Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 4147061" data-attributes="member: 54877">Dragon and Dungeon weren't worth the money to me, when they were on paper.&nbsp; Dragon has been hit or miss for years (IMHO), and worth only an occasional impulse purchase.&nbsp; Dungeon hit its peak (again, IMHO), around issue 30 or 40, and has been in very slow but steady decline since.&nbsp; That was one of the reasons I let my subscription lapse. (Buying a three year subscription just before they went monthly, and not being happy with the way they kept changing the terms during that run, also didn't help.)&nbsp; Sure, it's all subjective.&nbsp; But for DDI to be worth it, both mags have to be worth it, as a necessary but not sufficient prereq.&nbsp; That's a big hurdle for a new electronic gaming tool that depends in large part on network effects to realize its true potential.&nbsp; In other words, the more things that I see that will make the DDI not worth it to some segment of potential customers, the less it is worth it to me, because fewer people will be using it.&nbsp;QFT.&nbsp; In addition, there are no good technical reasons for making game table run only on WotC servers.&nbsp; None.&nbsp; Sure, you want to do RPGA-like events, where cheating could be an issue, or other such pickup games?&nbsp; Then yeah, the option to run on WotC servers is good--same reason MMORPGs work that way.&nbsp; But for a game that a DM runs with friends?&nbsp; No, it's an impediment, designed for no other reason than to &quot;enhance&quot; the appeal of the subscription service. That is, it's a design predicated more on separating people from their cash, than providing a useful application.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong.&nbsp; That's a financial decision, and WotC is free to make it.&nbsp; I'm free to tell them to stick it.&nbsp; But, it's yet another impediment to creating a network effect.If you deliberately set out to design and market an application to take advantage of a network effect, you couldn't do much worse than the DDI thus far.&nbsp; It's like someone wants to kill it.&nbsp; That's pretty darn sad.&nbsp; A monkey throwing darts at a board with decisions on it would have produced a better strategic plan, as far as network effects are concerned.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 4147061, member: 54877"] Dragon and Dungeon weren't worth the money to me, when they were on paper. Dragon has been hit or miss for years (IMHO), and worth only an occasional impulse purchase. Dungeon hit its peak (again, IMHO), around issue 30 or 40, and has been in very slow but steady decline since. That was one of the reasons I let my subscription lapse. (Buying a three year subscription just before they went monthly, and not being happy with the way they kept changing the terms during that run, also didn't help.) Sure, it's all subjective. But for DDI to be worth it, both mags have to be worth it, as a necessary but not sufficient prereq. That's a big hurdle for a new electronic gaming tool that depends in large part on network effects to realize its true potential. In other words, the more things that I see that will make the DDI not worth it to some segment of potential customers, the less it is worth it to me, because fewer people will be using it. QFT. In addition, there are no good technical reasons for making game table run [I]only [/I] on WotC servers. None. Sure, you want to do RPGA-like events, where cheating could be an issue, or other such pickup games? Then yeah, the option to run on WotC servers is good--same reason MMORPGs work that way. But for a game that a DM runs with friends? No, it's an impediment, designed for no other reason than to "enhance" the appeal of the subscription service. That is, it's a design predicated more on separating people from their cash, than providing a useful application. Don't get me wrong. That's a financial decision, and WotC is free to make it. I'm free to tell them to stick it. But, it's yet another impediment to creating a network effect. If you deliberately set out to design and market an application to take advantage of a network effect, you couldn't do much worse than the DDI thus far. It's like someone wants to kill it. That's pretty darn sad. A monkey throwing darts at a board with decisions on it would have produced a better strategic plan, as far as network effects are concerned. [/QUOTE]

Verification