Will 2011 be the last year of Wizards D&D?

[Wednesday Boy]

The Character Builder is a case in point. Your appeal to how we should all be greatful to WotC putting out a semi-functional CB, given that other companies have not even attempted to offer likewise, nicely avoids the elephant in the room: WotC replaced their own functional CB with one that didn't perform nearly as adequately. THAT is the issue. Not WotC vs. others. It's WotC vs. themselves.

I'm not saying that you have to be greatful for the online CB, I'm saying I think WotC deserves more credit for trying innovative things than they're given. It's true the online CB doesn't currently have all of the features that the former CB has but they're making these changes to give us a better product. I'm willing to give them leeway so they can be innovative and give me a better product in the end. But I guess that's because I'm an optimist.

 

[Aegeri]

I would only be willing to be charitable on that point if I was getting something out of DDI. They wrecked the monster builder with a buggy patch, Dungeon is filled with dungeon tile crap maps instead of actual cartography and the magazines content is - well - absent. So I am not exactly encouraged by literally anything I've seen from them on DDI.

 

[Herschel]

I hope not... because they've handled the product better than most other companies likely would have.
.......

How dare you have said something that recently excouraged me to give you XP, thereby eliminating my ability to give now.

On the bright side, you shot right past/out of carbuncle.

 

[Destil]

And while I think there must be a better solution to piracy than not selling any PDF products, they're at least attempting to combat piracy instead of acquiescing like most companies.

Disagree on this specific point. The stupidity of this move is just mind boggling. "We're loosing money because people are pirating stuff, let's make it impossible for them to pay us for it, instead!" That is not the logic of any rational mind. Never mind the very idea that piracy = lost sales is simply untrue. This is the sign of a company that's kicking and screaming in the digital age because the rules have changed.

Aside from that, yeah. Wizard's sets their sights a lot higher. There are some open source character builder like attempts for 3E due to it's open nature, but CB is significantly better than any of them (the fact that 3E rules are so much bigger is a big part of that, of course). I can live with that.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Disagree on this specific point. The stupidity of this move is just mind boggling. "We're loosing money because people are pirating stuff, let's make it impossible for them to pay us for it, instead!" That is not the logic of any rational mind. Never mind the very idea that piracy = lost sales is simply untrue. This is the sign of a company that's kicking and screaming in the digital age because the rules have changed.

That's fair. I don't think they should be jumped on for taking a stab at the problem but if that attempt didn't pan out ideally they need to try a different tactic.

 

[Umbran]

Really? Is that what they are spinning what we used to call a half-assed effort into these days?

Who are "they"?

If that is an unreasonable expectation then the gaming industry truly has gone downhill a great deal.

The unreasonable expectation is that something labeled as a "starter" or "introductory" set somehow includes significant material you'll find useful for advanced application.

Take an introductory cake decorating class, and you'll have to buy an introductory set of cake-decorating tools. You will find those tools are okay for learning the ropes, but they're not really all that useful for high-end work.

Sure, sales are all that matter after all. If WOTC had been up front with the "not really compatible or useful with" aspect of their introductory product, how might that have affected sales?

The product is not intended for use by folks who have other products. That's the nature of "introduction" - if you already have the advanced set, the intro is superfluous. So, backwards compatibility is not really an issue.

And, if you do start with the Red Box and move up, you're going from a 32 page player's book to a 320 or 350+ page book. The fact that some fraction of the 32 pages isn't directly applicable is not what I'd call a major loss, compared to the flood of content you'd find in the new book.

 

[The Little Raven]

I miss Scott Rouse.

Me too. Scott was the man when it came to assuaging our fears and getting us excited for upcoming products. Plus, the man knew his memes.

 

[darjr]

I'm not saying that you have to be greatful for the online CB, I'm saying I think WotC deserves more credit for trying innovative things than they're given. It's true the online CB doesn't currently have all of the features that the former CB has but they're making these changes to give us a better product. I'm willing to give them leeway so they can be innovative and give me a better product in the end. But I guess that's because I'm an optimist.

It seems to me that they went with an online builder to fight piracy, not to give their customers a better product.

It's failed on both fronts. Maybe, probably, in time it'll be a better product, but I'm not sure it'll ever successfully fend off piracy.

I agree, WotC innovation should garner them credit.

 

[Dausuul]

It seems to me that they went with an online builder to fight piracy, not to give their customers a better product.

Do you have any evidence for this statement? I have not heard any such thing from WotC, and I see no reason to believe this is the case as opposed to greater ease of development and maintenance.

 

[MortonStromgal]

This is the most likely thing they would do if they weren't satisfied with D&D's performance.

/agree but want to add that doesn't mean profitable or not. Mage Knight got shut down by Tops because it was a management nightmare even though it made money it wasnt enough that they wanted to have to deal with it. They also license out Shadowrun for the same reason.