No Dice <Nerd Rage>

[Hussar]

If WotC is reaching out to lapsed D&Ders with this new initiative as some say, why do so by also making the older edition PDFs available again and please that many more gamers?

Because both of them aren't enough to matter?

And that's what it comes down to. Bottom line. They were not selling enough PDF's to be worth it. If the PDF's were profitable, they'd be selling them. It has nothing to do with "cutting off" former players or making it more difficult for other publishers.

After all, making the 1e DMG available as a PDF does not help any other publisher whatsoever.

They're not doing it because it's not profitable to do it. End of story. There's no conspiracy or anything like that. There doesn't need to be. So, they eat the bitching and whining of a small number of people annoyed by the lack of pdf's and keep on trucking.

For the same reason I can't get a pdf of the James Bond RPG. Or the original Villains and Vigilantes. It's just not worth the time and money to do so.

People bitched constantly that the pdf's were overpriced. Now they bitch because they're not available. So, it's not as simple as just making them available again. They'd have to make them available AND drop the prices - making the profits even less.

Apparently, it's not worth it.

It sucks for those who want it, but, there's pretty much nothing that you can do about it.

 

[SteveC]

I'm going to add to the group who say that "PDFs and third party companies do little if anything to expand the hobby." Why do I say that? Because expanding the hobby is largely appealing to a new audience, who don't have 20 years of experience with RPGs already.

WotC is one of a (very) few companies that are in the primary distribution channels, so people who don't game or are lapsed gamers might encounter them somehow. If your game isn't where people can see it, you're not doing anything to expand the hobby.

Now I am personally very much in favor of both PDFs and third party companies, but that serves _me_ very well and doesn't do anything to help expand gaming in general.

...Which is the point of D&D Encounters. Getting in touch with people to let them know about this process is difficult, which is where social networking comes in... which led to the unfortunate spam that caused the nerd rage.

Don't like Encounters? Don't go, and put the offending email address into your spam filter and nothing is lost for you. Blame WotC and a local FLGS for trying to grow the hobby (and in the case of the store who sent it out, trying to grow their business!) and I'll say fie on you!

But seriously, I also agree with you about the PDFs and the whole third party companies as well.

--Steve

 

[Mark CMG]

Because both of them aren't enough to matter?

And that's what it comes down to.

Well, that's obviously incorrect since WotC is reaching out to lapsed gamers and the reason they said they ceased PDF availability was due to piracy. This has been a civil discussion, please don't be rude.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Well, that's obviously incorrect since WotC is reaching out to lapsed gamers and the reason they said they ceased PDF availability was due to piracy. This has been a civil discussion, please don't be rude.

What he said and what you're saying do not disagree.

If the PDFs were profitable enough to keep doing despite piracy, they would. If the cost of keeping them unpirated was low enough to keep them going, they would. But apparently the costs of piracy, added to the cost to PDF stuff, makes it unprofitable for them.

Brad

 

[Mark CMG]

What he said and what you're saying do not disagree.

If the PDFs were profitable enough to keep doing despite piracy, they would. If the cost of keeping them unpirated was low enough to keep them going, they would. But apparently the costs of piracy, added to the cost to PDF stuff, makes it unprofitable for them.

His claim that the PDFs were removed due to unprofitability is incorrect. The 4E PDFs might have been problematic or even unprofitable but those aren't under discussion. The odlder PDFs are nothing but profit. They were sold through a service that takes a percentage.

 

[Umbran]

Rarely does a company avoid profit for no reason. Maybe that reason is evidence-based. Maybe it is part of a strategy. But there's some logic behind it.

I think the question of how much profit they get out of old PDFs may be more complicated than simply how much money they take in from sale of those pdfs. If selling those pdfs also incurs some other cost, then perhaps it isn't profitable.

 

[Chainsaw]

Rarely does a company avoid profit for no reason.

Sometimes they do it because they're not run well.. I write junk bond research and I have seen lots of chapter 7/11's by companies that thought they had a Iron Grip on How to Make Money.

 

[doctorhook]

I received an email advertising DnD encounters. I never gave WotC my email address, nor did I subscribe to any material of theirs through which they could acquire it. Actually, I'm in a meetup group whose leadership was asked to spread the email to its membership.
Here's the email:

Normally I'd be fine getting junk email, and i'd casually delete it, but for some reason this really irritates me. I didn't ask to receive such spam, and I don't appreciate it. So, the email included a link to respond. I figured I'd voice my complaint to the source, to tell them how I don't like them shaking down shop owners to spread the info. I tried repeatedly to email to said link, but it doesn't work. My mounting frustration over WotC's technical failings opened fresh wounds, so a short rant is forthcoming:
When you sell something I want, I'll buy it. You aren't going to convince me to buy something I don't want with junk emails and poor marketing. Actually, let me revise the first claim- I'd buy something you were selling if I wanted it IF you weren't on my black list.
No PDFs = none of my money.
Restrictive Third Party licenses = none of my money.
The well is poisoned, you aren't getting a dime of mine until these policies are revised or abandoned.

(This thread isn't about the merits or failures of 4th edition, please don't engage in such discussions in it.)

I just can't add this all up. Are you upset about how WotC runs its business, or about your email being given to an advertiser, or that a company you've chosen not to purchase from would have the audacity to advertise to you? Truth be told, I can understand how you might feel any or all of those things, but what I don't understand is how any of this can affect you so much as to make you genuinely angry.

I also don't understand this "shaking down shop owners" comment; are you suggesting that WotC is engaging in organized criminal-type extortion tactics to market its products? That's a big accusation to make, and without some evidence, I have to conclude that it's a ridiculous exaggeration on your part. Why are you being disingenuous?

From an economics perspective, it's fair that you've decided not to give your dollar-votes to WotC because you disagree with their business decisions, but IMHO what's less fair is the basis for your disagreement. Do you expect WotC to produce the same products forever? Do you expect them to produce products for free or at a loss? Do you expect WotC to make decisions based on any other rationale than what (in their expert opinion) will sell the most products for them?

Ugh. People, please read past the first paragraph. The email is what inspired the rant, but the subject matter is: WotC's policies regarding PDFs and the GSL mean I cannot support them as a customer. What do you think is going to expand the hobby faster? 3rd party support, open gaming and PDFs? Or junk email?

...So in other words, the only reason you posted here was that you wanted to drum up some publisher-hate for WotC? ("Publisher wars" are the kid siblings of edition wars, you know.) I now feel dirty (and yet oddly superior) for responding , and yet for pride I cannot delete my words just yet.

Seeing the new generation become so docile when a large corporation feeds us garbage and tells us it's anything but makes baby Satan cry. Where is the open disgust? The mutiny? The quality of their products saw a drastic drop in 4E yet for some reason, the spirit of [deleted] has not risen. So yes, a boycott is an excellent idea. Do yourselves a favor and find a d20 system online, made by someone who still loves the game, today.

This is awesome. I credit you for sticking to English; lots of trolls descend into frothing and slamming their forehead against the keyboard by midpost, but not you. I can feel your hatred, and your love of satire.

PS: You might not like 4E, but it definitely doesn't suck. Most of WotC's recent products are quite high quality, even if they don't interest you. Also, the folks publishing D&D definitely "love the game", although they may not "love" the same parts that you do. Finally, the Marxist/old-hippy vibe of your post is silly and naive -- economics rocks, you should check it out!

 

[Hussar]

His claim that the PDFs were removed due to unprofitability is incorrect. The 4E PDFs might have been problematic or even unprofitable but those aren't under discussion. The odlder PDFs are nothing but profit. They were sold through a service that takes a percentage.

And, this is still untrue.

You need to take time for your accountants to account for the income stream, for example. You need to take time answering questions related to the pdf, which also costs money. You need to turn the products into pdf's as well - unless you're just selling a scan, that means formatting and book marking. No one does that for free.

Heck, you're taxed on the profits you make from the pdf's.

Any of the above could make the sale of small numbers of pdf's unprofitable.

While I might believe a lot of things about WOTC, deliberately choosing to not make money from gamers is not something I'll buy into.

I find it strange though. The usual complaint is that WOTC is all about money grubbing and taking as much cash from the hands of gamers as humanly possible. Milking the cow for all its worth.

Yet, now, apparently, they're not milking the cow hard enough by choosing to not take people's business.

I think that if a company chooses not to provide a particular product, the primary reason is that that product doesn't make enough profit to be worth the time and investment to provide that product.

Pulling the pdf's has zero to do with "preventing competition" which was the claim above that I was responding to and everything to do with the fact that it's just not worth the investment.

 

[Chrono22]

I call shenanigans^
The costs to produce and release a PDF is less than the cost of producing a large volume of physical copies. Furthermore, many books are PDFs before they are ever printed, as part of the editing process. At least, ones that have sophisticated fonts/graphics/indices are. I'd love to hear the explanation about how bandwidth is more expensive then shelf space, too.
I could go on, but most of what you are saying is ludicrous. There are really only two rational explanations. Either WotC got rid of PDFs because they didn't want their newest edition to compete with the draw of previous editions/material, or the decision was simple incompetence.
I think it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B.

As for "old players vs new". It's a false distinction. Old players draw in new players simply by deign of participation in the game. New players.. not as much. New players don't have as many good/experienced GMs, they can't organize as well... in many cases, they are kids and don't have the funds to support their hobby. New players, more often than old players, become lapsed players.
The potential to draw in new players exists with every player. The opportunity cost of raising barriers to play/restricting 3rd party support are that you are shrinking your player base, and simultaneously stifling its growth. Or, to put it in other words, it hurts the hobby.

That's why the spam irritated me. It's supposed to be an olive branch? A way to expand the hobby by bringing in more players? I find it sickeningly ironic that I'm being handed an olive branch by the same people that chopped down the tree in the first place.