Disappointed D&D Insider Customer

[eamon]

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.

Supermarkets aren't platforms. They sell commodoties and if the shop next door has prices that are a few percent lower - they go out of business. By contrast, notice that windows is very much in business despite free alternatives.

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.

Yep, and that's entirely their fault. This has little to do with openness or closedness (I could export my gmail account any day, yet choose not to), and everything to do with supporting the platform. WotC seems to be lobbing books like grenades over some wall and then running away: fire and forget. Yet the compendium and the CB and so many more potential network effects would make it trivially easy for them to charge merely for being the hub and the watchman over that marketplace.

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.

Because it's easy to use, not too expensive, and provides a useful service - oh, and because the barrier to entry for compentitors is high enough. Guess what? WotC brand and central position make the barrier to competitors very high, and apparently D&DI is not too expensive, and it could provide a bunch of useful services - services like the CB and compendium - which don't depend on the exact source of the data but merely on the fact that everyone wants in on their D&D market and fans will even (gladly) make content for free.

..., 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."

Sure, I'm saying they should quite messing about with ever more trivial character options, and focus on the service - so, for instance, you could make that "look at me!" article partially subscriber only. Or make the stats within it subscriber only. Of course they want the subscription, but they can make the subscription attractive - more attractive even - by doing less themselves and letting others in on it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A "Wizard Marketplace" that allows people to add data to the Compendium and the Character Builder could indeed be genius.

It reminds me of the original d20 System License where the idea was that everyon would have to buy Wizards Core Rules, so WotC would always profit from people using that. But the OGL allowed also creating new core rules, which removed that benefit.

But imagine people could create plugins for the DDI software, and provide new data for it - but it would still be managed via the DDI, and to use it, you need access to it. You lock people into staying subscribed even if they never ever care about owning any of your books or playing your game rules.

I figure there are a lot of technical (and legal) challenges in realizing such a system, though. It might require a much more thoroughly designed data structure and an API for 3rd parties to use.

At least the last podcast indicates that WotC is thinking about how to allow people to work with DDI with their own software, without allowing anyone to get (permanent) access to its data.

 

[eamon]

I actually took a closer look like this, after someone on the WotC forums claimed there was enough Errata for it to be published as its own supplement. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the actual topic, but my findings were... somewhat interesting, so I thought I'd share.

The PHB clocks in at 320 pages, and is the product with the most Errata. 23 pages worth. However, keep in mind that the Errata looks somewhat more substantial than it actually is - it includes explanations of why changes were made, along with redundant information (as it posts both the Errata and, typically, reprints the original feat/power/etc in its new form.)

Trim down the PHB Errata to just the changes themselves, and we've got 12 pages worth. Remove the elements that are just fixing typos or adding minor clarifications, and we're probably under 10 pages.

The D&D Updates in total comes to 123 pages. Assuming a similar ratio of changes vs redundant material and explanations, we're probably looking at 60-70 or so actual pages of Errata. And again, if you take out typos and the like, I'd guess maybe less than 50 pages of genuine changes to the rules.

Now, 50 pages is a decent amount. But keep in mind - this is the Errata for 30 different D&D books, as well as 30 issues of the Dragon and Dungeon online magazines. All of that combined is something like 10,000 total pages of product.

So, how much Errata is there? Might be a lot, might be a little, depending on how one looks at it. I suppose everyone will still make a judgement call for themselves, but I certainly found the actual numbers on the topic somewhat interesting.

That's not a very reasonable comparison. The updates total 123 pages. And indeed if you remove introductions/indexes/explanations, you are left with less. However, a product like Primal Power has 159 pages - the same ballpark - and a far greater proportion of introduction/indexes/explanations; at a guess, I'd guess there's less "crunch" in primal power than in the compiled updates. At least, it's certainly not far off. In any case, I rather value indexes+explanations; so looking at the total page number is not a poor approximation. At 123 pages, that's slightly less than an extra book.

Of course, in some sense, they are releasing an "updated" version of D&D - essentials.

 

[Sunseeker]

Supermarkets aren't platforms. They sell commodoties and if the shop next door has prices that are a few percent lower - they go out of business. By contrast, notice that windows is very much in business despite free alternatives.

There are no "free alternatives" to Windows. If you think this then I question your unerstanding of operating systems. Those OSs are hugely different, some of them much more incredibly complex, with poor user interfaces, along with most of them being very buggy and lacking hardware and software support. No, there is NOTHING on the market that is an equivicoble "free" alternative to Windows.

Yep, and that's entirely their fault. This has little to do with openness or closedness (I could export my gmail account any day, yet choose not to), and everything to do with supporting the platform. WotC seems to be lobbing books like grenades over some wall and then running away: fire and forget. Yet the compendium and the CB and so many more potential network effects would make it trivially easy for them to charge merely for being the hub and the watchman over that marketplace.

Agreed, though I think they could "lock down" the propritary rights of their system, should they choose to and quash, or demand tribute, from people like Paizo who want to make D20-based games.

Sure, I'm saying they should quite messing about with ever more trivial character options, and focus on the service - so, for instance, you could make that "look at me!" article partially subscriber only. Or make the stats within it subscriber only. Of course they want the subscription, but they can make the subscription attractive - more attractive even - by doing less themselves and letting others in on it.

I disagree, I don't think outsourcing their stuff is going to help them. Why? Simply because that makes them dependant on others, and should those others do something WotC doesn't approve of, WotC may lack the control to override them.

 

[Brax]

It looks like we've strayed off topic a bit, though it does make for interesting discussion.

 

[Scribble]

It looks like we've strayed off topic a bit, though it does make for interesting discussion.

I don't think you're "off base" in sending the letter... People want what they want out of a business relationship, and if those needs aren't being met, sending a letter expressing it in a calm rational manner is, well... A nice way to say why.

I found a couple of points interesting though... Mainly about the last part.

It seems "odd?" that after that entire letter, you only need them to do one of those things in order to resubscribe? To me this comes off as I'm mad as hell, but not that mad.

Or are you essentially saying that you're mad as hell, but are willing to give them a chance again if they at least throw you a bone?


Also, you might want to expand on what you mean by each of those statements.


For instance the first one... What would you need in order to be able to play at the table with no books present?

Or, for the MB what would they have to add in order to make the MB "complete" in your eyes?

For the Magazines, what type of content would you consider "good" or worthy of the "quality material" label?


Essentially I think the letter does a good job explaining that you are a loyal customer, love D&D, but are in fact currently upset, but I think it could do a little more to explain how they could go about repairing your relationship.

 

[renau1g]

Or, for the MB what would they have to add in order to make the MB "complete" in your eyes?

I can answer this part from my POV. They need to have the MM3 guidelines work for all monsters in the MB. Currently they do not. Adjusting the monsters also doesn't work correctly with those guidelines.

 

[Scribble]

I can answer this part from my POV. They need to have the MM3 guidelines work for all monsters in the MB. Currently they do not. Adjusting the monsters also doesn't work correctly with those guidelines.

What do you mean?

 

[renau1g]

I've adjusted monster levels and their damage doesn't calculate correctly or hp is off, or defenses.

Also the old monsters aren't up to date.

Let's take the good old Kobold Dragonshield:
[sblock=details]
Kobold Dragonshield Level 2 Soldier

HP 36; Bloodied 18
AC 18; Fortitude 14; Reflex 13; Will 13

m Short Sword (weapon) • At-Will
Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +7 vs. AC
Hit: 1d6 + 3 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the kobold’s next turn.

[/sblock]

Now his damage is off, should be 1d8+4. AC is god, but his NAD's are a bit off, should be 14's across the board. When I bump his level to 3rd he gains 9 hp (should be 8) and his damage doesn't change. So now I have to manually change his hp (not a big deal, 1 hp) change his damage and his NAD's. So what should be all of 2 seconds to change is more work as I need to consult the Rules Update document to make sure the damage is correct and then do it myself. There's more examples I ran into, but the big one is damage calculations appear way off, especially as you deal with higher level monsters.

 

[Scribble]

I've adjusted monster levels and their damage doesn't calculate correctly or hp is off, or defenses.

Is it just for the monsters done with the old math?

Haven't played with the MB a lot lately.