Exclusive interview WotC President Greg Leeds

[xechnao]

I utterly agree. If you're not going to believe what someone says, then why ask them the question in the first place?

To see if and how you could expose him (either positevely either negatively). This interview is like a court. A court of PR rather than a court of justice. But it is still a court.

 

[roguerouge]

Unfortunately, we're given no means of corroborating the data he's given us. 10-1 sounds very impressive, but we have no figures that allow us to confirm or refute that conclusion. We're supposed to trust the authority figure.

Moreover, it leaves several important questions unanswered. Is 10-1 a large ratio for the book publishing industry? For other content industries? Is 10-1 an unusual ratio for a publisher after it discontinues a line? What was the ratio in prior years? Is this figure strictly about 4th edition? How much of it includes earlier editions which are increasingly difficult to find in hard copy form?

And... WHY DID THE FILE-SHARE RATE SPIKE?! Why now? What was the cause? Is it just the illegal 8 or are there other causes?

Most importantly: Has it lead to lost sales? (According to several studies of music file sharing, illegal downloads have a statistically negligible impact, a slight positive impact for big name brands, or a slight negative impact for lesser-known bands.) He never states that it lead to lost sales, which would be difficult to claim, given the paragraphs on how well the brand is doing.

 

[Jasperak]

I'm confused, did he say something substantive enough to disbelieve? Is this about the 1:10, as it's the only thing approaching a fact in the interview? I can certainly believe that they did some kind of measurement which they interpret to be 1:10 on the PHB2. I also think they used that as an excuse to pull all the older game DLs as they consider it not in their best interest for anyone to be playing ANYTHING except their most-latest release.

Not necessarily but I will address the bolded section.

My responses in this thread have to do with some that seem to believe that if you are not going to believe someone if you ask them a question, then don't bother asking them the question. I posit that asking those types of questions are exactly what journalism is all about, getting the objective truth. Whether it is revealed directly by the respondent or derived from logic and deduction doesn't matter, only that the questions are asked and the respondent held accountable for his answers.

To be fair, what I do have a problem with is people that would take a CEO's answers and manipulate his responses to fit their agenda, whatever it may be. I think that is what led others in this thread to say if you're not going to bother understanding and only stay with your preconceived notions then don't bother reading.

What drew me in though was the implication that we should not have bothered to do the interview in the first place (bolded in following quote).

I am not sure what's the point of asking for an interview and than taking the information they actually give and assume it's a lie? Why do you even ask if you don't believe any of what they say? How are you even able to talk meaningful about an interview if you assume it might all be lying and deception. In the end, you will just be reading in the interview what you already believed to know, regardless whether the content comfirms your belief or violates it.

Again to be fair, Mustrum in his last sentence says exactly what I agree with (underlined). This is what i believe others responded to.

Though he prefaces his comment with why bother asking if you think you will get lies and deception. The question is not about whether the respondent is lying or not. You will never know if he is or not unless you ask the bloody questions in the first place. It is how can we understand what is going on based off of what one of the main players within this issue has to say. I choose to believe that the CEO is forced to answer any questions in a manner that is in the best interests of the company not for "objective truth." If revealing the truth benefits the company great, but in my experience, if you are asking tough questions because of perceived missteps then I hold all responses suspect until proven otherwise.

In this specific case, stopping the legal purchase of PDFs of OOP products does not seem to be the step one would logically take to stop the pirating of said products. Mr. Leeds implied that they had to do something because the problem seemed to be escalating. Taking away the only legal course of action would logically force people to move towards illegal means. Will it decrease pirating? Risk/reward and all that. Who knows? I don't, but it does seem to be a bonehead move and implies that either the key decision maker doesn't understand the problem or there are as of yet unannounced reasons for the decision. We won't know until we have more information.

 

[xechnao]

Journalism is asking tough questions.

Journalism is NOT just being cynical and derisive--save maybe for the opinion column.

Journalism is meant to get to the "objective truth" as much as possible. That includes stuff that might conflict with your own preconceived notions and ideas. It is conducting research and finding out the facts.

Granted, this was kind of a softball interview, and I think people are jaded thanks to PR firms, but I highly doubt they are lying about such things as the piracy ratio.



Yes, but my point was I believe WoTC will be changing the game to something different from our experiences. What if, for instance, the handbooks disappear, and become cards--your characters and monsters are a combination of cards, and the rules just tell you how to play--and add things like a specialized battlemat. "Fluff" content is regulated to on-line only, or maybe on-line dynamic databases for network play. Based on what I've seen from the 4e ruleset, it's about halfway there--monsters and characters are more "statblock" than ever.

This would be the most effective way to eliminate piracy. While somebody could scan and torrent the cards, people would have to really have the cards and the on-line database to maximize their effectiveness.

I see this as the possible future of D&D. It would be a lot more inconvenient to pirate such a game. While possible, it's probably not worth the effort for most.

The only flaw is their lack of getting the DDI up and running to maximum efficiency. But if they pull it off, I think the days of the hardcover rulebooks will end, at least perhaps when 5e comes around.

You seem to me so obsessed with piracy here, you lose business sense. Do you believe that suach a product would appeal to the fans of D&D and would sell better in the long term than the current format-plan? D&D will end up seeming as blatantly competing with games such as Descent or Warhammer Quest or what have you. Do you honestly believe that Descent makes more profit than the D&D line -strategically at least?

 

[fanboy2000]

And... WHY DID THE FILE-SHARE RATE SPIKE?! Why now? What was the cause?

I think there are two reasons:

1. 4e is successful. People want to play the game and get the newest goodies.

2. This is the first time pdf releases have corresponded to paper releases. It's well known that most books sell the most copies their first few months outs, when buzz is strongest. It makes sense that pirate downloads would be strongest around that time to.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Either we accept the information source we have and discuss it based on that data, or we ignore it and make it clear that we are speculating. A lot of speculation sounds good on paper or electronic bulletin boards if you don't have any data to check it against. You can formulate a lot of hypothesises, but unless you can check them against data or make predictions based on them, they are just an entertaining past-time and hold no further weight.

I've noticed a lot of "piracy apologists" tend to refute actual figures of piracy. For instance, the claims that "you can't prove they would have bought the (item)", yet this flies in the face of decades of economic research into the Elasticity of supply and demand, which basically talk about how goods and services and measuring what people will pay--maximizing profit based on its utility.

If you make a product free, more people will partake it in. Whether they would have bought it if it wasn't free misses the point that it's the right of the producer to set the price and figure out what price--and to naturally suffer consequences of that. It's quite logical that more people will partake of a free product than the cost product. Now, in a free market if that happens (somebody giving something away gratis), that's fair, and competition is what drives down prices--Abobe Photoshop is high priced because of the specialized research, decades of training, and lack of decent competition in the high-end market.

But piracy is illegal just like insider trading--there are certain things you shouldn't do. Since piracy's so rampant because of the relative anonymity of the Internet, violations haven't been enforced well.

I rarely see very well reasoned arguments against these basic economic principles, rather appeals that "the world is changing, your a dinosaur", or "you should be happy for the free publicity". These emotional appeals don't look at the whole picture.

I don't think the companies reporting on these stats are lying. It's not in their interest to lie. If piracy wasn't a huge issue affecting the marketplace, they wouldn't bother talking about it.

 

[roguerouge]

I am not sure what's the point of asking for an interview and than taking the information they actually give and assume it's a lie? Why do you even ask if you don't believe any of what they say? How are you even able to talk meaningful about an interview if you assume it might all be lying and deception. In the end, you will just be reading in the interview what you already believed to know, regardless whether the content comfirms your belief or violates it.

I find this to be an excellent point.

"Trust, but verify."

Basic critical thinking skills require you to sift the evidence that supports the statements made by those who try to sell you on the merits of their opinions. The posters are not assuming that Mr. Leeds is lying. They are evaluating the evidence that he provides for his assertions.

Evaluating the credibility of a source of information is not the same as believing that they are being lied to.

Edit: Also, Mr. Leeds has his own motivations, which are not the same motivations of his interviewer or his audience. It's completely acceptable to understand that his motivations color his statements and to try to compensate for that fact. It's not a slur on his character.

Nor is it unreasonable to note that past actions by his company might undermine the credibility of his statements now. The burden of proof is higher now. The fact that people do not automatically believe him may be evidence of an erosion in the trust that their customer base has for this company.

 

[JohnRTroy]

You seem to me so obsessed with piracy here, you lose business sense. Do you believe that suach a product would appeal to the fans of D&D and would sell better in the long term than the current format-plan? D&D will end up seeming as blatantly competing with games such as Descent or Warhammer Quest or what have you. Do you honestly believe that Descent makes more profit than the D&D line -strategically at least?

I don't particularly LIKE the direction D&D is currently going in, I'm just thinking based on these steps.

All I'm doing is looking at the current marketplace. D&D has changed from 3e to 4e. The format of 4e is a lot less text-heavy and setup similar to their miniatures line and Magic: The Gathering. They wanted the DDI to be a big thing. Piracy is rampant. But piracy affects more books, moving, and software. The more traditional board and card games are less likely to be pirated, people will just buy them. With the right style of DRM, like steam, if it has value enough people will do it. MMORPGs are "pirate proof" because everything is on the server.

I don't believe WoTC cares as much about the traditional market. 4e was a radical shift and alienated some players--which is why we have the great "edition cold war" nowadays. WoTC will attempt to maximize their profit, and I believe part of that is the long term strategy of D&D.

And we don't really know figures of profitability for these games unless we get figures. I think Magic is a lot more profitable than D&D, for instance.

 

[xechnao]

snip

Return on investment is one thing, profit is another. A business plan based on elasticity or a new format may have a bigger return on investment but a smaller profit for a company like Wotc that specializes in a certain market-a smaller profit from that market. If Wotc wanted to save as much as possible(because it could invest in more profitable avenues) then perhaps they would go for what you are talking about. Is this what is happening now? Do you believe that they believe they have access to a more profitable market? Everything is possible but I find it hard to believe.

 

[Jasperak]

Do you have an independent source of information that contradicts your position? Or is it all just guesstimating or what you feel should be right? Do you merely have an anecdote to tell us?

What, when a company makes a perceived misstep and the CEO puts out what amounts to a press release by way of two interviews, I'm supposed to believe he is telling the truth?

I don't take Mr. Leeds at face value, but I do respect that he is addressing the community directly. I also appreciate that WOTC is allowing me d/l TSR and WOTC product that I purchased through RPGNOW. That does count for something in my book. But when a company makes a decision that to me flies in the face of reason color me skeptical. And then it tries to rationalize it in a manner that makes my BS detector go off, that's when others and I start looking deeper.

The rest of your post does not pertain to why I questioned your earlier comment. I think my previous post (written while you were writing the one I am responding to now) expresses how I perceived your initial post. By all means correct me if I am wrong. Honest discourse is impossible if one holds to their preconceived notions in the face of conflicting evidence.

PS. Unless otherwise mentioned in a thread or blog, I take everything said as either opinion or speculation.