The Problem of DDI...Solved! (Well, not really)

[Herschel]

- but getting something from cash-poor or less dedicated users is still better than getting nothing from them. Even if the fixed costs aren't covered, at least the loss is lower.

Actually, it isn't. The cash-poor aren't worth catering to if those with cash are willing to pay the needed price. This sense of entitlement from "poor gamers" is really pretty funny. We're not talking life essentials here, we're talking luxury items, which games certainly are. When selling luxury items, the goal is to find the point where you can sell the most product to the people that can afford them. WotC discovered too many people "gaming the system" and trying to get their product for a steep discount (or even free), so they changed their delivery and set up.

If you can't afford $5/month, get out a pencil. WotC isn't obligated to provide you gaming material if they can't make money from it.

 

[TheUltramark]

Actually, it isn't. The cash-poor aren't worth catering to if those with cash are willing to pay the needed price. This sense of entitlement from "poor gamers" is really pretty funny. We're not talking life essentials here, we're talking luxury items, which games certainly are. When selling luxury items, the goal is to find the point where you can sell the most product to the people that can afford them. WotC discovered too many people "gaming the system" and trying to get their product for a steep discount (or even free), so they changed their delivery and set up.

If you can't afford $5/month, get out a pencil. WotC isn't obligated to provide you gaming material if they can't make money from it.

all good points, and with that said, I'd like to point out the very obvious fact:
it's cool to have a guy at your table with a lot of discretionary income
-jus sayin

 

[Balesir]

I can't really argue with any certainty one way or the other about this since I don't know all the inside info. From the outside though, I can see a HUGE amount of potential that I didn't see available (or as easily available) with the offline builder(s.)

Like what? I honestly see none - none that could not be done with an offline builder, I mean. And I see some functionality that is very likely lost. The ability to add houserule content (new feats, custom items, new races) in the old CB was limited - but at least it was there. It needed expanding (and, indeed, it has been, after the fact), not removing entirely. I don't see how, practically, this is going to be possible with the new CB. With an offline CB, you get space on every user's hard drive to store those houseruled elements; with the new builder, you get WotC's servers - are they really going to let X thousand users store their house creations there??

There's a reason more and more software is moving to the cloud after all.

The "cloud" is about virtualisation to allow asset sharing within datacentres, not to give any particular runtime advantages. Occasionally, you can find such advantages for specific applications - but I don't see RPG support software as any of those.

Also- what about Mac support?

Mac users could use (were using) emulators; not ideal (basically WotC picked the wrong language to start with), but not really all that far from downloading SilverLight to run the new one on.

What about future products? How easy/hard would it be to tie the old CB in with future plans?

Well, since the new CB's database structure is pretty much identical to the old one (i.e. they re-used it), I don't imagine it would be very different either way.

(I get the feeling they kind of eventually want the online stuff to function as almost an xbox online continuous convention sort of thing... Log on and jump into a game at any time.)

Sure - but that could work just as well with offline facilities for creating content to upload to the software that actually gains something from being online - like the VTT. Character files (and I imagine similar for the monster files) are really not that big.

I doubt it... Anytime a change is made there will be flack.

Yeah, that's probably true, but:

I think the main amount of Flak seemed to come from loss of current functionality. I don't think that had anything to do with going to a web based system- I think it had to do with a release date that didn't match what was actually needed to complete the system (which could have happened with anything they did.)

I think this was tied into the web CB in that the timing of the change was driven by Dark Sun and Essentials (don't want those in the old CB 'cos we want to force people onto the new one), so the rush was all precipitated by the desire to strong-arm users onto a platform that suited WotC instead of giving the paying customer the best possible functionality, adaptability and quality. There's the fatal error and cardinal sin all rolled into one, from my perspective.

Sounds like a reasonable assumption, but without seeing the original code, it's hard to tell. If the original CB was a bloated mess coded with little to no ability to easily be manipulated and re-purposed, then no, it might end up being the opposite actually. (You might end up spending more development time just figuring out what the heck the original code DOES for instance.)

I don't know about the actual rules engine, but the data structures for the old CB are quite good, actually - flexible and they seem well thought out. They even kept using them for the new CB

Actually, it isn't. The cash-poor aren't worth catering to if those with cash are willing to pay the needed price. This sense of entitlement from "poor gamers" is really pretty funny. We're not talking life essentials here, we're talking luxury items, which games certainly are. When selling luxury items, the goal is to find the point where you can sell the most product to the people that can afford them. WotC discovered too many people "gaming the system" and trying to get their product for a steep discount (or even free), so they changed their delivery and set up.

If you can't afford $5/month, get out a pencil. WotC isn't obligated to provide you gaming material if they can't make money from it.

Actually, it is. See if you can grasp this: supplying the product to one more user costs WotC close to nothing. Zero. Zip. If it cost them a penny, your assertion would hold water, but it doesn't. What costs is the development, and that costs what it costs regardless whether 100 people use the software or 1,000,000 people use it. If you can get even a buck out of those million people, you are ahead of even quite an exhorbitantly contributing 100. I have no clue what the actual user figures are (in the tens of thousands, it seems, but we can't say closer than that), but the fact remains that for every extra user that you can get any money out of at all, you gain in this situation. The schema they had was fairly well designed from this persective - apart from maybe the minimum subscription period being too short or there being no one-off "startup cost". Those with disposable income could do what I did and subscribe annually, ongoing, and get all the DDI benefits, all the time. Those with less income or just not such keen fans could 'dip in' to keep fairly up-to-date and pay less (but pay something - which is better than nothing because servicing the customer costs WotC close to nothing).

So, apart from putrid snobbish bigotry, what reason might there be to say "those with less to spend don't deserve this stuff"?

 

[Scribble]

Like what? I honestly see none - none that could not be done with an offline builder, I mean.

More easily updated then the offline CB- nothing for the user to download each time. I turned on the CB after Mudbunny's announcement and the changes were there for one thing.

Easier to integrate together eventually since everything is running on WoTC's servers.

I can use it on any computer I log onto not just those I am able to install a program on (well anyone that has silverlight, but I haven't found one that doesn't yet...)

And I see some functionality that is very likely lost. The ability to add houserule content (new feats, custom items, new races) in the old CB was limited - but at least it was there. It needed expanding (and, indeed, it has been, after the fact), not removing entirely. I don't see how, practically, this is going to be possible with the new CB. With an offline CB, you get space on every user's hard drive to store those houseruled elements; with the new builder, you get WotC's servers - are they really going to let X thousand users store their house creations there??

It's just letters and numbers... Enworld let's us create/store the same thing everyday- Storage is cheap.

My guess is the real reason they turned off house rules in the CB is because they want to move them over to the DM's side.

I'm betting they ultimately want you to be able to log on, see a game on the VTT, join the session, open your character builder and all the house rules for that campaign will be there waiting for you.

The "cloud" is about virtualisation to allow asset sharing within datacentres, not to give any particular runtime advantages. Occasionally, you can find such advantages for specific applications - but I don't see RPG support software as any of those.

Take a look at for instance Amazon's new Cloud music scheme. I buy music from amazon and it's instantly there ready to go, anything I upload is there as well I build a playlist- all on my computer, walk out the door and listen to it on my phone, or my wife's phone. No wires, no downloading, no time lost prepping my phone to go.

Take a look at gmail, or yahoo mail or any of the other web based messaging systems- another instance of the cloud benefiting the consumer. BEfore web mail I had to have an email program on any computer I wanted to check my mail on, set up to access my account.

The cloud has become much more then asset sharing within data centers.

Same sort of thing I envision here. I set everything up on my desktop computer, walk out the door with my laptop and game on. I can make changes on my side and my players see it pretty much real time. No need to download/install my updates. We're all on the same page about the campaign at all times.

Eventually when they re-instate houserules (and I have absolutely 0 doubt they will) I'll be able to set up my campaign, then my players can log on, open up the CB and everything is ready to go as mentioned above/

That's the type of advantage I see a cloud based CB having over a desktop one.

Mac users could use (were using) emulators; not ideal (basically WotC picked the wrong language to start with), but not really all that far from downloading SilverLight to run the new one on.

Ok- now this is a little dissengenuos don't you think? You're really saying downloading a free application is the same as buying setting up and running emulation software?

Sure- it was possible for MAC users to use the old CB but no where near what most would consider sufficient.

I don't think that (missing features aside) switching to the current form was anything but a boon to the average mac user.

Well, since the new CB's database structure is pretty much identical to the old one (i.e. they re-used it), I don't imagine it would be very different either way.

Database structure wasn't really what I was talking about. The front end also being on WoTC's side allows them to more easily integrate everything together without having to worry about everyone downloading patches and accounting for umpteen billion system differences.

It also ensures that everyone is always on the same page when things do integrate. (IE they don't have to worry about Joe Gamer trying to use the new table system and then flipping out because it doesn't work with his version of the CB that he hasn't updated for the past 3 updates...)

Less time spent solving various problems for various setups means more time to work on new features and abilities which ultimately benefits everyone involved.

Sure - but that could work just as well with offline facilities for creating content to upload to the software that actually gains something from being online - like the VTT. Character files (and I imagine similar for the monster files) are really not that big.

See above for what I think it gains.

Yeah, that's probably true, but:

I think this was tied into the web CB in that the timing of the change was driven by Dark Sun and Essentials (don't want those in the old CB 'cos we want to force people onto the new one), so the rush was all precipitated by the desire to strong-arm users onto a platform that suited WotC instead of giving the paying customer the best possible functionality, adaptability and quality. There's the fatal error and cardinal sin all rolled into one, from my perspective.

I understand your perspective- I just don't jump to as harsh picture as you do.

I don't think it's possible for instance to "strong arm" someone into buying a luxury item. You can tempt them sure- but strong arm is not an adjective I'd use. (And I kind of think it somewhat cheapens the word when it comes time to use it in regard to companies that really CAN strong arm their clients.)

Did they seem to rush the release in order to capitalize on their next big release? Sure, but still it's a luxury item, I'm not forced to buy it if I think it's crap. In fact they offered refunds to people who felt the new system was not in line with what they'd already paid for.

You can also argue that perhaps they felt that not protecting their next big release would harm them more then they could take.

In which case what choice do you make? Suffer some bad will for a rushed release, or go under and offer no future releases? Which is better or worse in the long run?

I don't know about the actual rules engine, but the data structures for the old CB are quite good, actually - flexible and they seem well thought out. They even kept using them for the new CB

Having never seen the code I'll take your word for it, but- then it kind of sounds like 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Either way they went they would need to do some code manipulating.

So, apart from putrid snobbish bigotry, what reason might there be to say "those with less to spend don't deserve this stuff"?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but this I think is an example of the revenue bleed I was talking about earlier.

If it wasn't a case of just some people only occasionally buying stuff while a strong base of core users brought in your main revenue stream that's not a big deal.

But if your business model unintentionally made it more desirable to do this causing your main revenue stream to slowly erode away? NOW you have a problem.

Add to this that it's not as 0 cost as you think... Those people still utilize things like customer service, and put some extra strain on the servers as they download updates when they do. (And who knows if it also put uneven burden on the servers as occasionally people logged on and started downloading large chunks of zip files and what not...)

 

[Herschel]

Actually, it is. See if you can grasp this: supplying the product to one more user costs WotC close to nothing. Zero. Zip. If it cost them a penny, your assertion would hold water, but it doesn't. What costs is the development, and that costs what it costs regardless whether 100 people use the software or 1,000,000 people use it. If you can get even a buck out of those million people, you are ahead of even quite an exhorbitantly contributing 100. I have no clue what the actual user figures are (in the tens of thousands, it seems, but we can't say closer than that), but the fact remains that for every extra user that you can get any money out of at all, you gain in this situation. The schema they had was fairly well designed from this persective - apart from maybe the minimum subscription period being too short or there being no one-off "startup cost". Those with disposable income could do what I did and subscribe annually, ongoing, and get all the DDI benefits, all the time. Those with less income or just not such keen fans could 'dip in' to keep fairly up-to-date and pay less (but pay something - which is better than nothing because servicing the customer costs WotC close to nothing).

So, apart from putrid snobbish bigotry, what reason might there be to say "those with less to spend don't deserve this stuff"?

You obviously have no idea how profitable business models work. Here's a nugget for you: The goal of a business is to maximize profit, not to have the most units in use. In other words, more gamers is not directly correlated with more money. They're not in business to break even, they're in business to make a profit. That means finding a product or service and providing it to a market at the most profitable level of cost and price.

If it's a luxury item, which gaming is, there may well be people who want it but can't afford it. Either come up with the cash or deal with not having it. This sense of entitlement among many gamers is sickening. If you can't afford it and want it, save, adjust your budget or get a (better) job. Heck, I can't swing that $300,000 boat I "want" from the boat show. Should they be obliged to sell it to me for cost? Or how about that hot tub? I mean the design is paid for, all they should charge me for is cost of lumber and labor, right?

From a business standpoint, it does cost WotC money every time someone only updated sporadically. Every person who doesn't pay costs them profit. The goal is to find out at what point the market bears the most profit, period. That means the most people who will buy a product or service at the greatest price they can get.

 

[Herschel]

Also, the Character Builder is a luxury item/service within a luxury item.

 

[Mirtek]

That means finding a product or service and providing it to a market at the most profitable level of cost and price.

That means finding ways to make your offer better for you at the cost of becoming worse for your customers as long as you can make sure that the lost customers are equal to less money than you get from the customers that stay.

Even better if you can convince them that it was for their benefit. Well, a lot of people here are certainly already ready to defend putting the mags behind a "read-only-online-viewer-wall"

 

[Herschel]

You also had to buy the print magazines when they were around. Do you honestly think that selling three books worth of material and six months of magazine conent (sans ad revenue) for $5 every 6 months was a sustainable business model? It got some people in the door but if you want to stay AND get the new goodies, you have to pay.

 

[Mirtek]

You also had to buy the print magazines when they were around.

But I have yet to receive a message demanding that I destroy my copies after I stopped my subscription to the print magazines.

Do you honestly think that selling three books worth of material and six months of magazine conent (sans ad revenue) for $5 every 6 months was a sustainable business model?

Well, that would depend on how many $5 payments they received every 6 month. However this isn't even relevant, because WotC could have implement a "only get what you paid for" model without yanking the CB. Yet they did manage to make their offer worse for the people paying $5 every single month.

 

[Herschel]

A) Nothing is destroyed, you just no longer have access to it because you're no longer paying for it. It works the same way in most electronic media. If you've watched Highlander on Netflix and your subscription expires, guess what, you can't watch it on Netflix any more.

You think so? It's only worse when you don't want to pay for it (including sharing amongst many). I prefer the way it is now. No lunky, disorganized character builder taking a long time to load and messing around with firewall exceptions and not being able to update it when updates did happen because server loads were heavy and even when they did download it was slower than mollasses in January. Now the updates are already there when I log on, it loads much faster and I can access it anywhere, even from my sister's Mac when I'm on the other side of the metro.

The only thing noticibly slower is stat/attribute allocation and the half second or so upon selection. The marketplace is a bit lunky but better organized and is getting an overhaul. Overall I MUCH prefer the online builder.