Disappointed D&D Insider Customer

[Ryujin]

Two points I was trying to make with that analogy.

1. Any content delivered by any firm is not going to be perfect until you let people interact with and use it. If you're making the errata argument about WoTC, the similar argument has to be made about any other content vendor.

Sides, if they didn't do errata, people would be complaining about the lack of errata or lack of clarity

2. People keep thinking of WoTC or any publisher as a book company or a game company, which is fair, that's the public face. What all content providers are becoming in order to meet the needs of consumers is/are technology companies

For some firms that's a lot further of a trip than others, but in order to be fair to them, we have to recognize that as the new business model.

Yeeeeeaaaaaah...... I'm not buying it. Your analogy holds together with respect to the software, itself, but not where the game is concerned. The existence of tools like Compendium and Character Builder has allowed Wizards to be sloppy, where development of powers and feats is concerned, because they could always "fix them in post" (sorry, digital photography terminology). Unfortunately "post", in this case, is a live client base.

Wizards must not lose sight of the fact that they are NOT a technology company, but rather a publisher that happens to use the Web. They have a duty to pretty much get it right, out of the gate. Sure, a certain amount of errata is expected, but the massive amount in 4e is simply beyond the pale. It creates a need for a product like CBC.

 

[eamon]

Wizards must not lose sight of the fact that they are NOT a technology company, but rather a publisher that happens to use the Web.

This!

Wizard's D&D related software, as far as I've experienced it, has been systematically subpar. I don't expect the new software to be any better, based on that track record.

Now, that doesn't mean the CB or compendium aren't useful - they are - it means the software is inexplicably poor given the situation wizards is in. What they should have done is just bought one of the various companies that made a 3.5e character builder (a much much more daunting task, given that 3.5 was much less computer-friendly), and told em to build the new version for 4e.

It just makes no sense for a software team that has all these advantages - working with the game-design team (and with access to rules before they go to print), with a simplified ruleset that removes a bunch of nasties that made 3.5e so hard to pre-compute, to deliver such a limited product with so many bugs.

I think there's a control-freak issue here, and an unhealthy dose of the NIH syndrome; as a result, the software is overcomplex and too restraining, and fails to function as a platform - when that is in fact an easy opportunity for wizards: there have been and still are many, many alternative character builders and designers, and tools and whatnot - all of which fail to be a value add to WotC because they fail to integrate with WotC's products well due to this extremely restrictive nature.

I doubt software development is particularly cheap for WotC; but who knows. It's pure speculation, but if, say, brand and marketing restrictions are very powerful, then it's not easy to focus on simply making things work and work well. Why can't text in the offline CB be copy-pasted, for instance? Is that an active IP protection choice, or is that a feature that would require vetting before enabling? Having those kind of discussions every step of the way would easily bog things down, making development more expensive and less effective simultaneously.

And while all this D&DI talk is going on, let's not forget that I'm fairly positive none of it is really a major selling feature. People play D&D not because of the character builder but because of the brand, content, and community. The business model of pulling people into a subscription by means of a tool and MTG-like constant power-trickle is not naturally harmonious with those core strengths.

I get the impression that the OP's criticisms are both justified and unsurprising. The CB fails to really achieve what it could (possibly due to brand restrictions) and fails (and will likely continue to do so) to leverage the community & contentit could. Seriously, if the CB had just 1/10th of the features it has now but permitted addons and community modifications it'd have far more capabilities. All the house-rules discussed here [MENTION=10881]ENWorld[/MENTION]? Many of those are trivially scriptable. A decent character sheet layout? Could be a killing feature, and would be so much more useful if it worked with the character builder.

All those separate apps and tools the OP mentions he uses to help play could have been linked to WotC provided services - but aren't because every WotC product is sealed as tightly as possible. All that effort and cost WotC is incurring is just a waste when you consider someone else might well to much of it for free - or rather, 10 people might, and then WotC can just pick the best version and negotiate (or imitate) that. People can write articles for dungeon & dragon, and with the right setup, and WotC could well monetize even freely created community content - and usefully so too by providing an organized, vetted context for people to look for things (witness wikipedia).

There's been some discussion of piracy here. That's a self-defeating mindset for wizards to be in; yet I fear there may be some validity to the argument. There's so much free content around, that wizards hasn't a chance in a million in reducing the availability of free content by reducing the piracy of their content. And that's what it's about: people not buying their stuff, and thus not paying them - right? Thinking about WotC's product as akin to a hollywood movie is terribly misleading. Regardless of the legal semantics, it's not very good "IP" - the content is almost worthless in and of itself (people hardly buy rulebooks to read them), they buy it to build upon - and it is those subsequent creations that have value. It's the PC's players make and invest time and effort in, and it's the campaigns and worlds DM's dream up. That's what matters - not the 13th level version of some hydra, or yet another fighter feat for half-elven PC's in light armor wielding picks.

Frankly, it's not hard for another company to make content that's as good as wizard. It's easy to make superior software. But it's hard to grow such a large player-base with such a valuable brand. If WotC would quit trying to prevent others from supplying content to "their players" and start trying to be a valuable platform (an app store, say) we'd all be better off.

 

[eamon]

To follow-up my last post with an analogy: Wizards should not try to emulate AOL's failed walled garden, but rather Microsoft's extensible (though monopolistic) platform. Or Apple's "we always get a slice" app store.

 

[Sunseeker]

To follow-up my last post with an analogy: Wizards should not try to emulate AOL's failed walled garden, but rather Microsoft's extensible (though monopolistic) platform. Or Apple's "we always get a slice" app store.

Problematically, is that Wizards has allowed enough extension from their base D20 system that they no longer hold the comprable monopoly. Microsoft conversely, forces everyone to buy their product(or a simulator) if they want to run the vast majority of software in existance.

The problem lies in the fact that while people NEED computers, and therefore, an operating system they can understand and the ability to run common software, people DON'T need to play a tabletop RPG.

Playing on your metaphor, WotC would likely be more successful to follow in Apple's footsteps, and ensure two primary things.
1: That everyone is using their system/products because they WANT to, not like with Microsoft because they NEED to.
2: Ensure their products are readily available and affordable. Or at least so incredibly desirable as to overcome availability and affordability issues(which would lessen with increased demand!)

Unfortunately, none of #2 is true and never has been(or likely never will be).

 

[eamon]

Problematically, is that Wizards has allowed enough extension from their base D20 system that they no longer hold the comprable monopoly. Microsoft conversely, forces everyone to buy their product(or a simulator) if they want to run the vast majority of software in existance.

The problem lies in the fact that while people NEED computers, and therefore, an operating system they can understand and the ability to run common software, people DON'T need to play a tabletop RPG.

The distinction you make between NEED vs WANT doesn't make sense to me. People don't need PC's either - they're just very handy. In any case, even if people merely "want" something, you can still get a huge marketshare by playing network effects - witness facebook. And even if your market is quite a bit smaller, you can still be a great platform and gain value by permitting external improvements to your stuff (e.g. iphone). Conversely, stuff people really do need (say, food) can be very hard to build a platform on.

The point is that it's just damn handy to have a single, trustworthy source not just for financial reasons (better to give you credit card number to just one company rather than 10, say), but also due to interoperability, etc.

A platform is worth a lot and WotC is well positioned to be one. They don't need to reach 100% of the population. And they haven't really tried, have they? I mean are they selling third-party content digitally, yet? It's almost free money, there - and R&D to boot. Are they permitting third party extensions to their core apps? Again, why not? People still need the D&DI subscription to use the app, just that the users are more likely to get what they want (hobbyists doing it themselves, or smaller companies taking the risk) without WotC needing to try expermental changes for everyone nor pay the expenses of development. Think of the way facebook is profiting off of farmville - and they didn't have to build it (nor any of the thousands of other games that didn't make it).

Instead, they create this huge lock-in, annoying everybody who's pet feature is missing - they can't add all of them since there's just too many and some people don't want the same thing as others; they spend oodles of money developing software that's still full of bugs and fairly basic missing features (decent search, copy-paste, etc.); then they try to make D&DI a core value proposition to players - when the subscription model for their content doesn't really work well - they need to make huge amounts of content (which isn't always equally good and inevitably is a bit bland), and fail to really use the content the users are quite willing and capable of making themselves. For example, in the transition to gleemax and then from gleemax back to wizards, they lost a bunch of excellent threads - threads which should have been turned into something more permanent and valuable rather than. And forum threads aren't the best way of managing user-generated-content in the first place; you can't really clean it up after the fact, and that's always necessary. It's like they've set things up so that they need to do all the heavy lifting when the best way to get loyal customers is to have the customers invested themselves - and cheaper to boot!

Take, for example, wikipedia's featured page. Wanna bet that if wizards had something like that on their site & magazines they'd get lots of excellent ideas on the forums? Or stack-overflow's voting system (if you happen to know that)? They've got the users already! All they need to do is... use em!

 

[Sunseeker]

The distinction you make between NEED vs WANT doesn't make sense to me. People don't need PC's either - they're just very handy.

People don't "need" anything if you view everything in life as "wants". People don't need to eat and drink if they don't want to live. You don't need a boat if you don't want to go out into the ocean(nor swim, truly).

Conversely, stuff people really do need (say, food) can be very hard to build a platform on.

I disagree. If this was true, supermarkets would be nonexistance. Needs are much easier to build upon than wants. This is why Windows is so "popular" because most software needs it and most people need that software for their livelyhood.

A platform is worth a lot and WotC is well positioned to be one. They don't need to reach 100% of the population. And they haven't really tried, have they? I mean are they selling third-party content digitally, yet? It's almost free money, there - and R&D to boot. Are they permitting third party extensions to their core apps? Again, why not? People still need the D&DI subscription to use the app, just that the users are more likely to get what they want (hobbyists doing it themselves, or smaller companies taking the risk) without WotC needing to try expermental changes for everyone nor pay the expenses of development. Think of the way facebook is profiting off of farmville - and they didn't have to build it (nor any of the thousands of other games that didn't make it).

Right, but for example, WotC isn't making money off Pathfinder. For the most part, Pathfinder replaces WotC, even though it uses the D20 system that WotC basically invented. Farmville requires Facebook to play, Pathfinder does not require WotC to play. Much like any open-source software, WotC is making itsself obsolete by allowing others to profit at their expense.

I mean, we've all seen how many people here constantly say "I'm going to play Pathfinder over 4e because of XXXX, since the system is exactly the same." If WotC wants to keep it audience, then it needs to ensure that everyone who wants to play a D20 system is utilizing their system first. Microsoft doesn't care if you want to use a different typing program, but it makes it harder for you to NOT use theirs.

Instead, they create this huge lock-in, annoying everybody who's pet feature is missing - they can't add all of them since there's just too many and some people don't want the same thing as others; they spend oodles of money developing software that's still full of bugs and fairly basic missing features (decent search, copy-paste, etc.); then they try to make D&DI a core value proposition to players - when the subscription model for their content doesn't really work well - they need to make huge amounts of content (which isn't always equally good and inevitably is a bit bland), and fail to really use the content the users are quite willing and capable of making themselves.

There are an awful lot of value-judegements in this statement. Look at WoW, millions of players, yet they continue to gain more. Why? They certainly don't give everyone every little cookie they ask for, and they certainly don't remove every little feature people don't like. But in general, they make a good, core system, that REQUIRES people to both buy their product and subscribe to their service, and so 75% of the population is happy, which is good enough. WotC will never satisfy everyone, looking for a way to do so is impossible. heck, look at Windows, most people HATE windows, yet they keep selling product. Why? Because they have ensured that the market is skewed in their favor, any company that wants to succeed inevitably does this.

For example, in the transition to gleemax and then from gleemax back to wizards, they lost a bunch of excellent threads - threads which should have been turned into something more permanent and valuable rather than. And forum threads aren't the best way of managing user-generated-content in the first place; you can't really clean it up after the fact, and that's always necessary. It's like they've set things up so that they need to do all the heavy lifting when the best way to get loyal customers is to have the customers invested themselves - and cheaper to boot!

That's bad for business. If a customer doesn't NEED a company, why should they buy their porduct? WotC has to do the heavy lifting because otherwise the customer wouldn't need them, and if they customer doesn't need them, WotC doesn't make money.

Take, for example, wikipedia's featured page. Wanna bet that if wizards had something like that on their site & magazines they'd get lots of excellent ideas on the forums? Or stack-overflow's voting system (if you happen to know that)? They've got the users already! All they need to do is... use em!

I'm not familiar with it.
That said, a cycling "look at me!" article on the front page is always a great way to catch people's eye and it's not very hard to do. At the same time, they need to balance "look here's something interesting" and "while you're at it, you can find out more by buying XXX or our subscription."

 

[Brax]

No one wants to stop you from using the books any way you see fit. By purchasing the book, you have paid for the right to use the material within. If you really need to have a digital version of the book for your game setup, then perhaps you should invest in a scanner, so that you can make your own digital copies of the books. As far as I can tell, you would not be breaking any copyright laws as long as you did not then distribute them to people that did not have the right to have the info. And well... you don't even have to do that. It seems to me that if you have the physical copy of the book, there is no real crime in you downloading and using a pirated scan off the net.

See, you do have the right to use the product in pretty much any way you like, but you are out of line suggesting that they need to cater to your needs and wants even if doing so would be harmful to them.

You make a great point here. I guess my inherent laziness is getting in the way of me scanning my own manuals. I'd rather pay WotC to do it for me, rather than cut up and feed scan a 150 page manual, or spend a day or so with a flat bed scanner. Since they came up with the original document electronically before it is printed, I figured it would be easy enough for them to sell that to me that at little additional cost to a manual.

I also didn't mean to imply that they must accede to my demands for a product, else I shall rain down hellfire upon them. Simply that they are missing out on getting more of my money if they choose not to make the products I want.

I'm not seeing the additional harm in providing unlocked PDFs:

WotC sells PDFs to the public, some people make copies and get something they haven't paid for.
WotC stops selling PDFs, some people scan the books, make copies and get something they haven't paid for.

The only difference I can see is that WotC isn't making as much money in the second scenario. (I am aware that these are not the only two possible things WotC can do, but am simplifying things on purpose.)

 

[Brax]

I'm impressed by your stance that WoTC will learn from this.

Admittedly, the Character Builder for 4th edition is WAY BETTER than the one that came out for 3rd. A low bar, to be sure, but still...

 

[Scribble]

I'm not seeing the additional harm in providing unlocked PDFs:

WotC sells PDFs to the public, some people make copies and get something they haven't paid for.
WotC stops selling PDFs, some people scan the books, make copies and get something they haven't paid for.

The only difference I can see is that WotC isn't making as much money in the second scenario. (I am aware that these are not the only two possible things WotC can do, but am simplifying things on purpose.)

In a lot of the case I think it's about not providing them with something that can be easily pirated.

If a thief really wanted into my house, he could smash a window, and get in. I still lock my windows/doors because at least it's harder to smash the window then it is just opening a door.

Sure- not selling PDFs won't end piracy, but why make it easy?

 

[renau1g]

Sure- not selling PDFs won't end piracy, but why make it easy?

Because they could make money the other way? Obviously we don't know if PDF's were profitable but I'm guessing they weren't otherwise even with Piracy out there the company is still in a net benefit position and therefore would continue the practice. Paizo experiences as much pirating as WotC did but they continue to use that method of distribution. It may work for them because they have lower overhead? Lower profit targets? Who knows? But really, the bottom line is that the profits of producing and maintaining the PDF's must've been lower than other alternatives (i.e. Wizards could invest their money into another line that generated higher ROI).