Possible DDI Tiered Pricing...

[delericho]

I actually would prefer not to have a large dump of articles once per month as a "whole issue." I'd rather have the articles finished at the start of the month, throw up a calendar of what gets released when, and stick to that. It keeps people coming to the site more regularly, which is good for business.

Well, possibly.

The advantage of a fixed deadline each month is that it imposes a discipline on the staff. WotC have shown that they have some difficulties sticking to a published calendar (hence the shift from fixed dates for articles to "some time within the month"). I believe that if they are serious about rebuilding the reputation of the magazines, then they have to force themselves back to having that discipline again.

(I may be misjudging them, of course. However, my expectation is that we won't get to the end of 2011 before some article that is promised for the month is "unfortunately delayed due to factors beyond our control".)

 

[Zinovia]

WotC needs to get the value and content level back to what it was before considering a price increase, not that we have any evidence that they were doing so yet.

With all the speculation on tiered pricing in this thread, I have seen a number of people bandying about numbers in the WoW subscription price range. I for one would not pay that amount for tools that are an accessory to my game, and not the game itself. The game is that shelf full of books that I have, my boxes of minis, and my WotBS subscription (and my players of course, but aside from a few cases of soda here and there, they don't cost me anything ).

I absolutely rely on the monster builder to correct and tune all the encounters, and the compendium to find magic items for my group who don't want to make wish lists. We use the character builder on behalf of all my players (the one who had subscribed to Insider has dropped it since all the late unpleasantness with the CB). I feel I am getting value at the current price point for Insider, but it isn't worth the same amount as WoW. I get more entertainment value for my dollar with WoW, and so it's higher price of $12 a month or so (6 month subscription) is justified. The Insider tools are things that we use for maybe 6-8 hours per month, between my game and my son's. I sometimes play that much WoW in one day .

To sum up: don't use WoW as a gauge of what people will pay for online games. An MMO is not equivalent to a suite of tools to prepare your TTRPG.

 

[Zinovia]

We quibbled on value and pricing,
When we could have been talking 'bout dicing,
Soapbox and bandwagon,
Versus slaying a dragon,
I find the last more enticing!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Add me to the list of people who thinks player apps and DM apps should not be put on separate price tiers. No 'DM fee' for me.

Let's be honest here... regardless of how useful, necessary, or wanted something is... a person will try to pay the lowest price they can to get it. If you look on the WoW Auction House and see a particular gem for 10 silver 50 copper and for 10 silver and 49 copper... you're going to buy the one for 1 copper less. You can't help it. That's just the way our brains work. Even in a fictional economy with the price difference of a penny... you're still going to buy the cheaper one.

So if players can get away with paying a lesser amount, they will. Which means 90% of the players out there won't get access to the DM tools which might have eventually inspired them to try DMing. And that's an issue that in no way should ever happen.

Look... there will always be 90 out of 100 subscribers who will be players only. You'll never find a shortage of players. So screw them. They are disposable (speaking in terms of the D&D player base as a whole.) Make them pay the price to get all the tools in compensation for the fact they're taking the easier job. I in no way want them to be catered to over and above the DMs out there. Because without the DMs, there is no game.

So for my money... I prefer to look at it as you are paying your subscription fee for the Character Builder, and WotC is giving those few of you who are also DMs all the DM tools for free.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I think it would be more appropriate if the dragon borders were chromatic.

 

[Dannager]

But for new players, who might decide they want to give DMing a shot, it's a real problem. There's already the disincentive that they need to buy more books (it was the DMG and MM; I don't know what the best Essentials equivalents are), but now you're also adding an extra $4 a month on their subscription.

I think there's some kind of mental disconnect we're having. I'm not saying that prospective DMs should necessarily have to pay more for their subscription than they might currently. I'm saying that players, who don't need all the tools that DMs do, could have the option to pay less. We're not adding $4 to the DM's subscription price. His subscription price stays the same (barring a decision on WotC's part to up the subscription price as more tools are released). We're subtracting (a totally hypothetical) $4 from the players' subscription price.

Now, I suppose the option does exist to provide a DMs-only subscription package that contains access to the magazines, the Adventure Tools, the VTT DM client and the Compendium, but really all that removes is the Character Builder. I don't see any way you can justify a significant discount, and if the discount is as small as I think it ought to be, there's very little reason not to just buy the full package and get the Character Builder in the process. A lot of DMs have been players before and will likely be players again at some point.

I'm all for reducing barriers to DM entry, but frankly I have never heard anyone say "I just can't see myself running a game of D&D. It's too expensive!" Instead, what I have heard much more frequently is "I just can't see myself running a game of D&D. It's too time-consuming/difficult!"

The area where the most progress can be made in reducing the barrier to entry for new DMs is in convenience, and enormous strides have already been made in this regard since the release of 4e. DDI is a huge part of that effort, but so are things like monster statblocks and the DM's Kit.

 

[Dausuul]

I think there's some kind of mental disconnect we're having. I'm not saying that prospective DMs should necessarily have to pay more for their subscription than they might currently. I'm saying that players, who don't need all the tools that DMs do, could have the option to pay less. We're not adding $4 to the DM's subscription price. His subscription price stays the same (barring a decision on WotC's part to up the subscription price as more tools are released). We're subtracting (a totally hypothetical) $4 from the players' subscription price.

This is only relevant to current users, and only for so long as they retain their current subscriptions. Six months after the change, nobody will care what WotC's prices were, only what they are. If DM subscriptions are more expensive than player subscriptions, then people with player subscriptions have to pay more if they want to DM.

The area where the most progress can be made in reducing the barrier to entry for new DMs is in convenience, and enormous strides have already been made in this regard since the release of 4e. DDI is a huge part of that effort, but so are things like monster statblocks and the DM's Kit.

But if you have to upgrade your subscription, that's inconvenient! It requires you to think about the cost, and make a decision to increase your level of spending, and then actually go to your account settings and do it--all so that you can simply try out being a DM. If you don't like it, you then have to remember to downgrade your account again. All this is not a big barrier to anyone who's already committed to DMing; but to someone who just wants to dip a toe in, so to speak, it requires you to make a commitment, and the whole point of the "dip-a-toe-in" approach is that no commitment is required.

Right now, toe-dippers can just borrow the current DM's Monster Vault and DM Kit and give it a go. People are a lot less likely to loan out their DDI passwords.

 

[delericho]

I think there's some kind of mental disconnect we're having. I'm not saying that prospective DMs should necessarily have to pay more for their subscription than they might currently. I'm saying that players, who don't need all the tools that DMs do, could have the option to pay less.

Yep, that's the disconnect. I'm not saying it's bad thing for DM's to pay more than they currently do - I think it would be a bad thing for DM's to pay more than players do. In fact, if it were at all possible, I would prefer for DMs to pay less than players do.

(Hmm... some possibility where DMs 'host' VTT games, and for each player who is logged in, the DM gets a credit towards his next subscription renewal? Also, if something like my "Archive" idea from above were put in place, perhaps contributors could likewise earn credits towards a renewal?)

Now, I suppose the option does exist to provide a DMs-only subscription package that contains access to the magazines, the Adventure Tools, the VTT DM client and the Compendium, but really all that removes is the Character Builder.

Yeah. Given that the Character Builder is really the killer app, I don't see how it can be done using any subset of the tools for DMs only.

If I were WotC, I would currently be looking into ways to stop DMs from hosting the characters for all of their players - force the players to get their own subscriptions! (Though I really hope they don't figure out how to do this - I will not play 4e without access to the CB, and I will not pay a monthly sub. The only thing that may change my mind is if the VTT rocks on toast.)

I don't see any way you can justify a significant discount...

In terms of the tools they would get, you would be right. But DMs contribute more to the game, and to the community, than any single player. A single DM is likely to run games for 5 players, and may run for many, many more. Take that DM out of the picture, and that's a lot of custom that may be lost.

IOW, DMs contribute to the success of D&D, and by extension to WotC, so there's the justification for keeping their costs low.

I'm all for reducing barriers to DM entry, but frankly I have never heard anyone say "I just can't see myself running a game of D&D. It's too expensive!" Instead, what I have heard much more frequently is "I just can't see myself running a game of D&D. It's too time-consuming/difficult!"

No, me neither. But a player might be persuaded to give it a go despite the time costs and despite any lack of confidence. The more WotC can do to lower the barrier to them giving it a go, the better.

(Another thought: something that would be really good would be "The Starter DM Kit", containing a short, easy-to-run adventure, all the appropriate minis/tokens, tiles, pregenerated characters, and the relevant extracts from the DMG/MM (or DMK/MV!). Basically, a single, relatively cheap, and easy-to-digest route into running that first adventure.)

The area where the most progress can be made in reducing the barrier to entry for new DMs is in convenience, and enormous strides have already been made in this regard since the release of 4e.

Agreed on both counts.

 

[MrMyth]

Yep, that's the disconnect. I'm not saying it's bad thing for DM's to pay more than they currently do - I think it would be a bad thing for DM's to pay more than players do. In fact, if it were at all possible, I would prefer for DMs to pay less than players do.

(Hmm... some possibility where DMs 'host' VTT games, and for each player who is logged in, the DM gets a credit towards his next subscription renewal? Also, if something like my "Archive" idea from above were put in place, perhaps contributors could likewise earn credits towards a renewal?)

I understand the theory here; I don't think there is any viable way to really make it work. DMs will need more tools than players - but charging less for more tools would, obviously, not make for an especially viable product in any way.

That said, I don't think a higher price point will bother most DMs. As mentioned earlier - the utility of the tools is, itself, all the selling point they need.

You made initial comparisons to how cons will reduce the cost of entry for those who DM games. But I don't think that is the best comparison - while DMs offering up their time (for VTT games) is tangentially tied to the equation, what we are actually talking about is a DM paying for a product.

The more accurate comparison is to products like the DMG and MM. You are, effectively, suggesting that WotC give away these books for free to DMs. Or even more specifically - you are suggesting that the complete set of the DMG, MM, and PHB should be cheaper than buying the PHB alone.

It's an inherently flawed theory. If the "DM Set" was cheaper but offered more content, everyone would buy it, not just the DMs. You'd need some way of verifying that consumers actually were DMs - and that gets into all sorts of tracking issues that would be a hassle both for WotC and for the DMs.

We do, admittedly, have something similar now, with the RPGA and the DM Rewards program. And the various forms it has gone through. It's a good concept in theory - but expanding it to not just being about small bonuses for running games, but instead a way to get access to the core products of the game itself, just seems like it would need a vast overhaul way outside of WotC's capabiilty.

As it is, if we end up with a tiered pricing structure, I don't think WotC will 'lose' DMs due to the full package (with DM tools) being the most expensive one. Those who are interested will likely be able to try out the extra products with a one month subscription, or via demos or similar offerings.

The thing to keep in mind, generally, is that having access to those tools will not make someone into a DM. Instead, being a DM is the reason to have access to the tools. And, as such, many DMs will go for the tools simply for the benefit that the tools provide to them in their own right.

 

[delericho]

I understand the theory here; I don't think there is any viable way to really make it work. DMs will need more tools than players - but charging less for more tools would, obviously, not make for an especially viable product in any way.

It works if it's done as a loss-leader - subsidise the DM, and make the profit on the players. But, admittedly, it only works if the DM package is indeed only available/useful to DMs, and the players can't simply share accounts.

The more accurate comparison is to products like the DMG and MM. You are, effectively, suggesting that WotC give away these books for free to DMs. Or even more specifically - you are suggesting that the complete set of the DMG, MM, and PHB should be cheaper than buying the PHB alone.

That would indeed be my ideal, but I accept it's not realistic. However, I have for some time advocated the end of the "three-book" model for D&D. Most other games have a single rulebook of use to both players and DMs - I think that would be a beneficial move for D&D to make.

Of course, it's also worth noting that WotC now do indeed try to target their books more at players than DMs - the ratio of splat books and magic item books to setting books and adventure books is really quite high.

It's an inherently flawed theory. If the "DM Set" was cheaper but offered more content, everyone would buy it, not just the DMs. You'd need some way of verifying that consumers actually were DMs - and that gets into all sorts of tracking issues that would be a hassle both for WotC and for the DMs.

Potentially true. However, what I thought might work is having the hours on the VTT logged. WotC could then give out a nominal discount to the DM when his renewal next comes up (say 1c per player per hour, max $10 discount per X months). It really shouldn't be too hard for the VTT to log this automatically.

We do, admittedly, have something similar now, with the RPGA and the DM Rewards program.

Indeed, it should work just like this.

As it is, if we end up with a tiered pricing structure, I don't think WotC will 'lose' DMs due to the full package (with DM tools) being the most expensive one. Those who are interested will likely be able to try out the extra products with a one month subscription, or via demos or similar offerings.

The thing to keep in mind, generally, is that having access to those tools will not make someone into a DM. Instead, being a DM is the reason to have access to the tools. And, as such, many DMs will go for the tools simply for the benefit that the tools provide to them in their own right.

But already having access to those tools might just be the final push that a player needs to try out DMing. Conversely, the existence of the tools might create a perception that they are 'necessary' to run a game, and thus act as a barrier to a player who doesn't have access to them, and isn't willing to shell out $10 for that one-month sub to try them out.

Ultimately, I think it's a fairly marginal case. It's likely that fairly few DMs will be turned off by the DM tools being more expensive, and fairly few players will be persuaded to try DMing simply because of the tools (or turned off by the lack thereof). But I do definitely think that it would be better to sell the player tools and give away the DM tools, rather than place an additional monthly burden on DMs.

A far better way to increase revenue would be to find a way to stop groups 'sharing' a subscription, whether by sharing their login details, or by having the DM host all the characters. The potential gains of having DMs pay a little more each month are as nothing, compared to the potential gains of changing a group's single subscription into six individual subscriptions.