How can WoTC get new players buying Essentials?

[TheAuldGrump]

In my opinion, silly was always integral to Gamma World. So I'm not seeing much of a change.

Not so much in the first edition, and outright missing in the S&S version (though depending on how canon you hold the S&S version to be that might not count...). I think that the silly kicked in around 3e or so.

I actually like the S&S version, so maybe it would be best to just stick with SC2.0 - while it is more work, I have already done a lot of the work, and I much prefer the black humor of Fallout to the silliness of Gammarauders. *Shudder*

The Auld Grump

 

[Raven Crowking]

For me to take another look, they would have to drop the Delve format, and then they would have to excise the Delve-isms from the rules.


RC

 

[falcarrion]

Of course, at this point you're changing the argument - your original criticism was that too much content on their website was going behind the paywal. Now you are arguing that there aren't enough DDI articles. You can't really have it both ways.

I suppose that is my main objection here - you've made a number of claims about the site, but I'm not sure any of them really accurately reflect the state of it. I'm not sure if you are basing your claims off of past experience with the site, or just what you've heard through the grapeline, or what.

That said - right now, yeah, the magazines are having some serious issues. Keep in mind, though, that this is only over the last 2-3 months. Prior to that we had plenty of free content as well as plenty of subscriber content.

And we did see many excellent articles. Usually offering new content - the free articles we are seeing these days give DMing advice, news about the game and gaming community, answer questions and provide feedback, and preview new material. The subscriber articles would give new character options, new monsters and magic items, and other direct material for the game.

I'd say that there is room for both, and that the division is a good one. As for who is writing the articles - there are plenty of freelancers who have shown up in the online magazines. We do certainly see many of the same names again and again, but I believe we also see others who have no direct affiliation with WotC.

And the free articles often feature similar 'gamer for gamer' content, as with the current D&D Kids series.

Now, again - right now, the magazines are definitely having some serious issues, and I honestly have no real idea what is going on. But this month is by far the exception rather than the norm - since release, they had over 2 1/2 years as effective and high quality digital magazines that were well worth the cost of subscription.

And even now, with issues for the DDI magazines themselves, the free content on the site remains substantial and useful, and certainly puts to the lie your original claim that nearly everything on the site was locked behind the paywall.

I never claimed that nearly all of the articles where behind the so called paywall.
I even said I did know there is free stuff but also stated that I didn't like the way I see the site going. My view plain and simple.
My orginal remark was about essential promotion and used old versions of dragon magazine as an example.

My view is based off of past experiance, what people write here, and through the grape vine.
For example:
"As it is, February failed to deliver a single Dungeon adventure despite the website advertising "2-3 adventures every month". 25% of the Dragon/Dungeon articles for the month were released in March rather than February - which meant someone like Askanipsion would not have access to them.

Thsi isn't even about the reduction in magazine content, which has diminished to close to half of what it was a year ago. This is about the fact that of that reduced content, only 3/4 of it was actually posted during February. A customer losing out on the articles they should be entitled to - or having a magazine that fails to deliver certain advertised content - does seem grounds, to me, to request a refund. "

I guess this person was wrong in what he stated. Ohh wait a minute you wrote this.

 

[Beginning of the End]

For me to take another look, they would have to drop the Delve format, and then they would have to excise the Delve-isms from the rules.

Random tangent: We've been looking at Thunderspire Labyrinth recently. The Delve format completely occludes more meaningful utility in that module. And I think they'd also need to get rid of the "NPCs have to be completely re-statted if you want them to do multiple things" methodology, too.

 

[MrMyth]

I never claimed that nearly all of the articles where behind the so called paywall.
I even said I did know there is free stuff but also stated that I didn't like the way I see the site going. My view plain and simple.
My orginal remark was about essential promotion and used old versions of dragon magazine as an example.

Ok, so here is what you initially said that I objected to: "I think the problem is promotion. Back in the 80's and 90's you had Dragon magazine to promote DnD stuff. You had articles on new products, articles written by gamers and ad's that that promoted all kinds of stuff RPG related.

Now if you want to see this article you need to subscribe. If you want to see this...subscribe..... subscribe...subscribe. The more you try to push me to subscribe the less likely I will. They need to open the gates once again to the gamers. Let some of the gamers write articles and let these be read by everyone and not just subscribers. The next great name in RPGs can be just an article away. The more you lock down the ddi website the more people you will loose."

That is certainly saying that the majority of content on the site requires that you subscribe - that they are pushing you do so, that they are 'locking down the DDI website'.

None of that is true, and that's what I was commenting on. Tons of free content on the site, including articles that I feel very closely match the promotions you talk about - including something like 20-30 free excerpts and preview articles showing what to expect in the product.

My view is based off of past experiance, what people write here, and through the grape vine.
For example:
"As it is, February failed to deliver a single Dungeon adventure despite the website advertising "2-3 adventures every month". 25% of the Dragon/Dungeon articles for the month were released in March rather than February - which meant someone like Askanipsion would not have access to them.

Thsi isn't even about the reduction in magazine content, which has diminished to close to half of what it was a year ago. This is about the fact that of that reduced content, only 3/4 of it was actually posted during February. A customer losing out on the articles they should be entitled to - or having a magazine that fails to deliver certain advertised content - does seem grounds, to me, to request a refund. "

I guess this person was wrong in what he stated. Ohh wait a minute you wrote this.

Well, yes. And it remains true - the last month or so, they have been having serious issues with the magazines. The thing is, that is a very recent development, and it has not effected the free content on the site. That's what I've said from the start: "Right now, they are having some serious issues with the magazines, and providing the proper amount of content to subscribers. But as for what you get for free? There is an abundance of content."

That's my real issue, here. Every time I see a post like yours, which is making wild and inaccurate accusations about problems with WotC or the website, I feel it distracts from the genuine concerns that might be laid against them. And it makes it hard for them to take anything seriously - you made a number of claims about their site based, as you said, largely on hearsay and second-hand descriptions of what is going on.

I mean, you are free to not like their website. You are free to not subscribe to their service. But what I see more and more are these comments that aren't based on personal experience, but instead are just a game of 'telephone', passing along complaints that grow more irrational and incorrect the farther they go down the grapevine.

Honestly, WotC tried very hard to leverage the website to advertise Essentials - via free excerpts and content, and having huge advertisements for it plastered all over the site. They included advertisements for it in their other products, including the board games, which I think were a particularly good way to draw in new players. I think we also had the D&D comic starting up, which also helps draw attention to Essentials.

I don't think that advertising it was really the problem. I don't think having something like print copies of Dragon would have helped - if someone was in a game store, flipping through magazines, they would already be aware of Essentials due to the plentiful advertisements for it all over the place.

I think the main issue was having trouble figuring out what they wanted the Red Box to be. I think it could have been a better starter set, and I think they could have made it clearer what other Essentials products a player picks up from there.

I think the real 'expansion' of the brand will come more on the digital front, honestly. When they get video games going again. Through stuff like D&D Tiny Adventures - find ways to easily link such minigames to actual products and get people in the door. When they have a smooth functioning VTT, and can create an 'intro game lobby' where people can hop in and check out what D&D is like in an environment designed to demo it.

But I think we are still a ways off from that, and that WotC needs to be a bit more coherent in their vision before they can really make another push to bring in new players.

 

[S'mon]

Re the Red Box, I remember the buzz, I remember being convinced it was going to herald something of a renascence for D&D - because people DO come into my LGS looking for 'D&D,that game I used to play' - and more often than not leaving without a purchase after seeing the scary, confusing array of hardbacks. AFAICS the market was crying out for a new version of the Mentzer Red Box; around 5 levels of play would have been ideal. 4 PC classes, 4 races, 5 levels, a scattering of magic items up to 9th level (around 36 items would cover the needs of 1 level 1-5 campaign, counting +2 as different from +1, so maybe only 18 items really), a selection of monsters 1st-5th level with the EL 7 Young Red Dragon as capstone. Could have been great.

Instead the Red Box turned out to be little more than a preview, in some ways less substantial than the free Keep on the Shadowfell download. I think WoTC really shot themselves in the foot there, they threw away a great opportunity and won't get one like it again for a long time.

As Samurai pointed out in the XP comments to this, news about the Pathfinder Basic Set sounds as if, apart from the lack of the D&D brand, it could have been created to the specifications I describe above. I had not heard of the Pathfinder Basic Set when I wrote this, so I wasn't influenced by it. I don't even play Pathfinder (I did run some 3.5 last October-November), though this Basic Set may well tempt me, but I guess that could be taken as more evidence that Paizo seems to 'get it' in a way WoTC does not.

 

[falcarrion]

I think the real 'expansion' of the brand will come more on the digital front, honestly. When they get video games going again. Through stuff like D&D Tiny Adventures - find ways to easily link such minigames to actual products and get people in the door. When they have a smooth functioning VTT, and can create an 'intro game lobby' where people can hop in and check out what D&D is like in an environment designed to demo it.

But I think we are still a ways off from that, and that WotC needs to be a bit more coherent in their vision before they can really make another push to bring in new players.

Whats your opinon on more of there products being on pdfs or different formats for e-readers, computers and the Ipad's?

 

[Lalato]

I do see value in WotC putting stuff out in other digital formats... but that value is mostly on the consumer side of the equation not the WotC side. A lot of people like to complain about PDFs, and I think some of the complaints are valid. But I can also see WotC's side where it's very difficult to monetize something that people can copy in an unlimited fashion.

Maybe the way forward for WotC is to go with an eBook format that gives them at least a little bit of protection. I know there are ways to circumvent the protections built around Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook and Apple iOS, but that model seems to do a good job of straddling the line between the content provider making money and the consumer staying somewhat happy.

 

[falcarrion]

I can understand why they may not want to, but I think it would be a mistake.
As time goes by more people are seeing an advantage to it. Companies such as Pathfinder do it, as well as others in the RPG industies. Even with piratcy there doing ok with it. I personaly have been using an Ipad when playing. I was lucky to get the 4th ed players hand book, monster manual, and dm's guide before they discontinued selling them. With various apps I have all that I need to play D&D 4th ed and Pathfinder. Though I still use dice.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I do see value in WotC putting stuff out in other digital formats... but that value is mostly on the consumer side of the equation not the WotC side. A lot of people like to complain about PDFs, and I think some of the complaints are valid. But I can also see WotC's side where it's very difficult to monetize something that people can copy in an unlimited fashion.

Maybe the way forward for WotC is to go with an eBook format that gives them at least a little bit of protection. I know there are ways to circumvent the protections built around Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook and Apple iOS, but that model seems to do a good job of straddling the line between the content provider making money and the consumer staying somewhat happy.

(a) The idea that you can prevent piracy by refusing to sell e-books is absurd. WotC's books remain universally available in digital formats. People who want pirated copies can still get them. People who want to pay for them can't.

(b) DRM is unethical and blatantly anti-consumer. Buying a physical product with DRM on it is regrettable. Buying a digital product with DRM on it is, I'm sorry to say, simply foolish and shortsighted.