The Problem of DDI...Solved! (Well, not really)

[Herschel]

And the numbers account for that. It's also a 50% increase from that group of yearly updates.

 

[The Little Raven]

In other words, they got greedy. That has ruined many a product - I put the CB down as just one more.

I like how WotC is the greedy one for being unhappy about people downloading their content without paying and doing something about it.

 

[Mirtek]

It's also a 50% increase from that group of yearly updates.

And it's a decrease from the group of bi-yearly updates. And not accounting the people formerly paying monthly and now no longer paying at all.

I like how WotC is the greedy one for being unhappy about people downloading their content without paying and doing something about it.

Actually the people paying once every few month were simply buying exactly what WotC offered them. Then WotC thought "He, just make the offer worse and see if still enough people are willing to buy"

 

[Nyronus]

And it's a decrease from the group of bi-yearly updates. And not accounting the people formerly paying monthly and now no longer paying at all.
Actually the people paying once every few month were simply buying exactly what WotC offered them. Then WotC thought "He, just make the offer worse and see if still enough people are willing to buy"

Without market data your arguments are just so much arrogant posturing. You can't know the ratio of quiters to people who stayed on, and you can't use the forums as a judge of this. The group here is self selecting, and many already had personal grudges against WotC, and were more than happy to use any single slip up as an excuse to complain that the game is RUINED FOREVAR. Your posturing also fails to account for the effect the "drive buy" subscribers had on dead tree sails. Why both paying 300 dollars for books when I can just pay 10 dollars for all of them, or 20 if I'm really impatient? That is a serious hill for WotC to walk up to make back capital investments on R&D, software development, and printing with that going on, and all of this is without factoring in the pirating issue.

I'm going to take WotC at their word on this one. If they could have had made enough money and made everyone happy, I'm sure they would. They made a mistake and tried to fix it, and, in all honesty, the online builder isn't bad. It really isn't. It runs smoothly, and the interface (save the items) is nice. Its something (along with the Compedium for DMing ease) I am happy to pay 10 dollars a month for. If you wouldn't then, fine, enjoy your 10 dollars. I hope they bring you happiness.

 

[Balesir]

Depends on whether or not the resources they were spending on getting that something was actually a net positive.

No, it actually doesn't. Certainly, if the fixed costs of development are not covered by the total revenues, then they have a problem - but getting something from cash-poor or less dedicated users is still better than getting nothing from them. Even if the fixed costs aren't covered, at least the loss is lower.

If 10,000 people spend $10 every 6 months to update that's $200,000/year. If they only update 1/year that's $100,000, or half.

If half of those 10,000 people however pay $5 every month, that's $300,000/year. And it's a more consistent and predictable return on investment.

They halved the monthly subscription at the same time the OCB came out? I musta missed that.

We can suppose based on invented numbers all we like - it really won't prove anything either way. I merely state the general principle that differential pricing can work, and that it is possible to "compete with free" as long as you focus on quality and added value.

I like how WotC is the greedy one for being unhappy about people downloading their content without paying and doing something about it.

The people we're talking about here didn't download without paying - they paid a monthly subscription (which WotC offered). People still are downloading for nothing ("pirating") - WotC haven't done anything that would stop that. I believe that PDFs of the books and copies of the character builder are still available (though I can't vouch for it personally). I still use the CB I got while subscribing for two years (paid annually) - and I currently expect to continue doing so even after the current offering has been yanked away or converted to 5E (or whatever other happenstance means it's no longer useful to WotC).

 

[Scribble]

No, it actually doesn't. Certainly, if the fixed costs of development are not covered by the total revenues, then they have a problem - but getting something from cash-poor or less dedicated users is still better than getting nothing from them. Even if the fixed costs aren't covered, at least the loss is lower.

Sure- if your choice is only to get something or nothing, and there are no other factors involved, then something is better then nothing. This, however, is not the case; it's just not that boolean in nature- There are many factors involved (many of which we have no clue about.)

It's not just about the bottom line at the end of the month you also have to think about the future. Will the amount they're making now support the current operating costs 6 months from now? A year? Will it drive growth? Is it sustainable?

And growth isn't just about greed.

Will you be able to afford things like raises for your employees in the future at your current rate of growth?

Or new products to include in the DDI offerings?

Can you afford to keep the price at the current rate, rather then increasing it?

What if more people were moving from the yearly or monthly models and simply downloading once every 6 months? Now what IS covering the operating costs today will slowly erode away.

Which brings me back to the value of that something. If that something is ultimately doing more damage then good, then YES you need to change that something, and that something, after all the factors are weighed in might not be worth it in the long run.

(And in fact might have created an unintentional, unforeseen revenue leak.)

 

[Balesir]

Sure- if your choice is only to get something or nothing, and there are no other factors involved, then something is better then nothing.
...
Which brings me back to the value of that something. If that something is ultimately doing more damage then good, then YES you need to change that something, and that something, after all the factors are weighed in might not be worth it in the long run.

If the revenue wasn't covering the development costs (plus profit) then they definitely needed to do something, I agree. I just utterly disagree that the best (or even a vaguely good) thing to do was rebuild the current product with less utility.

Suppose they had kept the offline CB and Adventure Tools, introduced one-time charges for having access to them (which got you a unique registration code) and tied updates and additional services (like upload access to the VTT, character and monster design sharing - both upload and download - and similar services) to being logged in with an account linked to such a unique code. The CB itself doesn't need the web stuff to work, but to take full advantage of the webstuff with the CB you need to have it registered to your account. I would still be subscribed, the 'occasional payer' would still be paying occasionally (plus a one-off for the program initially) and I think a lot of the flack that has hit over the whole shebang would never have happened. And the development costs for the switch would almost certainly have been lower.

And that is just one example of an alternative schema that I think would have worked better.

 

[Scribble]

If the revenue wasn't covering the development costs (plus profit) then they definitely needed to do something, I agree. I just utterly disagree that the best (or even a vaguely good) thing to do was rebuild the current product with less utility.

I can't really argue with any certainty one way or the other about this since I don't know all the inside info. From the outside though, I can see a HUGE amount of potential that I didn't see available (or as easily available) with the offline builder(s.)

There's a reason more and more software is moving to the cloud after all.

Suppose they had kept the offline CB and Adventure Tools, introduced one-time charges for having access to them (which got you a unique registration code) and tied updates and additional services (like upload access to the VTT, character and monster design sharing - both upload and download - and similar services) to being logged in with an account linked to such a unique code.

Might work, might not- we'd have to look at the costs involved with maintaining such a system.

Off hand it still seems susceptible to the unintended revenue leak I mentioned before.

Would it help one of their other goals which was to combat piracy (And by this I mean at least trying not to blatantly help piracy)

Also- what about Mac support?

What about future products? How easy/hard would it be to tie the old CB in with future plans?

(I get the feeling they kind of eventually want the online stuff to function as almost an xbox online continuous convention sort of thing... Log on and jump into a game at any time.)

The CB itself doesn't need the web stuff to work, but to take full advantage of the webstuff with the CB you need to have it registered to your account. I would still be subscribed, the 'occasional payer' would still be paying occasionally (plus a one-off for the program initially) and I think a lot of the flack that has hit over the whole shebang would never have happened.

I doubt it... Anytime a change is made there will be flack.

I think the main amount of Flak seemed to come from loss of current functionality. I don't think that had anything to do with going to a web based system- I think it had to do with a release date that didn't match what was actually needed to complete the system (which could have happened with anything they did.)

And the development costs for the switch would almost certainly have been lower.

Sounds like a reasonable assumption, but without seeing the original code, it's hard to tell. If the original CB was a bloated mess coded with little to no ability to easily be manipulated and re-purposed, then no, it might end up being the opposite actually. (You might end up spending more development time just figuring out what the heck the original code DOES for instance.)

And that is just one example of an alternative schema that I think would have worked better.

Maybe- maybe not.

Anything seems good when you assume all the risks involved don't pan out.

 

[Mirtek]

Without market data your arguments are just so much arrogant posturing.

And the arguments of the WotC supporters are not?

You can't know the ratio of quiters to people who stayed on,

And you can?

I'm going to take WotC at their word on this one.

Which word? WotC didn't say anything related to revenue. They were too busy trying to convince us that it was a change for our own convenience. They never said "we needed it to make more money" or "we just wanted to make more money"

 

[Scribble]

And the arguments of the WotC supporters are not?
And you can?

Which word? WotC didn't say anything related to revenue. They were too busy trying to convince us that it was a change for our own convenience. They never said "we needed it to make more money" or "we just wanted to make more money"

They actually did say it was in part to combat piracy and then highlighted why it was good for us.

The biggest problem I see is a lot of what they were highlighting was future stuff, and not right out of the box stuff... And gamers tend to get really pissed when batteries aren't included.