Are we fair to WotC?

[Wicht]

I love using my iPad at the table, and although I find dealing with PDF versions of the rules slightly unwieldy, if I have an internet connection at the table it's easy to look up most anything I need in the SRD.

Now the SRD or the d20PFSRD, is almost as fast as using a book, and definitely much faster than a PDF; but I would have to have the laptop at the table and that takes up a little more room than I am willing to give. At home, I do keep the laptop on a nearby surface though in case there is a rule in a PDF I do not have access to in book form or if I want to use the SRD. But most of the time, the books are easier and easier to pass around and still get used more than the computer. Much, much more. The computer only comes into play when we can't find what we want in the books.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Now the SRD or the d20PFSRD, is almost as fast as using a book, and definitely much faster than a PDF; but I would have to have the laptop at the table and that takes up a little more room than I am willing to give. At home, I do keep the laptop on a nearby surface though in case there is a rule in a PDF I do not have access to in book form or if I want to use the SRD. But most of the time, the books are easier and easier to pass around and still get used more than the computer. Much, much more. The computer only comes into play when we can't find what we want in the books.

Agreed. When I need to look up a rule online, I usually find it at exactly the same moment as our book users (some of whom know where to find everything in an instant). But if I'm on my iPad I'm slower, so the book readers usually beat me. It's easier for me to do a key word search than look something up in the index though.

 

[the Jester]

No, I just hear the same comments from people repeatedly about why physical books are better than e-readers, and they're the same arguments every time: you have to charge them, it's hard to read in light/dark, it's uncomfortable, it's hard to find a specific page, etc.

The vast majority of these are false or so minor (charging) as to be non-issues.

They may be non-issues to you, but since you keep hearing the same comments, isn't it possible that, rather than just blowing smoke, all these people saying the same thing are actually discussing what are, indeed, legitimate issues to them?

Why is it so frustrating to you that some people have these issues? Just because you don't find them problematic doesn't mean that nobody else will, either. And if you keep hearing it from multiple sources, dismissing those concerns is no more constructive than "Your style of gaming is badwrongfun!" is.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, definitely not. But at some point in the future? Almost certainly.

I think there's ample room for debate about that prognostication. I could see it happening in a hypothetical 6e or 7e (10-15 years? Maybe!). I could also see it not happening.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ahn - you have a first printing 3e PHB? With the thirty or forty pages of errata for it? Take a look at which printing you have, because there are significant differences between first and second printings.

What's you're point? Are we comparing errata page counts? I know there were an enormous amount for both. And in any case, errata is only one part of the equation.

See, right there, that's the issue. Why would WOTC want you for a customer? I'm not being mean here or trying to pick a fight, but, if you are not buying books, and not willing to pay for product, what's the point in catering to you? A hundred bucks a year, is what, three 3.5 books a year? Give or take?

Through the 3e era, three hardcovers probably come out to a bit less than $100.

How are you a customer?

At the moment, I'm not. I was once, albeit not at over $100 a year (there may also have been products that other people bought for me, and game-related expenses for non-gaming products).

See, I'm in the same boat as you. I don't buy very much anymore. But, the difference is, I don't expect the game to be given to me for free so that I can continue to play without supporting the company that produces the hobby.

I do.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to delve into the legal complexities too much, but you can't copyright game mechanics. D&D belongs to us, not Hasbro. In what other game would we expect to pay anything for access to the rules. Do kids playing soccer have to pay for a FIFA license on the rules? Do people playing chess in the park have to pay for those rules? There are certainly things you can buy as part of playing those games (equipment, uniforms, etc.). In fact, you can buy books with the rules. But you don't have to. Games are free.

People optionally pay into games because the products make their life easier, and that's how companies make money. It's easier to buy a Monopoly board than to make your own. It's easier pay for access to a tennis court than to build your own. It's easier for me to buy a PHB than it is to try and copy the SRD and make it into something usable.

By the same token, I can look at something like the DDI and realize that that's a huge value for the money.

If it produced enough good quality content and you got enough use out of it, it could be.

So, if you refuse to pay for the product, at any price, why would any company listen to your input?

To convince me to pay?

In a strange (kind of twisted) way, my input matters more on that level than that of someone who does pay in. There's a group of people who will buy anything with the D&D label on it. So why would WotC listen to them? They'll buy no matter what. There are also many people who won't buy no matter what; again, WotC isn't interested in those. I'm a person who will buy under some circumstances, but not others, meaning that the company actually has some control over me. And I'm essentially in charge of a gaming group, meaning that if I do buy something, others likely will as well.

And, perhaps most importantly, if I play their game, than I recruit other people. Even if they only make a real profit on a fraction of players, it's in their interest to recruit more of them. That's the whole theory beyond the OGL. The game itself is an "acquisition engine" as Ryan Dancey called it, which recruits players, a portion of which will buy a lot of (not required but useful) stuff and make the company money.

Paizo is on the same boat; they'd rather you play PF for free than play something else, figuring that if you do, maybe you'll eventually buy something. I've never bought a PF product, but I have bought things from Paizo's site just to support them.

Your perspective certainly matches WotC's going into the 4e era. Before, the idea was more "let's get everyone playing d20 and then maybe make some money off of some of them", which was replaced with "let's get as much money out of our customers as we can and if anyone isn't interested in paying in, screw them". Both approaches have some validity; high margin, low volume vs low margin, high volume. As a consumer, I simply prefer the old OGL way, and thus, here I am in the thread about fairly criticizing WotC.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to delve into the legal complexities too much, but you can't copyright game mechanics. D&D belongs to us, not Hasbro.

Actually, no, D&D belongs to Hasbro.

While you are right that you can't copyright mechanics, the game itself is Hasbro's IP. The game includes the name and presentation it's given.

While I agree that my D&D game is mine, the game itself is not. I have a tremendous amount of investment in it, and I have tons and tons of custom material for every edition that I've written. Nonetheless, Dungeons & Dragons belongs to Hasbro. That's why they're the only ones who can make money off a product labeled "Dungeons & Dragons" unless they let someone else do so, too.

If you never spend another dime on D&D, that's fine, but you have no right to complain if the game's development goes in a direction you don't like. You are no longer supporting the game; the guys trying to make a living by keeping the game alive need to look at the tastes and opinions of people who are spending the money if they want to keep putting out products. And I want them to keep putting out products.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

People optionally pay into games because the products make their life easier, and that's how companies make money. It's easier to buy a Monopoly board than to make your own. It's easier pay for access to a tennis court than to build your own. It's easier for me to buy a PHB than it is to try and copy the SRD and make it into something usable.

This connects to another point regarding all the crystal ball gazing going on here about the directin things will go in. The subscription model is now passe. The new wave of online games are taking a different approach. They allow you to play the base game for free in (relative) perpetuity. They make their money in extras that they sell to players of the game. And people have been paying BIG (not going to hunt doown actual articles right now) for these extras. I could see this as a solution to WotC's predicament. Once the OGL broke down the wall, they will never be able to build a new wall and keep customers happy. Instead, if they embrace that and place the basic game out there for free and then charge for add-ons or upgrades (like a print copy?), they might be onto something. Not everyone will buy the extras, but they don't need that. The more people playing the base game, the more exposure it gets, the more likely someone will enjoy the extras and buy them. Sitting back on a subscription model that is now beginning to phase out of computer gaming will only leave them behind the curve yet again.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, no, D&D belongs to Hasbro.

While you are right that you can't copyright mechanics, the game itself is Hasbro's IP. The game includes the name and presentation it's given

You are right, though this is why I didn't want to get into legalisms. The IP, including the name, is not ours. However, the game itself is independent of that IP. When I said D&D is not Hasbro's I wasn't referring to the name, but the game itself.

If you never spend another dime on D&D, that's fine, but you have no right to complain if the game's development goes in a direction you don't like. You are no longer supporting the game; the guys trying to make a living by keeping the game alive need to look at the tastes and opinions of people who are spending the money if they want to keep putting out products. And I want them to keep putting out products.

I do't buy that. My reasoning above still stands in that the part of the gaming community that pays a significant amount of money is only a minority and is not the only part that matters, and in that I once was and could be again one of those people with relative ease.

You think that the NFL only cares about people who buy tickets? No, they care an awful lot about their TV audience, many of whom don't pay them any money directly, but who are very much part of their business model.

***
[MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION]
Pretty much agree with that.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

If you never spend another dime on D&D, that's fine, but you have no right to complain if the game's development goes in a direction you don't like. You are no longer supporting the game; the guys trying to make a living by keeping the game alive need to look at the tastes and opinions of people who are spending the money if they want to keep putting out products. And I want them to keep putting out products.

But isn't that his point? That the products they put out have to be products he's interested in buying? Supporting a product you have no interest in seems... counter-productive.

I mean yeah, if you're particularly passionate about "Splatbook XIV - Splat's Revenge", then by all means, purchase it. But if that doesn't appeal to you, then the company has to do what companies do - make a sale. That is, offer us something we want instead. Otherwise, why wouldn't you play via the library's copy (or buy a used copy for cheap, or borrow a friend's copy, or use something like d20PFSRD; any one of a multitude of other options that allow you to play without subsidizing products you don't like)? Rewarding companies for behavior that's counter to your interests will not, in general, promote those interests.

TL;DR - Wallet votes are the only votes companies notice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But isn't that his point? That the products they put out have to be products he's interested in buying? Supporting a product you have no interest in seems... counter-productive.

If anything, buying products you don't like sends the wrong message. It is a vote with your wallet that tells the company they are doing something right. They aren't, so why would I vote for them?