New D&D Website

[MrMyth]

I don't feel that preview content should be paid for. That's like charging admission to an art gallery and having it consist of pictures of paintings rather than the paintings themselves.

I am starting to feel a bit confused here, since you seem to keep changing the conversation. My quote you were responding to was in response to your bringing up the transition of articles and columns that were not preview content.

People keep throwing that word out there, and even including it in quotes, as if to say that I actually said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth or pretending to have any idea what's inside my head beyond what I've said.

Fair enough... but you do proceed to, not two paragraphs later, describe the situation as "it stiffs longtime customers who [...] have grown accustomed to being able to browse through the art galleries". How is that not implying that they have been deprived of something they have are owed? Isn't that the meaning of the term 'stiffed'?

I mean, 90% of what you are saying I have no problem with. The site no longer offers a reason for you to surf there - that is perfectly reasonable, perfectly logical. But talking about how it 'stiffs' customers, how it has inspired you not just to not visit their website, but apparently boycott WotC entirely... that does seem to be treating it as some sort of personal attack, as them taking something away from you, rather than what it actually is: them no longer providing you something for free.

 

[Mercutio01]

Fair enough... but you do proceed to, not two paragraphs later, describe the situation as "it stiffs longtime customers who [...] have grown accustomed to being able to browse through the art galleries". How is that not implying that they have been deprived of something they have are owed? Isn't that the meaning of the term 'stiffed'?

You're using owed as a way to imply a negative connotation. I don't feel "owed" the galleries. I feel shocked that the policy was changed, that it was done so under the cover of a website redesign, that it wasn't announced, and that it was in fact a fairly large policy shift. Based on all previous communications, it was my understanding that the zipped compilations and easy navigation using the in-site browser were DDI subscriber content, but that the art would remain available to use. And that was indeed both what they said and what they did.

But talking about how it 'stiffs' customers

Stiffs, as in removes content previously available.

how it has inspired you not just to not visit their website, but apparently boycott WotC entirely... that does seem to be treating it as some sort of personal attack, as them taking something away from you, rather than what it actually is: them no longer providing you something for free.

Again, it's not just the art. If it were just the art that was leading me to stop giving Wizards of the Coast my money, it would be petty and absurd. Which is what I assume most people responding to me are wishing they could state out loud, despite the fact that I have disabused that notion multiple times. Again, it is just the latest example in a line of decisions which have negatively affected me as a customer and colored my perception of the company. It has become completely apparent to me now that I am no longer part of the target demographic as I don't want a "subscription" but rather a set of books and support for using said books. I never subscribed to Dragon or Dungeon, so those weren't selling points to me. The Character Builder is something I don't really need. The Monster Builder would be nice, as would the Compendium, but the Compendium is not what it was originally marketed to be.Preview articles and looks into the process (Design and Development) have been significant parts of the "support" for people who use the books since 3E started. The Game Table, Character Visualizer, and Dungeon Planner were the DDI items I was excited to use, and have been nixed. The GSL is still questionable, and the fan site policy is pretty much useless. Then the art, which was a major factor in my determining whether I would buy a book or not, was removed behind the subscription wall.

The combination of all of that history together is what is leading me to take my business elsewhere. I'm not "boycotting" as that implies doing it in protest and as a political statement. I'm simply not buying any other material from the company because they have alienated me personally as a consumer. I "boycott" Starbucks because I disagree with them on principles (but their coffee is excellent). By comparison, I don't shop at Whole Foods not because of a difference of principles (although that is there), but because I'm not the target demographic--Whole Foods is simply too expensive and delivers products that I simply don't want. Wizards of the Coast is far more like the latter than the former.

 

[Nai_Calus]

That reason they gave is the biggest load of hooey in the existance of everything. How in the nine hells is making art I've had free access to all along even when I didn't have a DDi sub DDi-only giving me more value as a subscriber? *facepalm*

They're really padding for content now. Seriously. Dungeon was never interesting to me since I'm not a DM for 4e, and Dragon has been getting steadily thinner and worse as well. The missing-the-point Bahamut article or the gods-awful franky crappy Domains of Eberron and FR article for example. The Bahamut D&Dg article wasn't about Bahamut at all, but a lame cliched organization I could have made up when I was six. The Domains article was inexcusably bad - Eberron missing domains, FR having horrible domain assignments and completely *wrong* fluff. For that matter, the issue they were in recieved no errata before the compilation. Supposedly there was going to eventually be a fixed issue, but if anything has ever been done or announced on it, I sure as hell missed it.

Seriously, how is taking away stuff that was already there for free giving me more value as a subscriber? It's not. Hell, it's not even really doing that for future galleries, because, yes, this stuff used to be free, so I have a hard time seeing how it's suddenly giving me more value for my money.

*epic facepalm*

 

[rjdafoe]

Seriously, how is taking away stuff that was already there for free giving me more value as a subscriber? It's not. Hell, it's not even really doing that for future galleries, because, yes, this stuff used to be free, so I have a hard time seeing how it's suddenly giving me more value for my money.

It gives subs more value becuase that is the only way you can get it now. That is more value for your sub.

Me, it doesn't effect me at all, even if I was not a subscriber. Just doesn't seem to be something to get all worked up about. If I stopped buying stuff from companies that I disagree with, I don't know if there is a company I *could* buy anything from, including food.

 

[Mercutio01]

If I stopped buying stuff from companies that I disagree with, I don't know if there is a company I *could* buy anything from, including food.

Quick - Pepsi, Coke, or something else? Target, Walmart or something else? McDonald's, Burger King, or something else?

What I'm getting at is that all those companies try to gain the most consumers of their products, but invariably they cannot have all of the available consumers. So they make decisions that alienate one set of consumers in preference for another. It appears to me that Wizards has concentrated on the subscriber consumer (whether subscriber only or subscriber and print) at the cost of the print-only consumer. I'm the latter, not the former, so I'll take my money elsewhere.

I prefer Coke to Pepsi (Pepsi tastes too sweet), Target to Walmart (I currently work at Target and get a discount), and Burger King to McDonald's (I like the burgers better). In the last 2 years, I have seen Wizards make decisions and errors which have now made them into my Pepsi, my Walmart, my McDonald's--not my company of choice, and one that I won't be actively supporting with my money.

 

[MrMyth]

Stiffs, as in removes content previously available.

Ok, this may be part of the disconnect between what you are saying and what others are hearing. I think most would read that by the standard definition "to cheat someone of something owed".

Similarly, you mention that you aren't 'protesting' WotC because of their behavior, but that they have simply alienated you as a customer. I'm not sure I quite perceive a difference. You go on to make comparisons to other areas, where you don't purchase from a company because you can get a better deal elsewhere, or the company simply doesn't offer a product you are interested in. But it is hard to see how the extent of the freebies WotC offers makes the products themselves less valuable. There is a connection - as you say, not being able to see the art beforehand makes you less confident in the product's quality, thus providing a reason not to buy it.

But the way you have phrased things does make it sound like a protest. Stating that they have lost you as a customer means that, even if they released a product that you would be happy with, you would not want to purchase it out of frustration over the changes in their website content. That sounds a lot more like your Starbuck's situation than the other examples you gave.

Honestly, I suspect the answer is that you don't feel as strongly as you have come across, but have simply phrased things more forcefully because of the immediate frustration of having this change made. And, as you mention, not as much the change itself - since you have admitted they do still provide sufficient preview content - but more the way they have handled it. Not publicly announced, somewhat hidden by the website change itself, etc. I don't know whether they did so with such devious motives or not, but I can see how the appearance of it would easily make a frustrating change especially upsetting.

Would it be safe you say you do not actually feel that WotC is cheating their customers by not providing the artwork in their products for free?

You do, however, feel that it is a poor marketing decision not to provide it, and that you personally much prefer their previous policies (both on offering the artwork and other material that is no longer freely available on their website)?

And that the result of these changes is that you are no longer given a good reason to browse their website, and makes it unlikely you will be aware of their products or inclined to seek them out - but that if they did release a product that you were interested in for the right value, you would be willing to purchase it, rather than avoid it out of protest for their website changes?

That seems to be what you are saying your position is - I'm just trying to figure out for sure, since I do get the sense that most of the disagreement I have had with you in this thread has been more the result of the language that has been used, than the actual feelings behind it. The views I've tried to summarize above are ones I don't have any objection to - not necessarily ones I agree with directly, but ones I can certainly understand as reasonable viewpoints.

 

[rjdafoe]

Quick - Pepsi, Coke, or something else? Target, Walmart or something else? McDonald's, Burger King, or something else?

How about whatever the store sells, whatever is closer, and wether I feel like eating at that particular fast food place at the moment? None of that precludes me from spending my money there at all. It is a decision I make, at the time, not activly saying -- ehh I don't like that Walmart doesn't give their employees good benfits so they get none of my money, and Target does - even if it is more expensive.

What I'm getting at is that all those companies try to gain the most consumers of their products, but invariably they cannot have all of the available consumers. So they make decisions that alienate one set of consumers in preference for another. It appears to me that Wizards has concentrated on the subscriber consumer (whether subscriber only or subscriber and print) at the cost of the print-only consumer. I'm the latter, not the former, so I'll take my money elsewhere.

I don't think that comes into play at all. No matter what they do, they lose customers. The trick is to gain more than you lose. I am sure there are a subset of customers that loved the old website design and navigation and do not like the new one and will not go there anymore. (I of course, have no idea who those people would be, and probably would not understand them at all )

Even if they do *nothing*. There is no alienation unlesss the customer alienates *themselves*. (Disclaimer - on the stuff that you have mentioned)

I think the disconnect, at least with me, is the stong words that you have used. These words, with me, resonate more on the boycott side of things becuase I don't agree, rather than on the sad/dissapointed that their gone/hope they come back/less usefull side of things.

 

[Mercutio01]

And that the result of these changes is that you are no longer given a good reason to browse their website, and makes it unlikely you will be aware of their products or inclined to seek them out - but that if they did release a product that you were interested in for the right value, you would be willing to purchase it, rather than avoid it out of protest for their website changes?

That seems to be what you are saying your position is - I'm just trying to figure out for sure, since I do get the sense that most of the disagreement I have had with you in this thread has been more the result of the language that has been used, than the actual feelings behind it. The views I've tried to summarize above are ones I don't have any objection to - not necessarily ones I agree with directly, but ones I can certainly understand as reasonable viewpoints.

That is an apt and fair assessment. In hindsight, I posted angry at first and have since been trying to backpedal a bit. For instance, I'm excited about the Dark Sun possibilities, but since I won't really be able to see it develop, I won't have any real idea whether it will be worth picking up until I can see it in a store. And the problem there is that I don't like my LGS (any of the three that are close, really), and the local bookstores have crappy selections for things that aren't the core 3 books.

How about whatever the store sells, whatever is closer, and wether I feel like eating at that particular fast food place at the moment?

I would cross the street (or a town) to eat at a Burger King rather than a McDonald's and go to the Target, which is farther than the Walmart, and would just drink water rather than settle for Pepsi. I guess we just have different ways of doing things at a fundamental level.

I think the disconnect, at least with me, is the stong words that you have used. These words, with me, resonate more on the boycott side of things becuase I don't agree, rather than on the sad/dissapointed that their gone/hope they come back/less usefull side of things.

Fair enough, as I said above, I was angry (still am) with the decision and came across perhaps more belligerent than I really am.

 

[Longtooth Studios]

Amazing melding of what we have come to expect in RPG art and an informative, easily navigated site.

I want one...