WotC needs to read up on some Techdirt

[Glade Riven]

Techdirt is a news commentary blog that focuses on a number of issues, but a main one is IP management and dealing with the digital age. A common theme that I've seen show up is slapping your content behind a paywall is generally a terrible idea. Another major point is that by connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy rather than worrying about such issues of infringment (commonly known as piracy) is a better way to make money.

Y'know, like what Paizo is doing. Paizo interacts with fans & creates a quality product that people want to buy. Because of such, Paizo is surplanting WotC D&D sales for many game stores. They find out what people want and give it to them, and are willing to take risks to innovate - although, if you are connecting with your fans, it really isn't as big of a risk to innovate.

If I wanted to pirate the PDFs that Paizo releases, I could. But I choose not to, because I feel comfortable giving my money to them and feel that their prices for PDFs to be reasonable. I want Paizo to stay in business.

WotC...to be honest, I'm not attached. I don't really care. I wasn't attached to D&D since I was only started playing for a few years before 4e came out. Some here are the same as I am. Some are happy playing 4e, but there are a lot of people who play who are still not happy with how WotC acts. Many people who have played older versions want to return, but they don't like 4e and feel pushed away by WotC's actions.

 

[Hammerhead]

It sounds like the writer of TechDirt wants content for free. Understandable, of course, but I don't pretend that giving me stuff for free is going to be in many companies' best interests. Especially when the company in question is the dominant player in the industry (the 'give away' stuff strategy tends to be most effective as a new, relatively unknown entrant, or when you have no other choice). For example, making DDO Free to Play was a great move, because no one was paying for it anyway; making WoW free would be terrible, and cost Blizzard millions of dollars in subscriptions a month.

I may not be a D&D subscriber myself, but it does seem to be a pretty good deal to me.

And regarding Paizo, I would disagree with a few of your assertions about the company. Yes, they certainly listen to their fans and respond appropriately, but innovative risk-takers? Their main rules line involved tweaking an already existing system of someone else's design, in reaction to complaints about the changes of 4th edition. Essentially, changing just enough to justify a switch, while not offending the fans of 3.X.

Definitely smart, but they don't exactly win innovator of the year for me. 4th edition, by comparison, attempts far more mechanical changes by balancing each class on an identical power framework. Whether or not WotC succeeded in creating a better, more enjoyable game I leave to personal taste, but it seems to me that 4e has more ambitious, creative design regardless of its quality.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Definitely smart, but they don't exactly win innovator of the year for me. 4th edition, by comparison, attempts far more mechanical changes by balancing each class on an identical power framework. Whether or not WotC succeeded in creating a better, more enjoyable game I leave to personal taste, but it seems to me that 4e has more ambitious, creative design regardless of its quality.

I don't know. The Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide they put out had a lot of cool new features and ideas. At least ones not done for D&D 3e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It sounds like the writer of TechDirt wants content for free.

It sounds like YOU like to make straw-man arguments.

It's clearly not the same thing to say "Paywalls are generally a doofy idea" and to say "GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR EVERYTHING FOR FREEEEEEEEE."

I don't even think I need to point out the host of scholarly, intelligent, uncompromisingly fact-based thought written on the issue since 1990 or so. You've got Google.

For example, making DDO Free to Play was a great move, because no one was paying for it anyway; making WoW free would be terrible, and cost Blizzard millions of dollars in subscriptions a month.

Apples and oranges, for more than that reason.

I may not be a D&D subscriber myself, but it does seem to be a pretty good deal to me.

Recent Character Builder insanity aside, I generally agree. But it's a different way to consume the game. Renting, not owning.

And regarding Paizo, I would disagree with a few of your assertions about the company. Yes, they certainly listen to their fans and respond appropriately, but innovative risk-takers? Their main rules line involved tweaking an already existing system of someone else's design, in reaction to complaints about the changes of 4th edition. Essentially, changing just enough to justify a switch, while not offending the fans of 3.X.

Not following the industry leader sounds ballsy as hell to me.

Looks like it paid off for them.

Regarding the OP: It'll be about 5-10 years before the folks in business school today get to implement the changes that actually need to happen to a lot of traditional media, and we'll see if they actually bother to do it (MBA's are not especially known to be the most creative lot on the whole) versus pursuing a paradigm of shaping the laws so that their business models are the only legal ones.

But, really, this your post doesn't seem really concerned with that. Your post seems concerned with the fact that WotC's behavior recently has left you feeling alienated. Well, you're not alone. You're in great company. It's going to be okay. Just play your favorite game, try a new one, or move on. You don't need WotC to have fun. I hearby grant you permission.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Not following the industry leader sounds ballsy as hell to me.

Looks like it paid off for them.

Nah, making your own game and having it be as successful as 4E or WOTC is ballsy as hell. Revamping a successful game is an order of magnitude less ballsy.

I would like to see what Paizo could do with their own fantasy game. I really really would.

 

[Momeeche]

...slapping your content behind a paywall is generally a terrible idea...

Maybe, but it is an easy sell to management.

 

[Dungeoneer]

slapping your content behind a paywall is generally a terrible idea

This is a pretty big generalization. Does it really hold true for all kinds of content, everywhere?

It's been proven pretty definitively in the last couple of years that paywalls are a bad idea for newspapers and news magazines. It's not hard to see why - having a snarky pen and an opinion on whatever Steve Jobs said this week does not make one a rarity on the internet. Why should I pay for your news and opinion when there's free news and opinion everywhere else?

The kind of content WotC produces for DDI is qualitatively different. Most obviously, there's not a lot of competition. Not too many other sites are creating rules for D&D 4e, and even ones that do produce quality rules (I'm looking at you, At-Will!) can't create nearly the volume of them that WotC does.

It's also the case that the New York Times doesn't own the news they're reporting on. WotC does however own the game they are writing about.

I'm not saying I think that WotC's system for DDI is The One True Way (I think they do a lot of things wrong, actually) but neither do I agree with the blanket statement that Paywalls Are Bad.

Counterexample: The Wall Street Journal has a paywall and it has by all accounts been quite successful. Why? Well, it turns out that people are less inclined to share financial data that gives them an edge in the market. In other words, the WSJ's content is qualitatively different from the NYT, and it gives them an edge.

Hmm.

 

[wedgeski]

WotC...to be honest, I'm not attached. I don't really care. I wasn't attached to D&D since I was only started playing for a few years before 4e came out. Some here are the same as I am. Some are happy playing 4e, but there are a lot of people who play who are still not happy with how WotC acts. Many people who have played older versions want to return, but they don't like 4e and feel pushed away by WotC's actions.

Yep, agreed. And many people don't. Many people like 4E and don't feel disenfranchised by WotC's actions, because the only thing that matters is product. I like what I get by paying for access to the DDI, and find the cost more than reasonable (in fact it's a frigging steal!). I pay for what I like and don't pay for what I don't like or don't need. Many people just don't care how WotC "acts", and I'm one of them.

Behind everything the game goes on. No-one at my table could care less about whether a book on magic items was cancelled, and although they do care and have noticed that the new CB is a downgrade from the old, if I suggested I was going to stop my campaign because of it, I would get a barrage of complaints. We'll simply annotate our characters by hand until the bugs are fixed and the features are in that we need.

You brought up Paizo and it's really interesting to compare the two companies. Paizo's customers are a carefully selected segment of WotC's, utterly pandered to in almost every product, fanatically loyal, and with deep enough pockets to sustain what is becoming an increasingly difficult publication model. Wizards are working to a much broader range, the beginner to the die-hard, cross-system, cross-technology, cross-everything. They're trying all kinds of things, to greater or lesser success.

But really, I'm one of maybe a dozen roleplayers in my immediate circle of gamers, and whatever little academic interest I might have in the general RPG marketplace seems positively obsessive next to their utter indifference to the whole thing. To them, there is the game. The books, the tools, the product, and the four hours around the table every Sunday are all that matter. In respect of everything else, they just don't care. Perhaps Wizards realises this more than they are given credit for.

 

[RangerWickett]

This is a pretty big generalization. Does it really hold true for all kinds of content, everywhere?

...

The kind of content WotC produces for DDI is qualitatively different.

...

Very good point. I have to spread some dignitas around before I can give you more XP.

 

[Piratecat]

Interesting thread, wrong forum. Moved.