Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5538388" data-attributes="member: 27160">Try reading what I actually wrote, instead of assuming based on your tribal assumptions.&nbsp; Of course the development team should be (and, naturally, want to be) paid for what they do.&nbsp; I have not suggested that WotC should give this stuff away free at any point - nor will I.&nbsp; All products need to be sold for more than their marginal cost, even if the margianl cost is zero, for the business of creating them to succeed.&nbsp; That is why information piracy is destructive and wrong.&nbsp; But creative businesses indulging in a self-destructive orgy of wrecking their own products' value in some vain attempt to &quot;beat piracy&quot; is not going to solve the piracy problem - it's going to exacerbate it by making pirated product not just cheaper than legitimate product, but better than it as well.OK, but that's just a miscalculated pricing policy.&nbsp; Make the monthly sub more than twice the yearly rate and it's better to pay yearly.&nbsp; I was happy paying yearly, anyway, because of the Compendium access.&nbsp; Even better would be an up-front charge, IMO, since it makes registeded licensing cleaner to set up.I have no idea why it was changed - I don't remember much &quot;backlash&quot;, and it would seem only reasonable to me to allow charging for 'packets' of content.&nbsp; Actually, there may well be an issue with people wanting to buy &quot;back issues&quot;, which might have been more complex than they wanted to get.Any way about, I see lots of options - of which they picked one I'm not interested in buying, is all.Because they are in an area of business they are not experienced at and they don't understand fully how their interests would be best served.And your assumptions concerning the motivations of other people is rather sad.Businesses aim to maximise their profit, but it is only required that they make some profit to stay in business.&nbsp; A consequence of this is that some irritatingly suboptimal businesses fail to go bust...As the old saying goes, &quot;customers want better product for free&quot;.&nbsp; Giving them one of these is good business - giving them both is dumb, but letting a competitor give them more than you do is just fatal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5538388, member: 27160"] Try reading what I actually wrote, instead of assuming based on your tribal assumptions. Of course the development team should be (and, naturally, want to be) paid for what they do. I have not suggested that WotC should give this stuff away free at any point - nor will I. All products need to be sold for more than their marginal cost, even if the margianl cost is zero, for the business of creating them to succeed. That is why information piracy is destructive and wrong. But creative businesses indulging in a self-destructive orgy of wrecking their own products' value in some vain attempt to "beat piracy" is not going to solve the piracy problem - it's going to exacerbate it by making pirated product not just cheaper than legitimate product, but better than it as well. OK, but that's just a miscalculated pricing policy. Make the monthly sub more than twice the yearly rate and it's better to pay yearly. I was happy paying yearly, anyway, because of the Compendium access. Even better would be an up-front charge, IMO, since it makes registeded licensing cleaner to set up. I have no idea why it was changed - I don't remember much "backlash", and it would seem only reasonable to me to allow charging for 'packets' of content. Actually, there may well be an issue with people wanting to buy "back issues", which might have been more complex than they wanted to get. Any way about, I see lots of options - of which they picked one I'm not interested in buying, is all. Because they are in an area of business they are not experienced at and they don't understand fully how their interests would be best served. And your assumptions concerning the motivations of other people is rather sad. Businesses [I]aim[/I] to maximise their profit, but it is only required that they make [I]some[/I] profit to stay in business. A consequence of this is that some irritatingly suboptimal businesses fail to go bust... As the old saying goes, "customers want better product for free". Giving them one of these is good business - giving them both is dumb, but letting a competitor give them more than you do is just fatal. [/QUOTE]

Verification