Did WotC Effectively KILL the En World community's conversion process?

[PowerWordDumb]

Re: Re: Makes money != Right thing to do

So you have basically conceded the point that the 'right' thing has to translate to sales for Wotc down the line. So we are making this a quantitative argument. Cool. Now that you have also conceded that the audience for these conversions is relativly small, and even the value placed on them by that small audience is in doubt; is there any reason to believe that the payoff for Wotc in either real sales gains or by minimizing oppurtunity cost would have been such that it would have paid for the legal hassles that would have come with a more comprehensive conversion policy?

I have not conceded what you infer. The "right" thing has nothing directly to do with profits, though doing the right thing can tend to lead to profits down the line and, granted, higher costs up-front. The rightness of the action is not defined by the P/E ratios, though admittedly most business dorks will only see things in those terms.

To your points, the audience for the conversions is not as small as you infer. The majority of ENworld (and other online RPG sites) readers are statistically DMs, rather than players. Thus the exposure to gamers by DMs grabbing conversions is much higher than a one-to-one relationship. For each person grabbing a conversion from ENworld, it is likely that at least three to four other people will also benefit. That is still a relatively small portion of WoTC's customer base, but what do they gain by pissing off that most vocal and most informed segment of their fanbase? I maintain they gained in the short term through cost-avoidance, but could have gained in the long-term by fostering both community goodwill, and continued interest around their product line. People talk to each other, and "good" deeds are talked about just as much as selfish deeds.

Please, cite some real evidence of this, given that you are making a factual cost-benefit analysis. At this point I trust Wotc to know what is in their interest moreso than an obviouisly self-interested internet poster.

I've made no factual claims about correlation between WoTC's actions and eventual sales, so don't put words in my mouth. The difference here is that you, per your own statement, ultimately trust WoTC to do what is right for them (and by inference, for D&D and by further inference for us) more than you trust us to know what is best for us. None of us want WoTC to go under based on unreasonable expenditures, so we have a vested interest in WoTC's continued profitability as much as if we were shareholders ourselves. That should not however blind us to actions that are contrary to our interests, both as gamers and as longterm supporters of the system and the current corporate owners.

And high profits do make consumers happy, because it insures that somone will have an incentive to produce said products; as long as the price is smaller than what they are willing to pay, everyone wins. Could profits be smaller? Perhaps, but probably not without reducing the viability of the DND brand as commodity and without reducing the incentive in invest in the quality of said brand through good production values or distribution networks. The higher price can be argued as an extranality. The concept of profit maximization already takes into account the needs of the consumer...

I disagree. Profits absolutely do *NOT* make consumers happy. Continued viability of a company who produced products the consumers like will certainly please them, but profits themselves do not. Point me out one person who is cheering on the gas station owners when prices at the pump spike for no good reason - after all, they're maximizing profits over customer objections, and per your post we should just trust that they know what's best.

Profits have nothing to do with the quality of products, as profits by definition are the surplus earnings not consumed by the aggregate costs of producing said products. Granted that more accumulated profits do allow greater future expenditures on product development and design, but there is not a direct association between profits and product or service quality. Case in point - McDonalds. The food is crap, but it rakes in money like nobody's business.

I don't begrudge WoTC one nickel of their hard-won profits. I want them to succeed, because their health translates into (I hope) continued health and nifty new products for my hobby. I do however begrudge them greedily eyeing every penny in cases where any reasonable bystander could tell you there was no upside in torpedoing the conversion libraries. If ten or twelve people on a message board can tell you what's wrong with the conversion policy and how it can be fixed, you better bet your behind that a decent lawyer can do it in a couple of hours, and in a way which does not have to cost you any of your customer confidence. The Draconian approach is the lazy approach.

 

[HeavyG]

HeavyG !!

I'd like to talk to you, but your email address isn't available. Could you please email me at sholdenj@rogers.com?

Thanks, dude.

Dude !!

I will not send you my conversion.

It's not even ready yet. Still at an awkward half-english-half-french random-notes-only-I-could-understand stage.

 

[jasamcarl]

Re: Re: Re: Makes money != Right thing to do

I have not conceded what you infer. The "right" thing has nothing directly to do with profits, though doing the right thing can tend to lead to profits down the line and, granted, higher costs up-front. The rightness of the action is not defined by the P/E ratios, though admittedly most business dorks will only see things in those terms.

To your points, the audience for the conversions is not as small as you infer. The majority of ENworld (and other online RPG sites) readers are statistically DMs, rather than players. Thus the exposure to gamers by DMs grabbing conversions is much higher than a one-to-one relationship. For each person grabbing a conversion from ENworld, it is likely that at least three to four other people will also benefit. That is still a relatively small portion of WoTC's customer base, but what do they gain by pissing off that most vocal and most informed segment of their fanbase? I maintain they gained in the short term through cost-avoidance, but could have gained in the long-term by fostering both community goodwill, and continued interest around their product line. People talk to each other, and "good" deeds are talked about just as much as selfish deeds.



I've made no factual claims about correlation between WoTC's actions and eventual sales, so don't put words in my mouth. The difference here is that you, per your own statement, ultimately trust WoTC to do what is right for them (and by inference, for D&D and by further inference for us) more than you trust us to know what is best for us. None of us want WoTC to go under based on unreasonable expenditures, so we have a vested interest in WoTC's continued profitability as much as if we were shareholders ourselves. That should not however blind us to actions that are contrary to our interests, both as gamers and as longterm supporters of the system and the current corporate owners.



I disagree. Profits absolutely do *NOT* make consumers happy. Continued viability of a company who produced products the consumers like will certainly please them, but profits themselves do not. Point me out one person who is cheering on the gas station owners when prices at the pump spike for no good reason - after all, they're maximizing profits over customer objections, and per your post we should just trust that they know what's best.

Profits have nothing to do with the quality of products, as profits by definition are the surplus earnings not consumed by the aggregate costs of producing said products. Granted that more accumulated profits do allow greater future expenditures on product development and design, but there is not a direct association between profits and product or service quality. Case in point - McDonalds. The food is crap, but it rakes in money like nobody's business.

I don't begrudge WoTC one nickel of their hard-won profits. I want them to succeed, because their health translates into (I hope) continued health and nifty new products for my hobby. I do however begrudge them greedily eyeing every penny in cases where any reasonable bystander could tell you there was no upside in torpedoing the conversion libraries. If ten or twelve people on a message board can tell you what's wrong with the conversion policy and how it can be fixed, you better bet your behind that a decent lawyer can do it in a couple of hours, and in a way which does not have to cost you any of your customer confidence. The Draconian approach is the lazy approach.

Your logic is simplistic. Maximizing profits doesn't mean reducing costs, it means increasing the revenue/cost ratio. At any given point in a company's production/profit curve, it very well might be worth it to increase costs per unit, if the returns demand it. RPGs are essentially competitive monopolys. In order to make demand less elastic, the quality of a brand often needs to be improved. This is one of the mainstay concepts behind economic views of R&D.

Oh, and I have no doubt that you would like a more comprehensive conversion document, and to that effect you know what are in your interests. I'm not asking you to trust Wotc to tell you what is best for you. But if consumers continue to purchase their products, that speaks louder than the random posting of some messageboard junkie who suffers no consequence from making preposterous cliams. But what you were doing was claiming knowledge of Wotc's interests. You obviously have none. Put it this way, a single consumer looses out on a small series of purchases if a company makes bad descicions that cause it to close down. The company on the other hand, has much more invested in its own descisions. Thus it has a greater incentive to make rational descicions. Simple, huh?

You haven't given me any proof that many are really 'pissed off' to the point where they would irrationally quit purchasing a product. Most of this small minority will move on without it affecting their future purchasing descions. This is because Wotc's brand loyalty is probably not built on 'good will', but rather the quality of their brand. If an individual product is worth it, why would they begrudge that purchase that is in their interest when doing so will not change a thing? This is where the concept of GAME THEORY comes into play.

And its hard to argue that profits don't indirectly make consumers happy. If there were no profits, no industry would see any increase in quality, innovation, or competition.

 

[Arnwyn]

And its hard to argue that profits don't indirectly make consumers happy. If there were no profits, no industry would see any increase in quality, innovation, or competition.

Actually, d00d, he didn't argue that profits don't indirectly make consumers happy. In fact, he specifically used the word "direct".

Edit: Typo.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes money != Right thing to do

Your logic is simplistic.

We've been doing so good about having a constructive discussion without throwing insults around, why did you have to go and do that? Should I come back swinging and respond in kind that your reading and comprehension skills are simplistic, then? Of course not. Let's leave the insults at home, thanks. I've treated you with the utmost in respect, and I expect the same.

Maximizing profits doesn't mean reducing costs, it means increasing the revenue/cost ratio.

Isn't that painfully obtuse explanation of profits in essence exactly what I said, that profit = sales - costs? Obviously the ways to increase profits are to either increase prices or decrease costs, or some combination of the two which yields a net increase in profit. Exactly what have you clarified, then, which contradicts my contention that consumers couldn't give a rat's behind about profits, since that's the context in which the definition of profits came up?

Oh, and I have no doubt that you would like a more comprehensive conversion document, and to that effect you know what are in your interests. I'm not asking you to trust Wotc to tell you what is best for you. But if consumers continue to purchase their products, that speaks louder than the random posting of some messageboard junkie who suffers no consequence from making preposterous cliams.

If that messageboard junkie comment and the other several slanders you've used to refer to me and others who've dared to complain about WoTC's approach in this thread are insults intentionally directed at me, rather than the assinine off-handed dismissals you may intend them as, you're lucky you're on the other end of a keyboard. Watch it. 'Nuff said, lest this venture off into thread-closing-land, which I do not want - the discussion has been good.

As to Wizards continued survivability, I have no doubt they won't even blink at any fallout from this. Not even a twitch. But the benefit of being a squeaky wheel is that one day you may get some grease. Letting them know when we don't like what they do gives us a better hope that in the future they won't repeat what to us are mistakes. It is our duty as consumers who care about D&D to complain loudly. It was quietly being ignored that killed 2E in the TSR days, not complaints from customers. I aim not to repeat that.

But what you were doing was claiming knowledge of Wotc's interests. You obviously have none. Put it this way, a single consumer looses out on a small series of purchases if a company makes bad descicions that cause it to close down. The company on the other hand, has much more invested in its own descisions. Thus it has a greater incentive to make rational descicions. Simple, huh?

You haven't given me any proof that many are really 'pissed off' to the point where they would irrationally quit purchasing a product. Most of this small minority will move on without it affecting their future purchasing descions. This is because Wotc's brand loyalty is probably not built on 'good will', but rather the quality of their brand. If an individual product is worth it, why would they begrudge that purchase that is in their interest when doing so will not change a thing? This is where the concept of GAME THEORY comes into play.

I've claimed nothing of Wizards' business plans and interests beyond what any businessman already knows about the value of customer relations, nor have I claimed that customers will leave them in droves. What I have claimed is that for some of us, WotC has damaged the relationship. The degree and extent of that damage will vary by person obviously, as will the results.

Do you understand the concept of consumer goodwill? Do you also understand that, having bought the core rules, none of us need WoTC any more for our D20 enjoyment, and just as people have written off FFG, some may write off WotC? Can you not conceed for one moment that someone's buying decision between equivalent products released by Wizards and some third-party publish just might be influenced in some way by how Wizards does business, just as some third-party publishers are currently being snubbed?

Here's a clue. Companies run huge customer satisfaction departments not because they're granola-eating, tree-hugging do-gooders, but because it makes good business sense to avoid *ANY* annoyment of your customer base when possible . Obviously the efforts to which a company will go in order to avoid alienating any of its base will vary depending upon the issue at hand, but generally speaking most companies are quite sensitive to the issue. Companies make small gestures all the time to curry favor with the customers. The bank I work for gave all customers in one province $50 because we hadn't finished a promised system conversion on time and some tiny fraction of customers couldn't get at a bank machine for a couple of hours. Companies donate funds all the time to community causes, because it raises the company's standing in the eyes of customers, not because it directly impacts the bottom line. Similarly, complain loudly about your service to the phone company, and watch them cut you deals in the blink of an eye to keep your service. It's all about keeping the customer happy.

Granted, the customer base being impacted here is not large in overall terms, and the resultant business cost of the impact will not be large, but a little sensitivity to the issue is all it would have taken on Wizards' part to minimize the effect of this and make them heroes. Existing conversions could have been grandfathered under the new policy, they could have been required to be brought into line by including disclaimers or other legal mumbo-jumbo, many options besides requiring them to go away could have been chosen, with minimal cost and implications to WotC.

I'm not going to claim for one moment that the potential sales losses and resultant revenue differences are substantial enough that Wizards needs to be quaking in their boots, because they're clearly not. Beyond that, it's not my job to prove anything. I've expressed an opinion which you've taken issue with. I'm not the one claiming Wizards "knows what they're doing". I'm not the one claiming that so much money would be spent on a reasonable conversion policy that no new quality products could be produced. I'm speaking as a consumer directly affected by the decision, and I'm very careful not to pretend that I represent to totality of WotC's customer base. You on the other hand seem to feel that you represent WotC's point of view... or at least that you've designated yourself the standard-bearer for the "forgive WotC anything, they know their business best" cause.

And its hard to argue that profits don't indirectly make consumers happy. If there were no profits, no industry would see any increase in quality, innovation, or competition.

That's not what we've been arguing. You claimed consumers cared about profits because they translated into product quality.

Profits do often have an indirect association to product quality, but it is not a truism as you claimed. It is entirely possible to run a company with excellent products and service and make very little profit at all. The customers would likely still be quite happy despite the shareholders' complaints. What profits buy you is the freedom to try more new ideas, rather than just those whose business cases are built-in.

That little misconception cleared up, it's not hard at all to argue that consumers don't care at all about profits. Not in the least. Consumers care about getting quality products at what they feel are fair or at least tolerable prices, and some small twinge of concern that companies will survive to continue to feed them with quality products. Nothing more. No consumer cares that Wizards makes a hundred million dollars in profit rather than a measly 98 million. No consumer cares one bit that the company profited enough to pay hefty dividents to shareholders, and no consumer cares in the slightest that the CEO got paid a handsome bonus. If the company that makes my tires goes out of business, I shrug and buy tires from somebody else. I have more attachment to WotC due to the nature of the product they're selling, and my preference for their product over other options, but the relationship remains essentially the same - I have no reason to care about their profitability beyond the point where they assure their own existence. I'm interested in whether you seriously consider the time, effort, and cost of properly releasing a conversion policy that doesn't repeatedly screw the customer base is a "survivability" issue for Wizards.

 

[Leopold]

speaking from EXp from doing several of the conversions (G series, Night Below book 2 coming soon) no WOTC did not kill the conversion process.

They gave us guidelines, they provided helpful material in what you can and can't do, and that's that. It made things a ton easier.

So all you have to do now is:

1. If it's in the SRD you can print the stats.
2. If it's not in the SRD and in another wotc book you say "Creature X from Book Y pg. Z"


That's it. I don't know what the fuss was about, after a few min of reading it over it's not that bad really.

 

[jasamcarl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes money != Right thing to do

We've been doing so good about having a constructive discussion without throwing insults around, why did you have to go and do that? Should I come back swinging and respond in kind that your reading and comprehension skills are simplistic, then? Of course not. Let's leave the insults at home, thanks. I've treated you with the utmost in respect, and I expect the same.



Isn't that painfully obtuse explanation of profits in essence exactly what I said, that profit = sales - costs? Obviously the ways to increase profits are to either increase prices or decrease costs, or some combination of the two which yields a net increase in profit. Exactly what have you clarified, then, which contradicts my contention that consumers couldn't give a rat's behind about profits, since that's the context in which the definition of profits came up?



If that messageboard junkie comment and the other several slanders you've used to refer to me and others who've dared to complain about WoTC's approach in this thread are insults intentionally directed at me, rather than the assinine off-handed dismissals you may intend them as, you're lucky you're on the other end of a keyboard. Watch it. 'Nuff said, lest this venture off into thread-closing-land, which I do not want - the discussion has been good.

As to Wizards continued survivability, I have no doubt they won't even blink at any fallout from this. Not even a twitch. But the benefit of being a squeaky wheel is that one day you may get some grease. Letting them know when we don't like what they do gives us a better hope that in the future they won't repeat what to us are mistakes. It is our duty as consumers who care about D&D to complain loudly. It was quietly being ignored that killed 2E in the TSR days, not complaints from customers. I aim not to repeat that.



I've claimed nothing of Wizards' business plans and interests beyond what any businessman already knows about the value of customer relations, nor have I claimed that customers will leave them in droves. What I have claimed is that for some of us, WotC has damaged the relationship. The degree and extent of that damage will vary by person obviously, as will the results.

Do you understand the concept of consumer goodwill? Do you also understand that, having bought the core rules, none of us need WoTC any more for our D20 enjoyment, and just as people have written off FFG, some may write off WotC? Can you not conceed for one moment that someone's buying decision between equivalent products released by Wizards and some third-party publish just might be influenced in some way by how Wizards does business, just as some third-party publishers are currently being snubbed?

Here's a clue. Companies run huge customer satisfaction departments not because they're granola-eating, tree-hugging do-gooders, but because it makes good business sense to avoid *ANY* annoyment of your customer base when possible . Obviously the efforts to which a company will go in order to avoid alienating any of its base will vary depending upon the issue at hand, but generally speaking most companies are quite sensitive to the issue. Companies make small gestures all the time to curry favor with the customers. The bank I work for gave all customers in one province $50 because we hadn't finished a promised system conversion on time and some tiny fraction of customers couldn't get at a bank machine for a couple of hours. Companies donate funds all the time to community causes, because it raises the company's standing in the eyes of customers, not because it directly impacts the bottom line. Similarly, complain loudly about your service to the phone company, and watch them cut you deals in the blink of an eye to keep your service. It's all about keeping the customer happy.

Granted, the customer base being impacted here is not large in overall terms, and the resultant business cost of the impact will not be large, but a little sensitivity to the issue is all it would have taken on Wizards' part to minimize the effect of this and make them heroes. Existing conversions could have been grandfathered under the new policy, they could have been required to be brought into line by including disclaimers or other legal mumbo-jumbo, many options besides requiring them to go away could have been chosen, with minimal cost and implications to WotC.

I'm not going to claim for one moment that the potential sales losses and resultant revenue differences are substantial enough that Wizards needs to be quaking in their boots, because they're clearly not. Beyond that, it's not my job to prove anything. I've expressed an opinion which you've taken issue with. I'm not the one claiming Wizards "knows what they're doing". I'm not the one claiming that so much money would be spent on a reasonable conversion policy that no new quality products could be produced. I'm speaking as a consumer directly affected by the decision, and I'm very careful not to pretend that I represent to totality of WotC's customer base. You on the other hand seem to feel that you represent WotC's point of view... or at least that you've designated yourself the standard-bearer for the "forgive WotC anything, they know their business best" cause.



That's not what we've been arguing. You claimed consumers cared about profits because they translated into product quality.

Profits do often have an indirect association to product quality, but it is not a truism as you claimed. It is entirely possible to run a company with excellent products and service and make very little profit at all. The customers would likely still be quite happy despite the shareholders' complaints. What profits buy you is the freedom to try more new ideas, rather than just those whose business cases are built-in.

That little misconception cleared up, it's not hard at all to argue that consumers don't care at all about profits. Not in the least. Consumers care about getting quality products at what they feel are fair or at least tolerable prices, and some small twinge of concern that companies will survive to continue to feed them with quality products. Nothing more. No consumer cares that Wizards makes a hundred million dollars in profit rather than a measly 98 million. No consumer cares one bit that the company profited enough to pay hefty dividents to shareholders, and no consumer cares in the slightest that the CEO got paid a handsome bonus. If the company that makes my tires goes out of business, I shrug and buy tires from somebody else. I have more attachment to WotC due to the nature of the product they're selling, and my preference for their product over other options, but the relationship remains essentially the same - I have no reason to care about their profitability beyond the point where they assure their own existence. I'm interested in whether you seriously consider the time, effort, and cost of properly releasing a conversion policy that doesn't repeatedly screw the customer base is a "survivability" issue for Wizards.

Ok, I'm going to keep this short. My profit claim was worded 'profits make customers happy'. That does not imply that customers know what company's products are, but simply that the results of a company's profitability make customers happy, because it means they will provide those products. Its an indirect relationship. That is the context of my original comment, and I'm sorry, but that is what I was arguing; i'm sorry if you didn't get that.

And you did not get my point in making that quoted maximizing profit line. It prefaced a point i was making that a company's profits and consumer satisfaction are not in fact mutually exclusive. A company has an incentive to invest in quality.

And I did not claim that investing the time into a conversion policy would have a significant effect on product produced, but asked for you to prove your point that the boon of customer satisfaction pays for the costs in this case. You cannot. There is no reason to believe that a public relations campaign would help Wotc, precicsly because the customer base is so small, they have no significant competition because of economies of scale, etc. I understand customer relations and its effects on consumer behavior, BUT IT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE!! And then of course you contradict yourself by insisting that Wizards could have made them selves 'heroes' at little cost, thus making another claim on Wotcs interest, but oh well... I laid down a logic that dictates a company has a better grasp on its own interests than an internet post, which includes me. I did not claim specifics, you did. What hypothesizing i did do is leant credence by Wizards' actions or lack thereof. Is this logic really that difficult?

 

[jasamcarl]

Nice threat by the way. You are in love with your own sense of authority aren't you? Posting without consequences, how the 'net stays entertaining.

 

[scadgrad]

Mark,

Why would those 2 points be easy enough?

Well all it would take is a solid legal document. Honestly, that's all that's needed to make the situation more bearable for their most vocal and loyal customers. It's not like they'd have to build a bridge across the Pacific or something. Geez I don't know, are you suggesting it would take an act of Congress or something? Just joking of course, but is it really that difficult?

If so why? I simply don't understand how it could be more difficult (legally speaking) than the OGL & the d20 license.

Let me just say that if you are planning on approaching the Powers That Be concerning this issue, you would be doing the community a huge favor. Good luck to you if that's the case.

I still maintain that reversing the current policy is in the long term interest of the game, and thus WotC.

1) It improves Goodwill between the customer & the company.

2) It adds value to the brand because the OOP materials would soon become more useful and more valuable. One of the reasons WotC fumbled away the Cash Cow of MtG is because they continued a policy of "designed obslolescence." The cards you bought would be "legal" for about 2-3 years, and then...forget about it, you'll have to buy more stuff. The current policy w/ the OOP material and the cash-grab of 3.5 is part-and-parcel of the same mindset.

Green Slime,

I spent about an hour & a half this AM going through/over White Plume Mt. That was simply to find out what effective level it could be played at in 3E. And of course there are certain encounters that will have to be tweaked, etc to make it playable even at the average level.

Occasionally I don't mind doing that. But wouldn't it be nice if I could just upload it so that anyone who wanted to, could at least skim the converted portions quickly to decide if it's apporpriate for their campaign?

Personally I construct my adventures w/ the standard EL system in mind. I do the same thing when converting a module. By asserting that one can't write/convert a module for others to use seems to completely ignore this aspect of 3E. Sure it's a bit flawed, and you'll have to make minor adjustments occasionally. But it's not so utterly useless that one should totally ignore it.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Nice threat by the way. You are in love with your own sense of authority aren't you? Posting without consequences, how the 'net stays entertaining.

Not a threat at all, a warning to keep this on civil grounds instead of increasingly slipping into insults as you have been. I don't want the thread closed because you feel the need to belittle everyone with a different but demonstrably rational opinion. You want to make it more than that, let's trade emails and go elsewhere to keep it off these boards.