DnD Game Table- Why doesn't WotC get it?

[Spatula]

My group uses minis with D&D, and we have a battlemat. One of the players got some Dungeon Tiles, and I was very impressed. They are high quality and you get a good number of tiles for the money. Also a good spread of tile "sizes" to build different rooms with. Using them is in many ways more convenient than drawing on the mat - if the battle "moves" to a different area you can simply shift the tiles over and start throwing new ones down, and there's no messing around with cleaning the mat afterwards. Kudos to WotC for doing right by the tiles.

Anyway, the point of the virtual table was holding online games, or so I thought. In which case, I don't see the competition with the Dungeon Tiles (which can't be used online, obviously), or why you should have a limited number of virtual tiles to use. If they don't want people printing out the maps for non-virtual use... don't allow them to print out maps? Or cause all the fancy graphics to be stripped from the print image - give us something like the monochrome maps from old published modules, so that people can use it as a map-drawing tool if they want. Crippling the application from the start, or at least the manner in which they've crippled it, is short-sighted.

 

[helium3]

BTW nothing competes with my battlemat and some overhead markers......but that is beside the point.

Except a battlemat, overhead markers and a business quality laser printer!!

I have access to dungeon tiles for free (got a player that also DM's and has a ton of 'em) but I NEVER use them. Even when I didn't have the printer.

Why?

Because there's no way to ensure that a tile stays where it's supposed to once it's put down. Nothing is more frustrating than setting something up and then having to constantly keep it together because the simple act of moving mini's around makes it start to break up.

 

[Irda Ranger]

To me a lot of the DDI business model seems to be deliberately designed to protect analog products (like the minis business and the Dungeon Tiles business). It's also built along the same lines, using the same economics.

This is stupid to me. Once a 10x20 room is designed (the art, etc.), it's "free" to make an infinite number of them. WotC of course needs to figure out how to make money at this game, but cross-subsidies never work in the long run. Especially when they're blatantly obvious like this one. Even if the "value" is good people will feel cheated - and that customer ill will can kill a business all by itself.

This is all just IMO, of course. I've been wrong before on business models (who though "pet rocks" would make someone a millionaire? Or "Million Dollar Homepage"?). But I generally agree with the OP and feel like WotC "Doesn't get" a lot of what makes online businesses different from analog one.

In a nutshell, copies are free online; there is no scarcity and the cost to make the next marginal product is so close to zero as to be immeasurable except in the aggregate. Using legal structures to create artificial scarcity and then reaping monopoly rents is the RIAA's strategy. And look how popular that makes them.

 

[Fifth Element]

To me a lot of the DDI business model seems to be deliberately designed to protect analog products (like the minis business and the Dungeon Tiles business). It's also built along the same lines, using the same economics.

Indeed. Why would they risk a new, untested product cannibalizing their core business? If the DDI is hugely successful, you may see a change in its business model. But they need a degree of risk management.

 

[Mistwell]

I want the gaming tabletop so I can play D&D with my friends who moved far away. That's it. That's it's value to me, and it looks like it will provide that value. We used KloOge right now, but that program isn't nearly as good as the DDI looks like it will be.

As for paying for digital minis, I don't really care one way or the other. I am fine paying for the value of an artist spending the time and talent to create the digital image of that mini. If we want some, we will pay for them. If not, we will just stick with the 2d images that come with it. I don't see this as a big deal either way, and it's not required to use the product. It's not a video game so I don't even know why people care about that issue one way or the other.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

I posted this here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yair
Corporate greed getting in the way of a better product. Yuck. I long for the days of open-gaming already.

I'll definitely won't be part of the Digital Initiative, but frankly I probably wouldn't have anyways. I just don't really see the need - although I would be willing to purchase adventures as pdfs, aka Dungeon magazine or RPGNow-purchased adventures.

The tool will work like this one here but with more bells and whistles like being able to draw (free or snap to grid), erase, add your own graphics, and images. The output will be a 72 DPI .jpeg or .png file. If you blew up the image to one inch grid it would be pixelated but it should be fine resolution at a tactical map size.

The file they can then also be saved and imported into the D&D game table if you are a D&DI subscriber.

The tool is free.

Explain to me how it is corporate greed that we don't want to build a graphic design tool that would allow people to print out the exact 1 inch grid tiles that we sell or make and print maps that would be a substitute for products we sell?

I think it would be the height of stupidity to give away a free tool that would allow you to print the same dungeon tiles (albeit on a lower paper stock) as what we sell for $9.95. That was my point to the answer directed at me during the demo although I was more diplomatic when asked.

 

[Spatula]

Indeed. Why would they risk a new, untested product cannibalizing their core business? If the DDI is hugely successful, you may see a change in its business model. But they need a degree of risk management.

But then by hamstringing it you're impacting its ability to be successful. Anyway it's all a bit moot since the map tool is free. Which I was not aware of. Given that, the restrictions make more sense, but I would have prefered a more robust tool that requires a DDI subscription in order to use.

 

[PeelSeel2]

If they charge for miniatures and tiles besides the 2-d models, and they do not allow 3rd party content to be added (Like NWN), I will not be using this product. I can use my laminated 42"x84" grid and get the same effect.

I like what I see of 4e. I like the D&D insider. I do not like how they are apparently handling the virtual gaming table. The way it stands, with the information given, I will not be using this product.

 

[hong]

In a nutshell, copies are free online; there is no scarcity and the cost to make the next marginal product is so close to zero as to be immeasurable except in the aggregate. Using legal structures to create artificial scarcity and then reaping monopoly rents is the RIAA's strategy. And look how popular that makes them.

Copying is not free, if you're referring to using online-generated maps as a substitute for physical map tiles. By the time you pay for paper and ink/toner, it might have been cheaper to get the tiles themselves, which have the bonus of being reusable and much more durable.

If I did start using the map generator, I doubt I'd be using it as a direct substitute for tiles. My printer can't handle paper sizes big enough to substitute for a battlemat anyway.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I concur with you. Much as I like many aspects of 4e (to the point where I'm definitely going to buy it and play it), the DnD Game Table just seems .... lacking. In fact, I don't intend to make use of it either, for many of the same reasons you cited. Furthermore, it's going to make houseruling a REAL pain -- which means those using it have to take the, for example, 10% of the game they don't like along with the 90% they do.

That seems like it's going to be REALLY restrictive when it comes to races, also. If you're not allowed to mod the content, how the heck are you going to have other races? What, zillions of fantasy worlds, all with an identical line-up of species? Count me out.