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

[Mirtek]

In fact, as I know, the new CB has a 0% piracy rate, because it's technically impossible (or really difficult and dangerous and not for everyone) to bypass the protection on an online service.

Or maybe it's just easier to continue pirating the old CB and just updating it with all new rules items

 

[LightPhoenix]

@wayne62682 : I can't really say more, but I assure you it was done, and it was as easy as downloading a file and pressing a button. I can only tell you that your last hypothesis is very close to the truth. Don't ask and you will not be lied to.

You're being melodramatic.

The offline CB was pirated because, like any other program, had it's online check disabled (cracked, for those unfamiliar with parlance) and then redistributed for others to use. Since the database files were stored locally, they were easily obtained, scrubbed of personal information, and redistributed.

For the Compendium, since the database information is, by necessity, transmitted to the user's computer, it's trivial to gather all the data (scrape the database) and run the web-page. It's less trivial than the casual piracy of the old CB, but still not difficult to do.

In either case, the pirates basically did no work; just downloaded the files and got going.

The advantage that the new CB has over the Compendium is the interface. The Compendium is a basic database search. The new CB is an actual compiled web program. It's not easy to replicate the new CB because of that. It's probably possible, but to my knowledge no one has done it yet. In which case, it would be the same situation as the Compendium - the end user would just download the files.

 

[delericho]

In my opinion, WotC should never have offered the offline Builders. It seemed a good idea at the time, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. Online really was the way to go.

Where I think WotC went really badly wrong is that, having decided they needed to replace the offline Builders, they rushed the rollout of the online versions. Given that the change was always going to be controversial, they should have made damn sure that the new Builders were at least as good (preferably, clearly better) than the existing versions.

As for the OP's suggestion: Yes, it is possible. It may even be moderately profitable. But there's no way it will happen, for two reasons: WotC aren't going to invest the resources in yet another version of the Builder tools; and in any case, they don't want to - they want to be selling subscriptions, and anything that detracts from that is a bad thing.

 

[Balesir]

In my opinion, WotC should never have offered the offline Builders. It seemed a good idea at the time, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. Online really was the way to go.

I don't think I could disagree more. The character builder, whether online or off, has almost a zero marginal cost to WotC (i.e. it costs money to develop, but adding one more user costs close to nothing). As such, any revenue from each user is a bonus - it offsets the cost of giving it to that user and a (possibly tiny) part of the development cost. This means that getting as many users paying for it as possible makes sense; you don't do that by supplying something that is inferior in convenience, functionality and adaptability and with less assured future value than something the pirates could supply or that users could, with some investment of time, make for themselves.

Spreadsheet character builders existed before the online CB, and they're creeping back now. I, for one, will not use any tool that an invested party (like Wizards) can yank away at any time to suit their marketing plans. Other alternatives to the online CB exist.

The way to make a successful electronic product in the modern age is to make the best, most convenient, most adaptable piece of software you can for paying customers. If that means pirates can pirate it, so be it - shaping your business around pirates is essentially an admission of defeat. Businesses aren't there to 'beat pirates' - they are there to make money by providing paying customers with something they are happy to pay for. It really is that simple.

 

[delericho]

It's not about "beating pirates", it's about "selling subscriptions".

The Character Builder, in particular, is the single biggest asset of the DDI. (Or, at least, it was...) However, with the offline builders, a lot of people would subscribe for one month every six or so, download the updates, and then lapse their subscription.

While this cost WotC nothing, and actually made them a very small amount of money, it simply wasn't what WotC wanted to do - they don't want the Character Builder to be a success; they want the DDI (of which CB is only a part) to be a success.

 

[Balesir]

It's not about "beating pirates", it's about "selling subscriptions".

Well, it's about selling something - if you get too set on what that something should be, in business, it tends to bite you where it hurts.

The Character Builder, in particular, is the single biggest asset of the DDI. (Or, at least, it was...)

I think this comment says it all...

However, with the offline builders, a lot of people would subscribe for one month every six or so, download the updates, and then lapse their subscription.

So, they were paying something. Isn't that better than the nothing I'll bet many of them are paying now?

While this cost WotC nothing, and actually made them a very small amount of money, it simply wasn't what WotC wanted to do - they don't want the Character Builder to be a success; they want the DDI (of which CB is only a part) to be a success.

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

 

[Scribble]

So, they were paying something. Isn't that better than the nothing I'll bet many of them are paying now?

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

 

[Bagpuss]

One simple reason this wouldn't work: piracy.

Except the online on has done nothing to stop piracy.

 

[Herschel]

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

Yep.

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.

 

[Mirtek]

Yep.

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.

And if only a quarter of those 10,000 people pay $5 every month that's only 150,000.

I went from spending $5 a month to spend nothing at all anymore.