Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="InexplicableVic" data-source="post: 7655896" data-attributes="member: 6788045">I think the displeasure with Trapdoor Technologies' position is valid, based upon the history of how we got here and the hubris embodied in the response. I tried the beta for their D&D character generation product, and thought, after several character creation attempts, "Wow, this has a LOT of bugs...it was probably not even ready for beta-testing." WOTC then pulls the plug on it, for undisclosed reasons. I can understand Trapdoor's frustration, and how it wants to recover its investment. So it comes up with a somewhat new idea that hopefully will work with WOTC's competitor, but needs $425k to finish the project. Instead of funding it itself and selling a good product to consumers, it's asking the consumers to pay up front for basically an IDEA. That's asking a lot, but fine...until Trapdoor resorts to the "guilt trip" approach to begging for funding that makes assumptions that simply aren't true, insinuating that consumers who don't fund this idea are somehow complicit in the status quo (which is perceived as bad). That's akin to someone at a farmers' market yelling, "If you don't buy my organic broccoli, you're a jerk and supporting the evil efforts of huge agriculture companies that are destroying our society." Only there's no actual broccoli, but a promise that I'm going to grow some and possibly give it to you later. Part of the problem is the Kickstarter funding approach in general when it comes to ideas as opposed to finished products. Dungeon Tiles, Reaper Bones -- those Kickstarters (2 highly successful ones for each company) were done because the companies had a track record of producing...not the idea of minis or resin tiles. Sure, that's different from software to an extent, but...Take the example of id software and Doom. They released the first 10 levels for free. After just about everybody played that, they couldn't resist paying $40 for the rest of the game. It's the drug distribution model: give it to them for free, get them hooked, and then they'll buy your product. It has been used successfully in the video game industry time and time again, with the release of free demos (of course, those demos have to be good). That COULD be done here. But Trapdoor is doing the reverse: consumers tried its D&D product, and it was not something that we felt compelled to buy, by any means--it was buggy and unfinished, but to the extent that it was confidence-shaking. On the heels of that, it now asks for a huge amount of funding...but the users have little faith in Trapdoor's skills. Trapdoor seemingly doesn't realize that the beta testers who are interested in playing D&D 5e are probably not at all that interested in Pathfinder. Let's also not forget all the D&D players hoping for digital tools that are now going to wait even longer--and the perception is because Trapdoor was not competent enough to get that job done. I'd say they would be frustrated, annoyed, and having no faith in Trapdoor. So, that brings us to the thread's title and Trapdoor's hubris: Against that backdrop, a little humility would have served Trapdoor better. But more importantly, it could have released some type of free demo--to whatever limited extent--that was bug-free, and would entice people to fund a new project (to unlock features not yet developed). It didn't do that, and now it is effectively trying to guilt trip people into donating money for a concept with no proof that it will actually work. It's no surprise that people would find this completely off-putting.</blockquote>

Verification