New D&D Website

[ProfessorCirno]

So what WotC stuff have you bought since the release of 4e? Novels, other games, miniatures maybe? Let's leave pdfs out, since they are no longer being served up.

Well, it was just pdfs, so...hey ;p

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like duck, it just might be a duck. If you don't want to be seen as a WotC-hater (NOT a D&D hater, different story entirely), quit vomiting forth hate for WotC.

"They're screwing over their fans" != "I hate WotC." I've yet to say something bad about WotC that isn't "They're mistreating their fans" or "This is a stupid business decision."

Once again, you can criticize a company without hating it.

Yeah, but if every post you spew out is WotC-hate, don't be shocked when people think you hate WotC.

The level of politics that this is reaching, where criticism = hate, is astonishing.

 

[Nai_Calus]

I am, too. As are the other 4e DMs I know.

He's not, though. It would be swell if people who hate a game and the company who makes it would stick to their games instead of trying to make happy customers feel like they shouldn't be happy.

And the people who are customers who aren't happy, because even they think the change is stupid? I suppose we should just be quiet as well?

Making it *retroactive* is the really stupid part. Making *future* galleries DDi-only would still be a questionable move, but not as head-scratchingly 'huh? what?'.

People are complaining because something that was previously there has been taken away. This is human nature. If I've been following a free webcomic, and suddenly the archives are taken down and put behind a subscription site, with all future content also behind that wall, chances are good that I'm going to be unhappy and I probably won't read it anymore unless I'm really, really into it. (This happened, by the way, with a webcomic I used to read. I still read it after that, but the long RL timescale on it combined with no longer having the archives readily accessible made it hard at times to keep up, as it became difficult to recall what had happened a year before IRL but yesterday in-world. Yeep.) So no, I don't really get 'entitlement' out of other people's posts, just normal human annoyance.

On the subject of not advertising things, I had no idea until last night that they'd finally put up galleries for the PHB1, DMG1 and AV1, apparently at the beginning of this month.

 

[MrMyth]

I was paying for it.

I'm not sure if you read the link I posted upthread, but the gist of it is this: A fan wanted confirmation from Neil Gaiman that he was correct to be upset at the speed at which George R.R. Martin was releasing his books. The fan felt that because he had purchased the previous books, the next one should come out promptly.

Except... he had not purchased the next book. He had purchased the previous one, and he got precisely what he had paid for. Buying the one book does not leash the author to 'owe' him future updates according to the customer's demands. Similarly, buying some of WotC's books does not mean they 'owe' you free artwork on their website! Claiming that material wasn't free because you were buying some other product is completely absurd. I'm sorry, there is no way to look at this from any other viewpoint - that statement is simply incorrect.

Now, back to the cable analogy. Like I said, the art and map galleries were the only reason I went to Wizards website. Since those are gone, I have done the responsible reevaluation and decided that their website is not worth my time anymore.

Dude, you are absolutely free to do that. No one in this thread is saying there is anything wrong with not visiting a website that no longer offers what you are looking for! But all the ranting along the lines of how WotC has betrayed people, is morally bankrupt, is evil, etc... those have no place in this discussion. There is nothing wrong or unethical with what they have done. The customs of the past are not a straightjacket for the future.

I agree with you that keeping those galleries free would probably be the better choice, honestly. But it is their decision to make, and there is no fault in them making a different decision than the one I prefer. That is the reason people are in disagreement with you - because you seem to state that their decision is not just a poor one, but one that actively offends you. One worth swearing off all of their future product over. That they are taking away something they 'owe' you.

That is what "entitlement" means: feeling entitled to something you are not owed. You have not now or ever paid for those pieces of art. If you wish to pay for them, you have that option. If you take it, the art is yours. If not, there is no cause to complain, no justification for anger, no breach of contract or betrayal on their part. There is only a product they are offering, for which you have chosen not to pay.

 

[MrMyth]

Well, I find it bizarre that some people on these forums hold this outlook that you should never criticize WotC, ever.

WotC makes a bad move, people should call them on it.

This was a bad move.

Dude, several of the people who you are debating with in this thread are simultaneously agreeing that this was a bad move on WotC's part. People aren't objecting to what has been said because WotC shouldn't be criticized - they are doing so because many criticisms often come across as too extreme, or too personally motivated, or based in misconceptions, or designed to foment anger and discord.

I have no problem with stating that one no longer has a reason to visit WotC's site, or feels this was a bad marketing move. I have a problem with somehow making a leap from that, to claiming that this decision reflects some sort of ethical failing on their part.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But all the ranting along the lines of how WotC has betrayed people, is morally bankrupt, is evil, etc...

Ok, the screw people over part I see, but where in this thread did anyone call them morally bankrupt or evil?

Seriously, with the way this is progressing and ramping up, by the end of this thread someone's going to claim that someone stated WotC is murdering children without anyone having said anything like that.

In before I'm comically quoted out of context.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Dude, several of the people who you are debating with in this thread are simultaneously agreeing that this was a bad move on WotC's part. People aren't objecting to what has been said because WotC shouldn't be criticized - they are doing so because many criticisms often come across as too extreme, or too personally motivated, or based in misconceptions, or designed to foment anger and discord.

I have no problem with stating that one no longer has a reason to visit WotC's site, or feels this was a bad marketing move. I have a problem with somehow making a leap from that, to claiming that this decision reflects some sort of ethical failing on their part.

Again, I have no claimed anything of that nature.

What did I say?

WotC was screwing people over and enforcing that they want you in DDI or don't want you at all.

What did I never say?

That there was any kind of ethical failing.

For the like ten billionth time, criticism != hate.

 

[MrMyth]

Ok, the screw people over part I see, but where in this thread did anyone call them morally bankrupt or evil?

Hmm, there is a similar discussion going on over the WotC boards, I may well have been drawing on some of the quotes in that thread. But the attitude I'm addressing remains the same - and I'd say quotes in this thread like: "Wizards of the Coast: inventing new and exciting ways to tell their customers to go ****** themselves every day" and "Screw Wizards of the Coast" certainly seem to paint this change as a direct personal attack. I think that is what I disagree with - not the fact that someone might be upset over no longer getting this for free, or might feel this is a poor business decision, or will no longer use the website because of it. But taking that a step farther and viewing WotC as the evil monster for no longer offering certain content for free... that is what I disagree with, and what my posts in this thread have been focusing on.

 

[MrMyth]

Again, I have no claimed anything of that nature.

What did I say?

WotC was screwing people over and enforcing that they want you in DDI or don't want you at all.

What did I never say?

That there was any kind of ethical failing.

For the like ten billionth time, criticism != hate.

Well... ok, I'll take you at your word. I'll just state for the record that claiming that "WotC was screwing people over and enforcing that they want you in DDI or don't want you at all" came across as hate, at least to me. Both because I don't see any actual basis for it, and because it does paint it as a malevolent act. I dunno, maybe you mean something different by calling it "screwing people over" than I do. But the use of terms like that, like "enforcing", etc - that certainly makes it sound like, to me, you feel they are doing something wrong.

If I've misread your words or intent, my bad. But you might consider less provocative language in the future if you do genuinely feel that people viewing such language as "hate" is a misunderstanding.

 

[Phaezen]

All this does is show to me even more that WotC wants 4e to = DDI with no arguments put. Are you in DDI? Hello and welcome! Are you not?

GTFO!

Wizards of the Coast: inventing new and exciting ways to tell their customers to go ****** themselves every day!



Oh and the forums still suck.

How dare people get upset that WotC took away what was up until now a free service and mandated that you must be a member of their payed DDI to access it?

If some people are overly entitled and ceaselessly vitrolic, then others are neverending brown nosers and will gladly take any beating given only to smile up and say "Thank you, can I have more?"

Edit: Also it's hilairous that you state "We deserve far less then we're being given" when we're discussing WotC taking something away.

Again, I have no claimed anything of that nature.

What did I say?

WotC was screwing people over and enforcing that they want you in DDI or don't want you at all.

What did I never say?

That there was any kind of ethical failing.

For the like ten billionth time, criticism != hate.

Granted criticism != hate (necessarily), but a lot of that comes down to the tone of the criticism.

The tone of your initial post on this thread comes across as hate, rather than criticism. A different way to put it might have been something alon the lines of:

The change in moving some of the previously free content over to the DDi paid subscription does not sit well with me, and I feel WOTC might have been better served by using that content as advertisement.

or something along those lines.

Especially on an open forum where it is impossible to read body language the way you express an opinion is important.

Phaezen

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Especially on an open forum where it is impossible to read body language the way you express an opinion is important.

Very much potentially this.

I have a heavy habit of dramatization and exagerration. It, er, doesn't go over well without the ever bombastic me there to carry it, I suppose.