Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 5446404" data-attributes="member: 115">I don't disagree with that statement.  However, that statement (true or not) is irrelevant.WotC wants more DMs.  More DMs means more players, a percentage of whom will also be buying some stuff.  I'll hazard an uninformed guess that while DMs spend more per person, the sheer number of players makes the player base at least as lucrative as the DM base.  Right or wrong, more players means more exposure, and ideally a certain (small) percentage of players jumping to the DM group.  So expanding the player base is critical.Since it's something of a feedback loop*, in that more DMs leads to more players leads to more DMs, the economically logical course of action is to lower the barrier to DM entry as much as possible.  They don't need to raise prices to make a profit off of DMs because by our definition they are spending more.  Tiered-pricing does exactly that though - it taxes DMs (who are already spending more) and raises the barrier to entry into the DM group.In my opinion, the best course of action is to let all the DM tools be covered under DDI with the CB at the same price.  That provides no disincentive for curious players to dip their toe into the DM side of things.  Are all of them going to make the plunge?  No, obviously not.  However, WotC - and arguably, the hobby as a whole - doesn't need (nor want) all of them too.  The just want enough to grow the player base in order to maintain a growing cycle.* It's not a true feedback loop, but for all purposes can be considered one.  There are external influences; advertising, global economy, alternative forms of exposure (comics, FLGS, shows).  However, I think that the primary method of entry into the hobby is by far and away through friends.  I assume that the number of people starting through friends dwarfs (no pun intended) that of the others combined.</blockquote>

Verification