Exclusive interview WotC President Greg Leeds

[Azgulor]

The most telling/interesting information I saw in the interview:

1. The decision to pull the PDFs was made internal to WotC, not handed to them by evil lawyers or Hasbro taskmasters.

2. The PDF format ain't coming back.

3. A stated commitment to making the older edition content available in the new TBD format. Nothing stating it wouldn't require a DDI subscription, however.

4. The debacle has generated a stir/backlash serious enough that the CEO of the company felt the need to "go on the record" even if he didn't tip his hand in any meaningful way. While I can salute his skill in revealing the absolute minimum to answer the questions, I don't think the interview helps WotC in soothing the rage. If anything, the rpg community now has more fodder for speculation and conspiracy theories. (Per my post above, I can't put any faith into the reported scale of the piracy.)

Finally, although I can applaud his efforts to tie the health of D&D and the RPG industry (it's only smart from a business standpoint to try and do so), it rings hollow to me. The GSL and the pulling of all PDFs (which has a high potential for hurting online PDF retailers) seems to be much more about consolidating D&D's (& WotC's) position by reducing competition. Again, probably smart business moves, but not ones designed to make it better for "everyone".

And yes, I can appreciate and admire the business accumen involved and still think the decisions suck as a consumer.

 

[joethelawyer]

In other words, kiddos, there's no scapegoat for this decision. You can freely hold ALL of WotC responsible for this idiocy. From Mearls to Rouse to Greg Leeds (who IS this guy, anyway?), to his boss at Hasbro.

Who is Leeds? Here is his linked-in profile. Lots of marketing experience in a variety of companies and product lines which I am sure is serving him well in his role at WOTC.


Greg Leeds - LinkedIn

 

[joethelawyer]

For what it's worth, I believe a 90% piracy rate is pretty much standard among video games with DRM or not. So 10-1 doesn't surprise me.

What's missing from his 90% figure is any indication that the number has changed in any way. It was probably 90% for the past 5 years. To say "OMG its up to 90% !!" means that they have been tracking the percentage for some period of time and just realized that it went up, and up drastically enough that it caused WOTC to take this ridiculous action. For all we know, the number was 95% last year and is down to 90%.

Assuming, arguendo, that they can even track such a figure. After all, these are the people responsible for Gleemax and DDI. Their technological skills are not the most stellar.

 

[Jack99]

What a weak interview. It told us even less than I thought possible.

And if they have to convert everything to a new undecided format, I shudder thinking about what kind of time-frame we are talking about.

 

[tmatk]

4e is doing well, multiple printings, yet 90% of potential buyers are pirating instead of buying? That is ludicrous

 

[Azgulor]

PDFs don't tend to sell out.

And they didn't claim that every pirated copy equalled a lost sale.

True, but until I see a WotC representative state that A) PDF sales account for a significant amount of D&D revenues and B) a 10:1 ratio of pirated:legal downloads represents a departure from other PDF sales I still don't buy the "Piracy-is-the-reason". I'm not trying to dismiss the impact of lost revenue, I just have a hard time reconciling it with the sold-out print run.

My personal experience is that PDF purchases sometimes result in me buying a physical copy. Since I don't download pirated stuff, I can't say if the same happens for those that do. However, since PDF piracy is hardly a new phenomena, I still see this as a convenient excuse for taking the content fully in-house and eventually tying it to a DDI subscription.

Could I be completely off-base? Yep, sure could be. But lacking additional info, if it looks like BS, and smells like BS,... I'm going to think it's BS.

In any event, it's not speculation that this thing was handled poorly and has effectively been a PR blunder. If it wasn't, Mr. Leeds' interview wouldn't have been necessary. The fact that WotC felt the CEO needed to respond rather than say, Mr. Rouse, speaks volumes.

 

[Morrus]

A quick note from WotC:

The 10:1 ratio that Greg references is for PDFs only – it has nothing to do with the physical books. For every one PDF purchased legally, there were at least 10 downloaded illegally. And yes, we can track it.​

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Wow. I'm absolutely astounded. To say so little with so many words, and at the same time prove how out of touch with reality he/they are.

It's... impressive.

How is it that he can go on talking about 10:1 sales losses and at the same time talk about how successful the books have been, and then claim piracy is killing them. If nothing else, it lends credence to the oft overlooked theory that piracy helps sales.

Sales are better than ever!
Piracy is higher than ever!

How is removing the ability to pay for PDFs in any way going to curb piracy? I simply cannot imagine a scenario where that will happen.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Yeah, pulling legal PDFs off the market to fight a piracy boom that's been in full swing for YEARS - WotC are certainly on top of modern e-business.
[/SIZE]

Bingo! give that man a ruby d20!

"Publish, or be damned!", with no publishing, WOTC loses all the pdf market, meanwhile, folk will still scan, create pdfs.
WOTC is seen as useles for digital gaming....and gets marginalized.
WOTC goes bust around 2015.
See RIAA and how it screwed it(them)self up doing much the same thing.

Wise man knows 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing!
You cannot sell what folk do not want ot, or cannot afford to buy.
Piracy = free advertizing, don't folk get that? Some of the game companies do, but won't admit it publicly.

Sell 4th ed pdf's cheap, out do the copiers.

Meh, what's the use. There is never any iceberg, the ship's unsinkable....
"Dragon Dice, incoming!!"

 

[joethelawyer]

In any event, it's not speculation that this thing was handled poorly and has effectively been a PR blunder. If it wasn't, Mr. Leeds' interview wouldn't have been necessary. The fact that WotC felt the CEO needed to respond rather than say, Mr. Rouse, speaks volumes.

I feel bad for Scott Rouse having to come on here and follow up that line of answers. His hands are likely going to be tied, in that he has to follow the brilliantly elucidated speaking points from the Leeds interview. In any question asking for more detail or further clarification, he is going to have to say something like "That question was answered fully, and might I say masterfully by our magnificent CEO in his interview."

Just reading the thing forces a skill check to counter his Bluff for content veracity and a Concentration to actually get through it and determine that he said nothing.