Responses to Questions about the DI

[mattcolville]

We haven’t announced any features yet.

Wake me when they do.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Minor contribution...

Scott Rouse has been dropping HEAVY hints both here and at the WotC boards that water-marking is in his definition of DRM. He hasn't come out and said that that's what the DI will incorporate, probably due to NDAs...but the hinting is glaring at me like Sauron's eye.

I think he's hoping that we'll get that hint.

 

[Halivar]

You are right that DRM does not discourage piracy.

Yeah, speaking as someone in the software industry, DRM isn't even meant to deter hard-core pirates (because you can't). It's there for just one reason: to keep the honest man honest. I hate DRM, but I understand it.

 

[Khairn]

For those who game with non-computer users: are these people subscribers or purchasers of Dragon and Dungeon?

I wouldn't be surprised if "lack of interest in reading about games online" correlates with "lack of interest in buying gaming magazines." If so, the switch to digital won't effect them much.

Of my 3 groups I have 3 old timers who use a computer at work, but dont have one for home. They all subscribe to 1 or the other magazine. Accessing the DI through their computer at work would probably get them canned, so for them, support from WotC has gone * poof *. They are less than enthused about the DI.

I also have a couple of university students who have access to computers while at school, but as they are putting themselves through university dont have money to buy one for themselves. They too are less than excited about loosing magazine support and having its replacement only being available when they are at school.

Of the 19 players in my games, 6 players (32%) will not be able to use the DI. Now I'm not saying that number is representative of al D&D players. All I'm saying is that its a shame that WotC decided that the new business direction for communicating and providing support to their customers automatically excludes a percentage of customers from using it. Being marginilized by WotC is not something that sits well for them. And I can certainly understand why they are pissed about it.

 

[Mike_Lescault]

...along with acknowledgment that players who don't have access to computers and the net are not part of WotC's plans for supporting D&D

Thanks for starting this thread. I want to clarify the above statement, however.

This is what I said:

Q. What consideration has been given to the non-Internet gaming community?

A. I could give a flowery answer here, but the truth of the matter is that the DI is focused on those with internet access. Of course, we’ll still continue publishing our printed products.

Not to beat anyone with the +2 Cudgel of Obvious Truth, but I was simply pointing out that, yes, our Online Digital Initiative is in fact aimed at people who have Online access. And for the record, I have plenty of "non-internet" friends, and I treat them just like my real friends. Well, mostly. I usually try not to be seen with them in public, but you know, I still like them.

Fair enough - I do understand the NDA side of things from personal experience. What I am getting at, I suppose, is that iron-clad NDAs seem somewhat counterproductive in this situation. This lead-in time is ripe with opportunities for attracting customers by telling them about the cool stuff that the DI will include. Each answer of "sorry, can't tell you that" is a missed opportunity.

I tried to explain why it is often difficult to answer seemingly simple questions in this thread here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=857919

Thanks!
-Mike

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Yeah, speaking as someone in the software industry, DRM isn't even meant to deter hard-core pirates (because you can't). It's there for just one reason: to keep the honest man honest. I hate DRM, but I understand it.

QFT

 

[Khairn]

QFT

Great to hear you say that!

 

[rvalle]

Of my 3 groups I have 3 old timers who use a computer at work, but dont have one for home. They all subscribe to 1 or the other magazine. Accessing the DI through their computer at work would probably get them canned, so for them, support from WotC has gone * poof *. They are less than enthused about the DI.

I also have a couple of university students who have access to computers while at school, but as they are putting themselves through university dont have money to buy one for themselves. They too are less than excited about loosing magazine support and having its replacement only being available when they are at school.

Of the 19 players in my games, 6 players (32%) will not be able to use the DI. Now I'm not saying that number is representative of al D&D players. All I'm saying is that its a shame that WotC decided that the new business direction for communicating and providing support to their customers automatically excludes a percentage of customers from using it. Being marginilized by WotC is not something that sits well for them. And I can certainly understand why they are pissed about it.

Are those 3 at the top the only ones in the group of 19 that subscribe to one or the other of the magzines?

rv

 

[Mark Hope]

I tried to explain why it is often difficult to answer seemingly simple questions in this thread here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=857919

Thanks!
-Mike

Thanks for the link Mike and for your insights in that thread. I do understand that there are legal or business considerations at play here. I can't shake the feeling, though, that these seem to have taken precedence over marketing considerations and the chance to pimp the DI to potential customers, and I'd say that's a shame. A fact of life, but a bit of a shame nevertheless. Still, tip of the hat to you for giving it your best shot .

 

[Asmor]

I'll just say watermarking is in my definition of DRM.

I totally disagree.

DRM places arbitrary restrictions on what you can do with your bits. Watermarking just adds a few extra bits, without arbitrarily restricting you in any way. All it does is provide a method of tracing leaks in case someone does abuse the freedom given them.

Speaking as someone who has major problems with DRM, I am perfectly fine with watermarking. I definitely don't consider them the same, except possibly in the broadest terms possible (i.e. they're both ways of making content publishers get warm fuzzies which ultimately only serve to keep honest customers honest and don't affect pirates at all-- security theater, as Bruce Schneier might say). DRM prevents you from doing everything you should be able to do with content you own, while watermarking does not.

How they choose to implement their DRM, even more so than the price, is the major factor for me. I have no doubt that the price will be within the range of justifiable-- what they do as far as DRM goes will determine whether I'll subscribe or not.