doesn't feel the ship as sailed on D&D at any point. They may have enough money to sink into a Battleship movie, but we don't want them to start getting the idea in their head that D&D is sunk. Otherwise they might just torpedo it before we have a chance to plug the leaks with more consumer interest. Of course, we should also be concerned that investors don't scuttle the whole thing, but to keep D&D sailing, we have to keep Hasbro/WotC afloat too.

And yeah, this post was mostly written to make a bunch of ship-puns.

 

[badmojojojo]

Well lets just hope Hasbro doesn't feel the ship as sailed on D&D at any point. They may have enough money to sink into a Battleship movie, but we don't want them to start getting the idea in their head that D&D is sunk. Otherwise they might just torpedo it before we have a chance to plug the leaks with more consumer interest. Of course, we should also be concerned that investors don't scuttle the whole thing, but to keep D&D sailing, we have to keep Hasbro/WotC afloat too.

And yeah, this post was mostly written to make a bunch of ship-puns.

My partner owns Hasbro stock, this is great news. I doubt that with the amount of $$ DnD generates they would scuttle this little skiff.

 

[DracoSuave]

Again, me being pointy-headed, but even proof of piracy isn't proof of lost revenue. It's evidence; nothing more, nothing less.

Proof that someone is downloading something for free rather than paying to download something is not proof of lost revenue?

Has a -single person- said 'Don't bother getting the subscription, here, I'll send you the files?' Yes? Proof of lost revenue.

Has a -single person- said 'Why get DDI, I have bittorrent?' Proof of lost revenue.

You don't need to prove that someone who did download it would have bought it. You need to prove someone who downloaded it is using it. That's damn easy.

I wish I could live in a happy fairy world where people who download things for free pay for them each and every time, after the fact. Where piracy created profits simply because people who are willing to steal something have the moral integrity to buy it afterwards.

I'm not that naive tho, to believe that.

(As an aside tho, I have no moral objection to downloading digital versions of products you already own.)