November 16th release for Web-based Character Builder

Precisely. My claim is that the online-only character builder that requires a constant subscription could be a first move in that direction :)

Except that if you look at everything, not just one part in a vacuum, you can see it's a move in the opposite direction.

This move returns the DDI to a supporting role, and not the primary means of acquiring D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You do realize that what you are doing is illegal, right? Which is why you probably won't get a straight answer.

I don't believe you can be arrested for violating a ToC. Last I checked, these things didn't carry the full weight of written law, and police won't show up on your doorstep if you share your DDI sub with your gaming group. Now, WotC might look into revoking your DDI sub if they think that is what happens. And it's possible that they could try and take you to court for some contract violation or something, theoretically (though there's plenty of legal arguments to use against ToC's). But illegal seems a little scaremongering to me.

Now, the broader idea of sharing a sub with a group. Regardless of WotC's actual position (which is certainly not stated at all with this update), it would be kind of dumb for them to invest much energy in chasing down people who share their DDI account. Which is why they don't seem to be doing much to stop it (they warned you that it might cause some issues if you and your friend are working on the same character at the same time). It's still smart business to let your friends sell you D&D, and the DDI. If the goal is more people playing the game, stopping group-sharing is counter to those purposes.

At least until the VTT comes along, anyway. ;)
 

Now, the broader idea of sharing a sub with a group. Regardless of WotC's actual position (which is certainly not stated at all with this update), it would be kind of dumb for them to invest much energy in chasing down people who share their DDI account. Which is why they don't seem to be doing much to stop it (they warned you that it might cause some issues if you and your friend are working on the same character at the same time). It's still smart business to let your friends sell you D&D, and the DDI. If the goal is more people playing the game, stopping group-sharing is counter to those purposes.

Yeah... I get the feeling the only time they'd do something like this is if they started seeing a ridiculous amount of people logging in to the same account at the same time.
 

The unintentional in my statement referred to people using it as a cheap replacement for books.
...
I use it as an easy replacement to build an character in the train or something similar. Or don't having to be online to access the compendium. The CB and the compendium are the only feasible way to keep up with the errata and don't have to double check every power during character creation between my books and the monthly errata pdf. And both CB and Compendium are now online only :(

Yeah... I get the feeling the only time they'd do something like this is if they started seeing a ridiculous amount of people logging in to the same account at the same time.

Or ridiculousness many accounts 5 people are logged in at the same time. Then they will enforce a one user/ account.
 


On the positive side, I can now safely ditch the Oct. CB update, and go back to Sept.'s update, which had fewer bugs, didn't have the rarity system, had the RPGA items, and actually let bards use magical instruments.

Small victories, I suppose.

I'm sooooooo glad we decided not to have everyone update so we'd have a backup, just in case.
 


I use it as an easy replacement to build an character in the train or something similar. Or don't having to be online to access the compendium. The CB and the compendium are the only feasible way to keep up with the errata and don't have to double check every power during character creation between my books and the monthly errata pdf. And both CB and Compendium are now online only :(

Yeah I'm not trying to argue the move is a great thing for everyone. I mean yeah no CB offline sucks for everyone.

But ultimately I think they were stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place.

If their current model was causing a dip in sales of physical product, and essentially giving away the product at a price that was unsurvivable in the long run, something had to give.

If they also wanted to support MACs but didn't have the ability to invest in an entirely separate piece of software, something also had to give.

So they choose the route with the least amount of suck, and the route that would offset that suckage the most.

Or ridiculousness many accounts 5 people are logged in at the same time. Then they will enforce a one user/ account.

I don't know... That seems like it would take a lot more manpower then it's worth to track. I mean I log into DDI from 3 different places routinely. My desktop, my phone, and at a friends house. I hate logging in (especially on my phone) so I almost never log out (except at my friend's place) once I've logged in.
 

Except that if you look at everything, not just one part in a vacuum, you can see it's a move in the opposite direction.

This move returns the DDI to a supporting role, and not the primary means of acquiring D&D.

I want to reiterate that an subscription-only online model is completely compatible with physical play and families.

The things that support the notion that Wizards intends to continue the physical book model include the Encounters program and the retailer program that allows the FLGS to stock certain items early. This certainly encourages people to buy the physical product and participate in the FLGS community. These efforts make me happy, and I participate in them in every way that a customer can.

However, there are other signs that point to the physical book and object model failing, or at best they're ambiguous about what they actually mean.

For instance, the change to Essentials indicates that there had been a problem with the way Wizards was producing and selling books. If the previous thin hardback model were completely successful, there would have been no need for the change. Essentials is not actually cheaper -- it's equal or greater in terms of cost to match the same functionality that one had with the core three at the start of the 4e line. When the core set came out, you had to spend $30 each on three books to get a functional instance of the game. Now, you have to spend $20 on a Heroes book, $20 on the RC, $40 on the DM kit, and $30 on the Monster Vault. That's a total expenditure of $110 vs. $90. It's even more if you want to cover the player options that you got out of the first PHB.

There are other things. For example, the miniatures line. There have been no announcements of forthcoming releases, so they're pulling back on that aspect. And those much-decried booster packs that came out with Gamma World? They're making their way in to D&D, as well. It's an attempt to maintain store presence for D&D like their store presence for M:tG. We're going from expensive-to-produce collectibles to cheap-to-produce collectibles. How long until we have virtually-free-to-produce collectibles in the form of online tokens that we have to sustain with a subscription?

To me, all these things could be signs of desperation about the physical product model. Don't get me wrong: I like 4e, and I play 4e all the time. I just think it's possible that Wizards may be lying to us and screwing us again, like they have many times before. I think it's foolish to stick my head in the sand and pretend it could never happen. By recognizing the trend now and letting Wizards know how we feel, we may be able to change their plans about their potential disaster.
 

http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/dungeonsanddragons/large/87062d4844e6c251fb5ff604bc10637b.png
< img >

thats the new character sheet. The 'main' one. The other one is supposed to be the Essentials sheet.

Huh, I thought it was this one...

newcharactersheet.jpg


But I may have made this one just for fun - it's hard to say really :p
 

Remove ads

Top