D&D, Technology, and Planned Obsolescence

[Croesus]

Some recent threads have me thinking about the future of D&D, specifically whether or not new versions will have obsolescence built in.

A thread discussing Diablo III raised the point that buyers of the program will only be able to play the game online. While one can still play the game single-player, one will not be able (legally) to play without first connecting to Blizzard’s servers. One issue with this is that at some point in the future, Blizzard will stop supporting the program. While I can still play the original Diablo, or for that matter, older games such as X-Com and Master of Magic, even though the original publisher (Microprose) is long gone, I won’t have that option with D3.

Likewise, D&D has been moving for some time to incorporate the advantages of computers and the Internet. I fully expect WOTC to continue down this path, especially given the comfort level many current players have with smartphones, tablets, laptops, and the Internet. I’ve read countless comments from current 4E players that they see no need to purchase the books, or at least the splats, because everything is available via D&D Insider. For committed 4E players, there’s no question that Insider can be a bargain, and in many ways, far more useful than a stack of printed books.

But…doesn’t this place 4E players in exactly the same position as future D3 buyers? Once either company decides, for any reason, to stop supporting the product, won’t players find themselves with limited options? D3 players would have to obtain an illegal crack that allows one to play offline (or hope that Blizzard provides a legal patch for the same purpose). Likewise, I would expect that gaming groups that are dependent on Insider, especially the Character Builder and the Compendium, will be significantly impacted when (not if) WOTC stops supporting 4E. WOTC has already shown it is not willing to support older editions. I see no reason to expect that they would change their strategy when a new edition is released.

So, is this a valid concern? Will the cancellation of 4E support via Insider have much impact on those currently playing 4E? Are groups planning ahead for such an eventuality, and if so, in what way?

Finally, what about 5E and technology? If more and more gameplay (and game prep) are moved online, and can be cut off any time the publisher desires, how much will that affect your decision whether or not to purchase the game?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, is this a valid concern?

I think it is.

But realize, even if a program is sitting on your computer in its entirety, you may not be able to play it at some point just because your hardware or OS no longer supports it.

I use Macs, and for a LOOOOONG time, backwards compatibility was one of its strong points. As recently as 2004, I used programs I acquired back in the 1980s and 1990s. But eventually, one by one, those programs ceased to function properly as software and hardware changed.

And when I recently bought a new iMac, everything prior to OS X became a dead program.

 

[Pentius]

I think there is an important difference between D3 and 4e here. D3 must be played either online or cracked. 4e can be played entirely offline without piracy.

How would DDi being dropped affect me? well, I could finally get the players I've been browbeating to write out their character sheets manually to do so, instead of using the online builder and not knowing half of their own class features. I use the online builder a little, but I wouldn't lose any characters(well, any I actually use) since I tend to record their data elsewhere after finishing them, especially if I don't own the books I made them with.


Lastly, honestly, even a mildly savvy net pirate could get his hands on the insider tools, right now. The day 5e is announced, we'll all be tripping over stray torrents for it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4e can be played entirely offline without piracy.

True.

However, Croesus is looking at a point in the future when 4Ed is no longer supported online. That would be somewhat like the situation for 3.5Ed is today. And some of those core books have retained a good bit of their value.

There are already guys who play without any of the books, just using what's in the DDI. If, after all those years of being subscribers, they find themselves having to acquire the books or print up the stuff they downloaded, it could carry a price tag they don't care for very much.

 

[Stormonu]

I'll throw in with Danny - I think it is a potential for concern, mostly down the road.

I think its very possible within the next (human) generation we'll see a shift to most content being purely digital where such methods are feasible. I see the signs already with my 10-year-old, who I've just interested in the Warhammer 40K Dark Crusade game; I've got the actual figures for several armies (I was planning ahead for when he might get interested), but he'd rather play it as a video game and has no interest in the table-top version ("they just stand there ...and you have to paint them", have been his remarks).

With such a shift, users are at the mercy of when publishers decide to migrate to new versions or they might simply cease to exist (in WotC's case, they might just fold the D&D department due to lack of sales).

Right now, DDI is a very convenient add-on, but its not necessary. I'm guessing in the not-to-far future, it may be the primary, if not only access point for the current version of the game. I'm guessing some of the things akin to the fortune & despair cards might become digital-only products (akin to the nickel-and-dimed-to-death ipad apps).

Under this model, should the company shift away from the current version, the crowd will have to follow.

 

[Mark CMG]

The approach of having new editions (and even "half"-editions) for D&D has always been four-fold: First, make the new edition different enough that to play it you really need the new books, second, keep the brand strong enough that most of their market share would make the switch while bringing in new players to make up the difference and increase the total number of players, third, cut losses at the end of a edition cycle by timming planned releases from the schedule when it is clear the edition is losing steam, and fourth, don't do it so soon that you alienate the base beyond what can be mollified through good marketing.


One question might be how this plan would need to be altered to transition to the digital age?

 

[Stormonu]

The approach of having new editions (and even "half"-editions) for D&D has always been four-fold: First, make the new edition different enough that to play it you really need the new books, second, keep the brand strong enough that most of their market share would make the switch while bringing in new players to make up the difference and increase the total number of players, third, cut losses at the end of a edition cycle by timming planned releases from the schedule when it is clear the edition is losing steam, and fourth, don't do it so soon that you alienate the base beyond what can be mollified through good marketing.


One question might be how this plan would need to be altered to transition to the digital age?

Well one approach that I got the sense 4E was going to use, but didn't seem to really follow on is to keep the brand alive with content turnover. By this method old rules and content is replaced with a roll-out of new versions that are in some way "better" that the old stuff they replace. We saw some of this in things like the errata reprint of the Stealth rules in the PHB2, tweaks to monsters in MM2 & MM3 and the arrival of "better" abilities and options in the Power books, but the dead tree format hindered keeping things "updated" - unless you wanted to print errata and paste it over the paragraphs in your physical books (which I had read some people did for a while on these forums).

Essentials sort of did this rollover with the new class builds, but the fact this forced a repackaging and retooling of the base books seems to have killed it. If they had done a model where the base rules (Rules Compendium) had been separate from the play content (Heroes of...) from the start, it might have been more successful. Some players may have just bought into the Heroes of... series, like buying a PHB2, 3 or whatever. In the end, I think a lot of people got offended that the original PHB1, DMG1, MM1 had huge swathes invalidated or reprinted en masse by the restructuring and release of materials in essentials format.

If everything had been digital, I think the essentials roll-out would have gone a lot smoother. $100 of books would not have been overnight replaced with $200 in replacements. Instead, for $10 a month, you'd be looking at all new content, and possibly still have access to the old stuff (at least until everyone's had time to convert, and then maybe even a premium on access to the old stuff thereafter). It's likely, over time, the same amount of money would have been put in by owners, but I think it would have left less of a bad taste in consumer's mouths.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH, there are people like me who wouldn't have put ANY money in their pocket for pure digital revisions.

 

[S'mon]

It's a concern for me inasmuch as it would be a deterrent from buying into any future editions on WotC's current business model. Actually it's already a deterrent from using any 4e materials that are not in the last update of the offline charbuilder - the online charbuilder is terrible and I haven't got that unofficial hack of the offline one to work, so I end up making PCs without Essentials etc.

The more they tighten their grip on their IP, the more I'm inclined to hunker down, restrict sources in my games, not look at new stuff.

 

[Croesus]

The approach of having new editions (and even "half"-editions) for D&D has always been four-fold: First, make the new edition different enough that to play it you really need the new books…

I don’t see any difference here between online and offline versions – the publisher still has to convince enough people to make the switch, whether to new books or to an online subscription. Once people have switched, however, I think things do change substantially.

…second, keep the brand strong enough that most of their market share would make the switch while bringing in new players to make up the difference and increase the total number of players…

Here online vs. offline has distinct differences. With online rules and tools, bringing in new players is both easier and more difficult. Easier in that many of us are comfortable having a computer walk us through character creation and, if the online tools handle much of the crunch during play, we won’t have to read through hundreds (thousands?) of pages of rules. The computer can handle much of that, with only the most hardcore players digging into the details. This has the potential to make it much easier to bring in a new player and get them gaming quickly.

More difficult, depending on the pricing model – right now, I can loan my PHB to a new player so he can pick out feats or whatever. Buying an extra copy of the PHB for the group to share is a minimal one-time expense. Will I be able to do something similar with online tools, or will each player be forced to subscribe, with all the costs that entails? Having a recurring cost will make it noticeably more difficult to bring in new players.

…third, cut losses at the end of a edition cycle by timing planned releases from the schedule when it is clear the edition is losing steam…

Much less of an issue with online, as print costs are removed or minimized. Development of new material for the existing edition would eventually be cut to nothing, but so long as this does not cause a mass exodus of existing customers before the new edition is released, that’s not a problem. The key is how long do you continue to support the old edition once the new one is released? Which brings us to...

…and fourth, don't do it so soon that you alienate the base beyond what can be mollified through good marketing.

You’re specifically asking about how often a completely new edition should be released, but I see additional issues with a primarily online model. How often should existing material be changed? When changed, should the old material be kept available, or simply replaced, gone forever? And most importantly, when a new edition is released, how long should the publisher support the old edition before cutting it off? Too soon, and existing customers will be furious. Too long, and the publisher risks fracturing its customer base and impeding the growth of the new edition.

Microsoft is a perfect example of the latter problem. Every time a new version of Windows is released, a significant fraction of its customers decline to change. Some refuse to change at all, most simply want time to assess the new software, work out incompatibilities, and ensure a relatively smooth transition. (Tangent: most users are not Microsoft customers. We are consumers, who use their software. But for most of us, someone else makes the buying decision, whether a corporate purchasing department, IT, or the OEM, such as Dell. As such, Microsoft pays a lot more attention to those folks than they do to users. I would expect such a distinction to not apply to RPG’s, but as I’ll explain below, there will still be conflicts between what we want and what the publisher provides.)

Now Microsoft wants everyone to switch as soon as possible, in part for the boost to revenue from such purchases, in part so that they can stop supporting the old versions. Such support costs them money they’d rather keep or spend on other things.

Similarly, an RPG publisher will want to stop supporting the old edition as quickly as possible. Even if they no longer produce new material, maintaining the online material and tools will have significant costs to the publisher. If, as the publisher expects, the customer base supporting the old edition declines significantly, at some point maintaining the old edition will cost more than it makes in subscriber fees. Meanwhile, the publisher is paying to support the new edition and frankly wants as many customers as possible to migrate so the new edition becomes profitable quickly.

Just as with Microsoft, this creates a conflict between what some customers will want and what the publisher is able or willing to provide. With an offline model, such as we’ve seen for the past 30+ years, that’s not much of an issue to RPG customers. The publisher may no longer produce the older books, but we still have what we’ve already purchased. Nothing stops us from continuing to use these books, plus any offline tools we’ve created or shared, e.g., HeroForge. An online model, however, places much, perhaps all, the control in the publisher’s hands. And what’s good for the publisher may not be good for any specific gaming group.

This, for me, is the crux of the problem. The more technology we build into our games, the less control we, as players, have over our games. Technology has significant benefits that I want, but also significant constraints I do not, e.g., my group might choose to only use rules and options that are supported by the publisher’s tools. Of most concern is the potential that instead of buying and owning an RPG, I’ll just be leasing it, ala a MMORPG. And if I’m leasing, the publisher can stop offering the game anytime it wants.