D&D Insider - Pay tomorrow for what you get today for free?

[DaveMage]

Was this a mistake? Do you actually think $20/month to be a reasonable number?

~Qualidar~

Everybody has their price.....

I don't think we can judge what makes a good price until we know all of what's available and the quality thereof.

I think the majority of people in this thread would say that the value of what is currently being offered for free on the WotC website is not worth paying very much per month, if anything. It will depend upon the total package - especially what's not being offered currently.

I can think of a number of D&D-related things that I'd pay $20 month for, but for the stuff being described so far, $5/month ($60/year) would be the ballpark I'd be in.

 

[Kapture]

Was this a mistake? Do you actually think $20/month to be a reasonable number?

~Qualidar~

Why not? That's the equivalent of a subscription to a Paizo magazine and one MMPORG. If online gaming isn't a MMPORG, it's certainly a MPORG.

 

[DonTadow]

Maybe in the official on-the-bookshelf at your FLGS sense. But with the internet and the ease of desktop publishing, there's now way you could ever stop someone from making material for D&D or anything else and distributing it. All you could do is make it very difficult for them to make any money at it.

You can trademark brand names like "Dungeons & Dragons." What you can't do is trademark content like, "roll 1d6+1," "the character has an ability of 15," or "elf wizard and dwarf fighter." It'd be comparatively easy to strip out the protected elements and leave useable material.

Ever seen the complete guide to unlawful carnal knowledge for fantasy role-playing games? http://www.vipecommerce.com/~gnba/books/olik/NetBooks_Guides.html

It never once says "D&D," but if you check it out there's no mistaking what game system it's designed for.

If WotC did ever crack down on unofficial content, the same thing would happen to them that happened to T$R. They were doing this ten years ago. The player base would splinter and fragment, negative word-of-mouth would slow sales, and the "official" material would decline in both quality and sales.

Its just a different age. Now we know its completely illegal to do this. WOTC has the law and the public on its side with this. The internet was something else in its youth, but as a mature adult there are sturdier rules. People havn't stopped buying music? DVDs are still selling? Games are still being purchased. Yet in each of these industries companies have filed lawsuits to stop illigal distribution. Remeber the Tenga Guantlet thing with NIntendo from the 80s. If d and d decided to issue out licenses and you publish something for their system without a license, unless you mask it very well I doubt you'll get away with it.

THen again, I doubt any legit publisher would even attempt to do this. Sure you will probably be able to write up some stuff and put it on your webpage, but one of two things will happen. It won't be balanced or that good, in which case WoTC has nothing to worry about.
B. It will get real popular in which bye bye to your content.

 

[Kapture]

THen again, I doubt any legit publisher would even attempt to do this. Sure you will probably be able to write up some stuff and put it on your webpage, but one of two things will happen. It won't be balanced or that good, in which case WoTC has nothing to worry about.
B. It will get real popular in which bye bye to your content.

This statement is also a little strange. I've found plenty of things, for free, and from secondary publishers, that is balanced (what that means, I don't know), and good. WOTC published plenty of ungood things, and frankly, I don't see what's balanced about the warlock or dragon shaman classes, the first of which requires GM's to very carefully shim encounters against his eldritch blast, and the second of which is just horrible to play at low levels.

I've been published (in tiny doses), by Paizo and TSR. The only difference between the material I write for my home game and for paizo is that it had a publisher's imprint by it.

 

[Dykstrav]

Its just a different age. Now we know its completely illegal to do this. WOTC has the law and the public on its side with this. The internet was something else in its youth, but as a mature adult there are sturdier rules.

"Completely illegal?"

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

I'm not an intellectual property lawyer (although I know a few as I work in the entertainment industry), but this seems pretty cut and dried. As long as you're not trying to claim copyright on another company's work you can essentially publish what gaming material that you want to as United States copyright law stands right now. Just put a nice big disclaimer up front about how D&D is not yours and you're not claiming that it is and you should be good. Games don't follow the same provisions of copyright that scripts, finished movies, and music do.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer myself. If any lawyers read this feel free to chime in. What is reasonably common knowledge is that TSR tried to stop people from making their own content and it was under these provisions that they couldn't even get it to court.

As far as having "the public on its side," this thread or most any other should give a strong indication that not everyone wants to jump on the WotC side with any particular issue just because they're WotC. People weren't willing to jump on TSR's side when they started making a game that people didn't want to buy.

THen again, I doubt any legit publisher would even attempt to do this. Sure you will probably be able to write up some stuff and put it on your webpage, but one of two things will happen. It won't be balanced or that good, in which case WoTC has nothing to worry about.
B. It will get real popular in which bye bye to your content.

"Balance" and quality of content are really an entirely different can of worms. It's always been my opinion that if people have to ask if it's balanced or not, then it isn't. Tell ten different players that the warlock is balanced and see if you get a consensus, much less an agreement that it is indeed "balanced." Or what about reserve feats? Or anything in Tome of Battle? Without getting into this issue too deeply, suffice to say that "official" doesn't equal "balanced." Six years after the release of 3E people still debate the balance of material found in the three core rulebooks.

 

[Aaron L]

Apple faced a similar outcry when they made their web service fee based, instead of free. And yet have built a somewhat healthy service out of that (the DotMac service).

So it is possible to take something that was once free, and charge for it, and build a good business on that.

The key I think is to add, and keep adding value to the new service, so that it is considered very much improved over the free service.

/M

Not meaning to be too disparaging here, but Apple could charge Mac fanatics an extra 50$ for a swift kick in the pants and they'd pay for it- and then brag about how PCs didn't get you a kick in the bum like their Macs did.

 

[Aaron L]

link!

zelda!


sorry

 

[Maggan]

Not meaning to be too disparaging here, but Apple could charge Mac fanatics an extra 50$ for a swift kick in the pants and they'd pay for it- and then brag about how PCs didn't get you a kick in the bum like their Macs did.

Well, I'm a Mac user since 1986, and I would decline such an offer. As would every other Mac user I know.

/M

 

[Aaron L]

Well, I'm a Mac user since 1986, and I would decline such an offer. As would every other Mac user I know.

/M

I know, I was just in a smart alecky mood. Sorry


Of course, you probably aren't a fanatic, though!

 

[Mark CMG]

Sorry bout your dog.