Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 5434794" data-attributes="member: 91777">The DDI subscription model is clearly designed with the idea that one person = one subscription.  It's basically an open secret that the new character builder was designed to combat people sharing a DDI sub with their entire group.  Which is bad bad bad, right?Well call me crazy, but in my experience people actually play D&D as a group.  It's not a solitary activity.  Any materials purchased, such as books, help the whole group.  DM-centric stuff helps the DM run a better game for the players.  Player-focused stuff helps all the players.  D&D is a collaborative and cooperative game, not a competitive one.It's actually pretty rational for people in the same D&D group to want to share a subscription.  They already share books, dice, minis... not to mention the gaming world.So wouldn't it make sense to, I don't know, offer group subscriptions to DDI?  Maybe instead of trying to enforce individual pricing on a group activity they should adjust it to reflect reality: many times when they sell a product to a D&D customer, they're selling it to the customer's entire game table.  So suppose (hypothetically) that for $30/month* five people get access to DDI.  Add additional people for $5 a head.  That's gonna be right in line with most group's pizza budgets.  What's in it for WotC?  Well, the truth is that there are players at my game table who are never going to pay for DDI.  It's not worth it to them.  At most they occasionally need access to the character builder.  And even then they may get someone else to help them update their elf ranger.You're not gonna get Legolas the Elf to pay full price for a sub that he almost never uses.  He's rocking a bow ranger.  He Twin Strikes every single turn.  How much extra content does he need to do this effectively?  Not much.  The truth is that this guy probably doesn't even own the PHB.  He's there because his friends are there.Meanwhile, the DM is already paying full price for DDI, and possibly resenting being the de-facto subscriber that the players are mooching off of.  Why not take this to its logical conclusion: raise the price a little and give the entire table access?That way WotC is at least getting more than zero dollars from Legolas.  And since he's not using DDI much, he's not costing them much anyway.  Meanwhile, the DM uses DDI constantly, but she benefits the entire table.  And she'll probably appreciate it if her players help pay for that.To sum up, potential benefits of group pricing:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monetize players who show up for games but who aren't deeply invested in the hobby. It's better to make a little money off Legolas the Elf than no money.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Group pricing makes DDI more convenient for players, since it reflects the way they actually use content: they share it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Generate goodwill from the DM who buys all the books and does all the work.</li> </ul>Am I way off base on this?* This is just an example of a group pricing scheme off the top of my head.  The details aren't really important.</blockquote>

Verification