Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Value of my DDI Subscription
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5390225" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>I see lots in this thread that echoes my feelings, but this specific point I see deprecated a fair amount and it matters to me <strong>a lot</strong>, so I just want to try to explain why.</p><p></p><p><strong>Bagpuss</strong> says "if I considered the D&DI worth it I'd be subscribing every month anyway"; I agree, and I did subscribe for two years straight. But it's not purely about whether or not I subscribe with the new model - WotC has to "subscribe", too. That is the issue for me - and it's perhaps most easily seen as one of control.</p><p></p><p>With the new scheme, Wizards has just about <strong>all</strong> of the control. In part they have valid reason to want it - "it is their IP" they would say. But - (a) all of that IP is published in any case, in books, so it's not "hidden" IP in the sense that the workings of some clever software might be, and (b) it relates to a "moving" product brand that should need to stand on its own merits with the customer, rather than be force-fed by denying support tools to it if the customer feels they (Wizards) have lost the plot as the brand develops.</p><p></p><p>Consider: if WotC change the direction of the brand in some way you don't like (Essentials is proof that this can happen, even though I like much of what they have done with it), or "upgrade" the brand in a major way (to 5E, for example), or decide to stop offering support tools for the brand - or even just decide that the price needs to double - then, with the CBC, you have an "opt-out" available. With the new CB, you dont - although, of course, you "can always do it with pencil and paper, like we did back in the day". Yeah - I can also give up spectacles and thus no longer be able to drive or work like they did "back in the day" - forgive me if it doesn't appeal.</p><p></p><p>In accounting practice, a product that will continue to give utility into the future is naturally considered more valuable than one that doesn't. This is not just because you won't need to pay for it again in the future - it's because of the increased security it offers. If, for whatever reason, the product becomes unavailable next year, a lasting product will make you immune to that risk. I value the time I spend playing RPGs; my friends and I invest a lot of valuable time in rpg campaigns. To have one disrupted part-way through would be a bad experience. The offline CB insures us against that. The web-CB doesn't.</p><p></p><p>On top of all that there is one more, admittedly rather ephemeral, consideration, which is what this says about the confidence of WotC. Large organisations - be they corporations, governments or whatever - are usually most trustworthy when they permit their customers, citizens or what-have-you the maximum of freedom they can allow. With the new CB (and MB, assuming it's web-based), Wizards will impose their vision of "how D&D should be" on the tools as well as the rules, so that any who want to continue to use the brand with convenience will have to "toe the line". This seems to me to bespeak a lack of confidence - the simple need to control not only what the "official" version is but whether or not any other version can be supported seems to suggest a lack of trust that their vision will be seen as "the best". A company that gives me, the customer, the control - the ability to take what I want and leave what I don't, instead of trying to tie the whole thing up as a "package deal" - gives me far more confidence that <em>they believe</em> in what they are producing. If they are happy to give <em>me</em> the tools, to give <em>me</em> control, and <u>trust</u> that what they offer is good enough that I will want it all - I am far more happy to give them my unreserved (and unforced!) support than if they try to claim that "if you're not with us, you're against us". So my message to WotC is trust your <strong><em>paying</em></strong> customers, and trust your product; you don't need to tie it all up to get us to swallow it, and if you did it wouldn't help, anyway.</p><p></p><p>As for the pirates - don't let them dictate how you do business. Prosecute them where you can, and use the advantages you have as the originator of the core rules to offer a better product than they ever will. Other than that, they really are not worth your time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5390225, member: 27160"] I see lots in this thread that echoes my feelings, but this specific point I see deprecated a fair amount and it matters to me [B]a lot[/B], so I just want to try to explain why. [B]Bagpuss[/B] says "if I considered the D&DI worth it I'd be subscribing every month anyway"; I agree, and I did subscribe for two years straight. But it's not purely about whether or not I subscribe with the new model - WotC has to "subscribe", too. That is the issue for me - and it's perhaps most easily seen as one of control. With the new scheme, Wizards has just about [B]all[/B] of the control. In part they have valid reason to want it - "it is their IP" they would say. But - (a) all of that IP is published in any case, in books, so it's not "hidden" IP in the sense that the workings of some clever software might be, and (b) it relates to a "moving" product brand that should need to stand on its own merits with the customer, rather than be force-fed by denying support tools to it if the customer feels they (Wizards) have lost the plot as the brand develops. Consider: if WotC change the direction of the brand in some way you don't like (Essentials is proof that this can happen, even though I like much of what they have done with it), or "upgrade" the brand in a major way (to 5E, for example), or decide to stop offering support tools for the brand - or even just decide that the price needs to double - then, with the CBC, you have an "opt-out" available. With the new CB, you dont - although, of course, you "can always do it with pencil and paper, like we did back in the day". Yeah - I can also give up spectacles and thus no longer be able to drive or work like they did "back in the day" - forgive me if it doesn't appeal. In accounting practice, a product that will continue to give utility into the future is naturally considered more valuable than one that doesn't. This is not just because you won't need to pay for it again in the future - it's because of the increased security it offers. If, for whatever reason, the product becomes unavailable next year, a lasting product will make you immune to that risk. I value the time I spend playing RPGs; my friends and I invest a lot of valuable time in rpg campaigns. To have one disrupted part-way through would be a bad experience. The offline CB insures us against that. The web-CB doesn't. On top of all that there is one more, admittedly rather ephemeral, consideration, which is what this says about the confidence of WotC. Large organisations - be they corporations, governments or whatever - are usually most trustworthy when they permit their customers, citizens or what-have-you the maximum of freedom they can allow. With the new CB (and MB, assuming it's web-based), Wizards will impose their vision of "how D&D should be" on the tools as well as the rules, so that any who want to continue to use the brand with convenience will have to "toe the line". This seems to me to bespeak a lack of confidence - the simple need to control not only what the "official" version is but whether or not any other version can be supported seems to suggest a lack of trust that their vision will be seen as "the best". A company that gives me, the customer, the control - the ability to take what I want and leave what I don't, instead of trying to tie the whole thing up as a "package deal" - gives me far more confidence that [I]they believe[/I] in what they are producing. If they are happy to give [I]me[/I] the tools, to give [I]me[/I] control, and [U]trust[/U] that what they offer is good enough that I will want it all - I am far more happy to give them my unreserved (and unforced!) support than if they try to claim that "if you're not with us, you're against us". So my message to WotC is trust your [B][I]paying[/I][/B] customers, and trust your product; you don't need to tie it all up to get us to swallow it, and if you did it wouldn't help, anyway. As for the pirates - don't let them dictate how you do business. Prosecute them where you can, and use the advantages you have as the originator of the core rules to offer a better product than they ever will. Other than that, they really are not worth your time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Value of my DDI Subscription
Top