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

[Mark CMG]

Another large concern is that the online 3.5 content is going to decline as 4E is introduced, and those who have paid for a subscription will be stuck even if they do not intend to switch editions. So, too, will support through 3.5 generators and tabletop gaming software (including their upkeep, if necessary) as 4E comes into being. Some might argue that the flavor material will be useful no matter the edition but that seems to be a fairly small percentage of the content produced for online, mostly its mechanical in nature, from what I have seen. Certainly a lot of the newer stuff they are planning is mechanical (generator, tabletop software, etc).

 

[SteveC]

Ah, I leave the boards for a couple days, and this is finally announced.

Sigh.

I worked as a manager for one of the major national ISPs for about five years, and they branded a number of "pay sites" for their members, giving them free access. The idea was to create online content for their users, much like AOL does, without actually having to host it themselves. As a result, I got to see a lot of data on these sites: how many hits, how much new content, and so on. In a nutshell, the idea stunk. Most of the companies were initially updating things like gangbusters, and advertised how many subscriptions they had (including all of our members in those totals, which really inflated things). After a few years, the only web site that was still in existance was ESPN, which became a hollow shell of what it once was.

Pay for content does not work. In fact, today, most of what WotC is providing is simply expected as part of the high prices for gaming products. Having a decent website with previews, errata and expanded content is par for the course for all of the tier one and tier two companies out there. Should it be? Is that a reasonable expectation? Well, if games had better quality control, I would say that it would not be. The problem is that so many games, including WotC products, have absolutely attrocious editing and proof reading. They also don't have a usable index. The net result is that many products need on line support to be fully usable to me, much like patches for PC games are a requirement.

So no, no subscription for me. Should WotC decide to eliminate errata and web enhancements from their free service, it will mean significantly fewer purchases from me in a year. Maybe none. Good job, guys!

--Steve

 

[Simplicity]

Yeah, I guess I'm in the stock up on pitchforks camp. If WotC became an online version of Dungeon... I STILL wouldn't be willing to pay for it. If it were a highly searchable, mass of quality content (which isn't going to happen for years yet), I might consider it and then still wouldn't. And frankly, wizards.com is no Dungeon. The content there is mostly previews for products, which amounts to advertising. Ooooh. And fiction (emphasis on the part that makes it sound like I'm spitting out the word).

Why would I want to subscribe to an online, probably subquality Dragon when I don't pay for individual off-line Dragon magazines?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I was a bit off on my Xbox comparison, it seems that it was an EA Tiger Woods title that actually made you pay for cheats on your 360 that you got for free on your Xbox.

Here's the Penny Arcade comic mocking it:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/15

And here's the newspost:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/11/15

It also reminds me of the laughable attempts to get us to pay for reliable e-mail delivery. The issue of "net neutrality" comes up, where certain D&D players would get "better service" than others, even though we all pay for the same books. They degrade our access to content to force us to pay for their proprietary content.

For Net Neutrality issues, check it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U

And here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

I mean, I'm casting a pretty big net of paranoia, here. But these all have the principle of "something that once worked perfectly fine that is now handicapped so that you have to pay to get it to work like you're used to." It's a full-step backwards.

WotC isn't the only company adopting this mean-spirited tactic, apparently. And every time it happens, it blows up in the face of the company, who might get a few dedicated subscribers, but who looses one of the things that, in D&D, is key to it's success: the ability to get people to socialize *about* these things. If cheats are only available for the wealthy, then you don't get kids experimenting and trying them out and talking about how to get them. If talk about how to tweak the newest class or what Design and Development was *thinking* when they made the newest monster is relegated to only those who are the elites, it forces there to be a line between "noob" and "expert" that almost discourages noobs from finding out enough to become experts.

I don't think it'll be the death of D&D or anything, but I do believe that much of what they're potentially taking away will hurt the online community that has been built since 3e's release.

 

[Lalato]

Newspapers have always been distributed at cost, since as a business model, they're a display and classified ad delivery system with obscenely good profit margins.

Not trying to derail the topic here, but just wanted to point out that I work at a newspaper that is not distributed at cost and never has been. That said, your statement is true of the vast majority of newspapers across the country.

--sam

 

[Maggan]

Another large concern is that the online 3.5 content is going to decline as 4E is introduced, and those who have paid for a subscription will be stuck even if they do not intend to switch editions.

It could also mean that a hypothetical 4e will hew so close to 3.5 as to make the new stuff usable for the previous edition, in the hope of carrying over subscribers.

So that 4e becomes more like 3.75 or something like that.

/M

 

[Maggan]

And every time it happens, it blows up in the face of the company, who might get a few dedicated subscribers, but who looses one of the things that, in D&D, is key to it's success: the ability to get people to socialize *about* these things.

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

 

[DaveMage]

It could also mean that a hypothetical 4e will hew so close to 3.5 as to make the new stuff usable for the previous edition, in the hope of carrying over subscribers.

So that 4e becomes more like 3.75 or something like that.

/M

It would either have to be that, or 4E is a ways off.

Otherwise, why would WotC cut off the relationship with CMP if they (CMP) were only going to support an outdated system?


I think it means 4E is farther away than many people think. (Unless, as you say, 4E will not be a drastic change from 3e.)

 

[DonTadow]

This would be the worst possible idea. Anyone remember the T$R days? When the internet started being really available in the mid-90's, people's homebrew 2E material started showing up on the internet. TSR took legal action against gamers (unsuccesfully, I might add) that were posting fanfiction and their own materials for 2E and putting them on the internet. Although the quality of their products was waning at this time and the CCG market was still very hot, many people cite this as one of the big reasons that TSR lost alot of its fan support. The old TSR fought amongst not only themselves but against their own customers.

This was one of the big motivating factors in making the OGL. Besides the business factors, it was a way for WotC to put out an olive branch to all the D&D players that TSR alienated in their final days.

If WotC actually got their legal department to chase down gamers that were running online games, I seriously doubt they would "win" in any sense. Even if they shut down such sites, these players wouldn't be inclined to use WotC services or products and the negative word-of-mouth generated from such tactics would be Phyrric.

All I can say is that this worked with Magic the gathering. It's a different era nowaday.

First this is Hasbro, a company with deeper pockets, better lawyers and more impressive PR than TSR.
Second, the laws for intellectual property lean heavily towards the company these last few years.

THere will be some backlash, but if the product is considerably better and consistant more so than the stuff out there, that backlash will soon fade. Again, I use Magic the GAthering as an example. If you would have told me five years ago that WOTC would be able to get people to buy and play with virtual cards online and it would be successful, I'd have thought you were joking. If you would have told me that they would shut down popular programs like apprentice and Magic:Keep and still keep a large portion of their fanbase, I'd have thought you were ludicrous.
Oddly enough it may be the success of Magic: ONline that is propelling the integration of the internet content and published material.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not trying to derail the topic here, but just wanted to point out that I work at a newspaper that is not distributed at cost and never has been. That said, your statement is true of the vast majority of newspapers across the country.

You're right, there are a few that don't just cover the delivery cost in their subscription. I should have been more specific.