DDI Survey Results posted

[catsclaw227]

No, they weren't voted on those percentages of subscribers and non-subscribers. 83% and 82% of the subscribers who voted, voted for those two. 52% and 55% of non-subscribers who voted voted for those two. (We also don't know the margin of error). There is a difference

Ok.... semantics aside, I was talking about respondents to a survey.

So when I said "were voted on by 83% and 82% of subscribers and 52% and 55% of non-subscribers" it was assumed that it meant subscribers who took the survey and non-subscribers who took the survey.

If that wasn't clear, I apologize. My comments were always meant to be taken in context to the topic: the DDI Survey and the respondents of that survey.

 

[merelycompetent]

The opportunity for this particular discussion was, unfortunately, lost shortly before 4e came out; at the time its design was finalized. They're not going to make any changes now.

Agreed. I did not mean to imply otherwise - that ship has sailed. What I would like to know is which details of that ship's design were for business... and which were for fun. I fully realize I may not get any answers in any reasonable time frame. The business choices made for 4E will have a strong effect on later products - including 5E.

Instead, we need to find out who's going to be designing *5e*, and talk to them.

Again, agreed. However, the current fervor of "You stabbed us in the back" will close off any opportunity to ask questions and get answers. Without those question/answer opportunities, how can fans of the game - whether they like the current version or not - help make the next product or iteration a better one?

My own analysis, suspicions, and past experiences lead me to think that my hobby is in troubled waters. I'd rather give the people I disagree with a fair chance to answer questions - or give non-answers - so that I will know better if it is time to expend the energy on (over-)righteous wrath, stunned fanboy amazement, or sit this edition and the next one out. Right now, the signal to noise ratio is whacked.

 

[merelycompetent]

I aren't as aware of the big promises WotC made before 4e hit the shops, apart from the Online Table Top and the Visual Character builder (which is really one and the same in a way). I can see how this would be enough for people to be disappointed. Are there more things?

Thank you very much for the compliments. To answer your questions, as best I can after dealing with lots of tax issues (my gray matter is fairly mushy right now):

It really depends on what you consider a big promise. I don't particularly want to rake anyone over the coals again for past mistakes. I certainly make enough of my own. Here is a very limited list of items that were touted, then became ulcers.
From 3E/3.5E: ETools, to name one black spot on the record.
For 4E: Gleemax, and a number of items demoed at GenCon, including the VTT.
The whole issue of availability/pricing of PDFs.
Others, I'm sure, are keeping better track of such things than I.

Personally the new applications mentioned in the list, once all up in running (including and in my case ESPECIALLY including the virtual table top) would be enough for me to become a faithful suscriber. Until then I will wait. If it doesn't happen, I lose nothing.

Anyway sounds like positive news from where I'm standing. I certainly can't understand all the hate either.

A virtual setting for me to get back in touch with other old guard gamers from waaaay back? If the features met my needs (which aren't much), and was reasonably priced, then I would subscribe, too. From where I sit the news does look positive. We'll see how the actual delivery supports or doesn't support the news.

Good gaming - no matter your edition preference!

 

[guivre]

Ok.... semantics aside, I was talking about respondents to a survey.

So when I said "were voted on by 83% and 82% of subscribers and 52% and 55% of non-subscribers" it was assumed that it meant subscribers who took the survey and non-subscribers who took the survey.

If that wasn't clear, I apologize. My comments were always meant to be taken in context to the topic: the DDI Survey and the respondents of that survey.

Yes semantics, it's horribly inconvenient that words have meanings

It's not *you* though, that's how it was listed on WotCs site. And when you're looking at the poll results directly it's easier to do that inner translation. However, this is also how spin works, once those figures are repeated, used in forum posts etc they start to take on a different meaning. Outside of the context of that poll it winds up becoming a "fact" that 83% of subscribers wanted such and such.

It is actually more troublesome that that is the size of the response they got. Not only is it not representative of the fan base, or even of those interested in DDI, it's pretty damn small.

 

[Zulithe]

I am fairly disappointed. For me the D&D Gametable is a huge selling point. Apparently it isn't to other subscribers. D&Di just isn't for me then. At least this reaffirms the money I spent on Fantasy Grounds a while back.

 

[catsclaw227]

It's not *you* though, that's how it was listed on WotCs site. And when you're looking at the poll results directly it's easier to do that inner translation. However, this is also how spin works, once those figures are repeated, used in forum posts etc they start to take on a different meaning. Outside of the context of that poll it winds up becoming a "fact" that 83% of subscribers wanted such and such.

I hear what you're sayin'.

It is actually more troublesome that that is the size of the response they got. Not only is it not representative of the fan base, or even of those interested in DDI, it's pretty damn small.

This I totally agree with. I saw that number and thought "Huh... That's an awfully small sample. There are some theories why they didn't get that many respondents though.

 

[Imban]

My main reason for not giving two hoots for their game table is that any gains it makes in looking better or being more stable than MapTool would be more than lost by making it so I can't play D&D with my friends online unless they're all DDI subscribers.

And frankly that doesn't have a chance in heck of happening, and neither does my abandoning my gaming group to throw in with some people I don't know because the interface is slightly shinier.

(I know WotC's mentioned possibilities under which this might not come about, but at least this way I can theoretically be pleasantly surprised.)

 

[Tarrl]

I am with cadfan 100%. I was very excited about the possiblity of playing the game online with other users, friends that no longer live close using the virtual table top etc. I am surprised it finished so low in the poll. I wonder who did the counting? ;O)
I am glad that they have at least said something that looks to be moving forward with the online aspect of the game.

 

[Felon]

Much of the current nerd rage was because they supposedly promised stuff they couldn't deliver on.

I've seen this "nerd rage" term appear with increasing frequency in these forums. I'm tempted to report such posts, but maybe I'm just out-of-touch with the terminology. Somebody feel free to enlightne me: how is this term not inherently inflammatory and disrespectful when the person using it knows perfectly well that some of the folks reading the post are likely to be among those the term is being applied to?

 

[Cadfan]

I've seen this "nerd rage" term appear with increasing frequency in these forums. I'm tempted to report such posts, but maybe I'm just out-of-touch with the terminology. Somebody feel free to enlightne me: how is this term not inherently inflammatory and disrespectful when the person using it knows perfectly well that some of the folks reading the post are likely to be among those the term is being applied to?

Go ahead and report them if that's what you feel is right. Worst that will happen is that your reports will be ignored.

Sincerely,
Cadfan, the ADD suffering narcissist.