Unhappy about the VT Announcement.

[MarauderX]

I want the virtual table and I'm glad they are finally putting resources into it.

Having spent a good amount of time reviewing corporate & government management, this does not seem to be about WotC choices by management of how to direct resources. It does seem to be about those assigned to their specific & ongoing tasks not performing expediantly and not being able to reach out for technical assistance when needed.

Also I'm glad to be part of the beta to help make it be a better product, at least for my own selfish reasons of wanting a comprehensive virtual table. It also seems that WotC knows how to delegate and run a beta test by using us to improve their product.

 

[darkwing]

The OP is wrong on two counts:

1 "People don't want a VT": They do. Plus the VT might bring in an entire *new* generation of players.

2 "Because they're working on a VT that means they've abandoned all of their other projects": They're clearly working in parallel here. Just a few days ago they released a new CB and now we know they were also working on the VT for several months.

 

[Chzbro]

Think about all the posts on these boards complaining about the lack of VTT. Think about all those threads with lots of posts in them bemoaning the lack of a VTT. Think about how, every time there's a thread about an D&D and computers, someone brings up the VTT. The VTT has practically become the poster child for how Wizards always breaks promises and never delivers.

What really boggles the mind is that some of the same folks who previously complained about the lack of a VTT (specifically that its absence is proof that WotC is dishonest and incompetent) are now arguing passionately that, sight unseen, the announced VTT is proof that WotC is incompetent and lacks fundamental business acumen.

I think what it's easy to lose sight of is that those of us who post on these boards (and even those who read but don't post) don't make up the bulk of WotC's target demographic. Of the 8 who play in my group, only 2 of us use these boards. All of us, however, are DDI subscribers. Aside from me, I don't think any of my group was even slightly disappointed with the online CB release. Mostly because it has next to no impact on their lives or ability to play the game. "No inherent bonuses or export yet?" <shrug> "We'll make it work."

And this is a group of players that is interested enough in gaming that 5-6 of us go to GenCon each year. In other words, we're not necessarily a casual gaming group; but I think compared to a great number of EN Worlders we'd be considered very casual.

The point is simply this: casual gamers (including many from my group) don't know or care about 3rd party VTTs. They're never going to get frantic about a slightly buggy/incomplete CB release. They play with the tools that WotC provides and have fun doing so...and mostly don't think about the game too much in between sessions. To assume that WotC shouldn't waste their time on a VTT when there are 5 free ones available (or whatever) is to assume that most WotC customers are a lot more serious about the game. Most aren't, and they wouldn't bother downloading and learning how to use Maptool even if they knew about it.

Would they try a D&D branded one, on the other hand? Probably.

 

[denzoner]

And a good way to discourage them from communicating is to use every communication only as a jumping-off point for vitriol. If communication is not seen to increase customer satisfaction, then they won't spend the effort on communicating.

I disagree. Customer feedback is important, period. And it should be a priority. Companies spend millions of dollars on focus groups and marketing studies. In fact WotC just hired a new Marketing Executive. Marketing is 100% based on understanding your customers.

WotC cannot expect complete praise, skepticism is and should be expected. Especially if (but not in this case) the product is something new. For example, Google's Wave was released with mixed reviews, I personally gave it a lot of praise, but it's dead. While the Old CB had its problems, compared to WotC's early attempts at character building tools, the first Character Generator and it's follow-up, eTools, the old CB was wonderful, IMO.

WotC can't, and hopefully hasn't, dismiss our negative responses. In my opinion it has been overwhelming, it's among the hottest topics on here and over at DDi. That has to mean something. Add that to the mixed responses to Essentials, WotC has stirred the pot. Activity must have increased on the forums. I don't have any numbers, as I can only speak for myself. But I've been drawn to the forums because of my personal disappointment. If I was happy I'd be writing my next adventure, or updating my in-character blog.

I want to find out what's going on. Or at least understand. Seeing that I'm not the only one disappointed in the same things, it affirms something IS wrong. Keeping our mouths shut is counter productive. Most of the complaints are legit, and are (maybe not in the most productive way) an attempt to being constructive.

It's not like all of us are screaming, "YOU SUCK WOTC!!!" I'm sure some are, but not all. Most of us want WotC to produce a GOOD PRODUCT, and we're expressing our opinions why they aren't.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree. Customer feedback is important, period. And it should be a priority. Companies spend millions of dollars on focus groups and marketing studies. In fact WotC just hired a new Marketing Executive. Marketing is 100% based on understanding your customers.

They don't have to engage in outward communication to the masses to get feedback, you know. So, if we want that information, behooves us to treat that channel with a certain amount of respect.

WotC cannot expect complete praise, skepticism is and should be expected.

Quite true. But dogpiles do not constitute constructive criticism either - I merely caution against such. There's a very clear tendency for places like this to have a feedback-loop that builds negativity rather out of proportion.

WotC can't, and hopefully hasn't, dismiss our negative responses.

I think WotC should take negative responses in appropriate perspective.

In my opinion it has been overwhelming, it's among the hottest topics on here and over at DDi. That has to mean something.

"Hottest topic on the boards" may not mean what you think it means, as the boards may not be a representative sample of the current (or target) user base. Twenty or 100 people can make what looks like a huge amount of noise on a messageboard. But they're only twenty or 100 people, out of a market of tens of thousands.

 

[DracoSuave]

If the VT ever shows up, they have my money.

Until then, they don't. Its absence has always been a deal-breaker for me and Insider.

 

[DaveMage]

Its absence has always been a deal-breaker for me and Insider.

I expect that the VT will be available to both those with and without a DDI account.

If they don't screw it up, this could be one area where WotC has the opportinuty to cater to (and get a revenue stream from) *all* D&D players - regardless of their edition choice.

If they tie it to the DDI and/or 4E only, it would be a lost opportunity.

 

[The Little Raven]

This is an excellent point. When and how one product goes to beta test does not tell you when other products are coming.

I suspect they announced the VT in response to the bungled launch of the CB in order to let people know that a nigh-mythical tool announced 3 years ago would finally see the light of day, since it's the number one example of how they mismanaged the DDI launch. I agree that we'll probably see the other tools first. The fact that they call the test a Friends and Family beta implies it's very early in development. Most F&F tests I've seen have been just after the internal alpha, but before the real beta.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Look at the actual survey data. A VTT is one of the least wanted things. Now I agree that the people who wanted a VTT were very vocal, but choosing to ignore reasonable data in favor of anecdotes isn't solid methodology.

FWIW, I've always felt that a WotC VTT was a bad idea.

Here's the thing though, the VTT is kind of a lynch pin. What does a 'campaign builder' DO if it doesn't tie into SOMETHING that you can use to build encounters and whatever? If it isn't somehow integrated with other stuff it isn't anything but yet another Wiki and there are a billion free Wikis you can use to put your campaign up on.

In other words each tool really gains its value from the existence of all the other tools in the set that it can integrate with. A VTT BY ITSELF is not worth that much, at best it might be a bit better than Maptool or something, but probably not even that good for a while until it matures.

But if you can have a VTT, an MB, a CB, a campaign tool to customize your house rules with and tie in the other content to your 'Wiki' etc. then they all start to be worth a lot even if no one of them is perfect. The sum total starts to be worth using.

I mean I use Maptool right now every week. It is a great program, but it requires a LOT of spit, bailing wire, chewing gum, duct tape, and perl scripting to actually make it so I have a tolerably usable environment where I can pull in stuff and drop it into MT and use it easily. As much as I like MT I'd use a less capable VTT that did that for me, and I'd PAY for it because right now doing that stuff costs me 4-5 hours a week.

 

[denzoner]

They don't have to engage in outward communication to the masses to get feedback, you know. So, if we want that information, behooves us to treat that channel with a certain amount of respect.

Obviously they don't have to engage us, because they haven't. But that's not my point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with being vocal about our disappointment. When the discussion dips into insults and personal attacks, that's when there is a problem. For the most part it never stoops that low. The tone might be uncomfortable and some people aren't the most eloquent with words. And I think that is what we're disagreeing with. The degree of respect, and to what one expects from others. We're dealing with people who are really passionate about D&D, and we invested a lot of money into these products. What might sound sarcastic to one, might be outright offensive to others. The line where that is OK is obviously hard to draw, especially written hastily on a forum between work and meals.

Quite true. But dogpiles do not constitute constructive criticism either - I merely caution against such. There's a very clear tendency for places like this to have a feedback-loop that builds negativity rather out of proportion.

The negativity-loop is equally fueled by the dismissive behavior that some people insist on using. Most people actually don't care. The only people that have expressed their disappointment, do so because they want improvement. It's easy to distinguish the types that troll, or bash, for the sake of being nasty - those guys SHOULD be dismissed, and ignored. People like me who want one thing and get something else or expressing the best way they can on what WotC can do to make things "better".

"Hottest topic on the boards" may not mean what you think it means, as the boards may not be a representative sample of the current (or target) user base. Twenty or 100 people can make what looks like a huge amount of noise on a messageboard. But they're only twenty or 100 people, out of a market of tens of thousands.

Or it may. Whether the ones posting on the forums are or aren't representative doesn't matter. Most of the ones that ARE are expressing their opinions, whether or not those opinions are warranted, or completely off based, it doesn't matter. As long as they are not resorting to insults or personal attacks, or belittling others opinions (which would be disrespectful) it should be considered allowed.

Ultimately it comes down to this: It's dismissive and disrespectful to be told how to react. Whatever form, a reaction is legitimate as long as it doesn't boil down to personal attacks or insults.