Additionally: The two other big issues I am seeing on the WotC forums are the auto-renew set-up and lack of explicit permission to print the e-zines. There is considerable discontent over both...
I didn't know about either.
There are two reactions WotC could go for with their marketing and product lines:
- We want you to enjoy the game, and we are going to make it easy to do so, or
- We want your money, and we are going to brazenly implement a host of new marketing practices designed to relieve you of as much cash as possible; we really don't care if you like the game -- as long as you buy it
I don't mind being exploited, but I do mind feeling exploited -- especially by professionals that should know better. WotC makes me feel exploited :/
Additionally: The two other big issues I am seeing on the WotC forums are the auto-renew set-up and lack of explicit permission to print the e-zines. There is considerable discontent over both...I didn't know about either.
There are two reactions WotC could go for with their marketing and product lines:
- We want you to enjoy the game, and we are going to make it easy to do so, or
- We want your money, and we are going to brazenly implement a host of new marketing practices designed to relieve you of as much cash as possible; we really don't care if you like the game -- as long as you buy it
I don't mind being exploited, but I do mind feeling exploited -- especially by professionals that should know better. WotC makes me feel exploited :/
I hear you!, Totally agree. Can't I think the last time I really remember being proud of a WOTC purchase I made after I my 3rd edition books (not 3.5). After that, I felt like customer explotation was the name of the game. Much to my regret I had not broken myself of my D&D purchasing HABIT and thus I fell into that trap as well. Now that I out of that habit, I just shake my head at the foolishness of having spent that much money on the game. I long for the days of 1st edition when I was proud of nearly every purchase I made (except for a few lame modules). These were purchases in which I felt good when I held it.
|
DDI Stuff
Since at this time I have no interest in the other tools.. or paying what they want for it..If they did get rid of the web content only package, I would not re subscribe.
By the way..thanks for that.. I missed DI #11, everything before that suggested they would have a Web only content only subscription.
I wish they would use thier words more carefully.. They never use strong words and sometimes they naswer questions in those FAQs that were not asked, and not the one they are trying to answer.
Though they saying they have not decided on pricing yet for the future makes me hopefull they relize they are asking too much for what they are offering.
IMO 1 month payments for the full package should not be more the $10.95 and should go down from there for longer subscription.
...had not broken myself of my D&D purchasing HABIT and thus I fell into that trap as well. Now that I out of that habit, I just shake my head at the foolishness of having spent that much money on the game. I long for the days of 1st edition when I was proud of nearly every purchase I made (except for a few lame modules). These were purchases in which I felt good when I held it.
Sadly, I think WotC's money-making schemes have now broken me of the habit, too. I don't think I can support a campaign with the core rules (which was not true in previous editions), and I'm not going to pay for what DDI currently offers.
And my players (though they aren't really into the edition wars) aren't favorably impressed with 4e.
|
|
By the way..thanks for that.. I missed DI #11, everything before that suggested they would have a Web only content only subscription.
I wish they would use thier words more carefully.. They never use strong words and sometimes they naswer questions in those FAQs that were not asked, and not the one they are trying to answer.
They use their words very carefully.
They used their words carefully back with DI #2 to suggest they were listening to customer feedback and providing a "content only" package instead of just a "partial package".They used their words carefully in the Q&A where they discussed the virtual minis to suggest they were listening to customer feedback and eliminating the program, yet a careful look at it shows they are only announcing they do not plan to charge right now, when the product is still in development, but their plans "may change" as they develop the software and additional sales packages.
And yes, they very often answer their own questions instead of what people ask.
They are a corporation and they use adspeak whenever possible. Their only real problem is when they forget to use adspeak, and wind up making promises they cannot keep, or creating the impression they have made promises that people get upset about when they do not keep them.
They are aware of that problem, and are making increasing efforts to avoid it. That is why it is critical to keep up to date on what they have said, and exactly how they are saying it.
As for the pricing, a lot of people are saying what you are saying. Whether that has an effect remains to be seen.
And you are welcome. I may not be bothering with the DDI, but I do try to keep up on what they are doing with it.
|
|
And the official WotC followup:
Digital Insider #14
"I've gotten a number of questions about how the Character Builder is going to interact with D&DI subscriptions. Here are some answers: Once the full version of the Character Builder is ready, it will be added to the D&DI package and we plan to raise the price. However, if you are already a subscriber, then our new price will not kick in for you until the end of your current term. In other words, if you sign up for a year at $4.95 per month, then you will get the Character Builder "for free" until the end of your year (at which point you would renew at the new price). We haven't finalized the new pricing yet, but we will let you know once we have.
At some point in the future, we may decide to introduce an "applications only" package and a "magazines only" package along with a bundle of everything together, but at this point, we don't think we have enough different components to Insider for this split to make sense. As we continue to add features (Character Visualizer, Dungeon Builder, etc.), this is a decision we will continue to revisit. For the near-term future, there will continue to be just one Insider package."
It also contains a vague release date for the full character builder, "early next year".
|
|
And you should make sure of your facts before making erroneous statements.
I did check my facts, and I made no erroneous statements.
WotC's VP of Digital Gaming confirmed everything I said as I quoted and linked to in my previous post, in an update posted yesterday.
The link is there for anyone who wants to read what WotC has to say on the matter if you think I improperly quoted it.
I am just amazed that they didn't have the website and all the options ready to roll when 4th was released. I think that was their biggest blunder of all. How many potential new gamers have they missed out on when newbies purchased the books and went to log into the site only to see the lovely message "Character visualizer, soon to come". And then waited many more months and it is still not functioning at 100%. They probably said screw it, I'm going back to my video games. Terrible blunder imo.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Terrible blunder imo.
Unfortunately the story of Wizard's recent moves has been a series of blunders. I for one have the core books for 4e and that's enough. If my group ever decides to play more than the occasional one shot with it, it'll have to be enough.
Till then, we'll always have 3.5 and Paizo.
Terrible blunder imo.Unfortunately the story of Wizard's recent moves has been a series of blunders. I for one have the core books for 4e and that's enough. If my group ever decides to play more than the occasional one shot with it, it'll have to be enough.
Till then, we'll always have 3.5 and Paizo.
Yeah, I hear ya. I have played 4E once, not a bad game I suppose but just not for me. I am sticking with the pfrpg and 3.5.
...but it's going to take some time for Wizard's to regain a lot of people's trust.And it's going to be harder than it used to be.
I stopped buying Dungeon and Dragon for a long time. I started buying again (and ultimately subscribed) after looking at them on bookshelves. Now I can't do that without subscribing.
The fact is, I've been trying to make the move to 4/e -- but WotC has been consistently making that decision harder rather than easier.
To be fair, that's not exactly true. You can pay for a one month subscription for $7.95 (or something like that), which is the equivalent of buying one Dungeon and one Dragon magazine. If you like what you see there you can decide whether or not to subscribe for longer.
Mind you, I have been unimpressed so far with their offerings, and would have to see more interesting articles before I would subscribe for a year.
To be fair, that's not exactly true. You can pay for a one month subscription for $7.95 (or something like that), which is the equivalent of buying one Dungeon and one Dragon magazine. If you like what you see there you can decide whether or not to subscribe for longer.
I could once browse the magazines for free at the bookstore before deciding. Now I can't make any meaningful assessment of the product's quality without forking out money, and I just won't do that given my current doubt about WotC's products.
What really gets under my skin is the unmitigated greed of the new model. Electronic distribution almost guarantees higher subscription rates, virtually non-existent overhead (no printers, no warehouses, no shipping costs, no returned magazine copies) makes profit margins FAR higher, and yet they keep the cost at roughly pre-DDI levels. There comes a point where sound business crosses over into shameless exploitation -- IMO that's been done.
They alienate half the market, then make it difficult for us to decide we want to come back. I see little evidence they even want my business.
When all is said and done, my group wants to drop D&D right now, perhaps permanently. It makes me rather sad :(
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
That isn't true at all - the initial free months of Dragon and Dungeon will remain available for perusal, and the many free updates each month (generally previews and excerts, art and map galleries, and a few actual articles) should give solid insight into the quality of their work.
A free month does not necessarily give me any idea of the ongoing quality of the thing. If I were them I'd make the free month as good as I could, simply because it is a showcase issue. I think what Tatterdemalion was saying was that he could check out EACH ISSUE on the newsstand before purchasing it. Not so now.
Now do I expect them to lower the quality intentionally? No. But with a grab bag such as Dragon or Dungeon, what has utility to me this month does not necessary mean that next month's issue will have anything I'd find useful. Or that I'd consider worth purchasing. With a physical product there is the luxury of previewing the material without purchase, something that is not available with the electronic versions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Ok, that is fair enough - you can't peruse the specific content before deciding whether or not to buy it. (Though I can't really see any way you could do so without it removing the value of the product itself.) I do think that the free content each month, the preview months of the material itself, and the various discussions of the content online (for a sense of specific articles) should still give at least some idea of the quality.
I agree it gives SOME idea of the quality, but then again I've not been impressed with that stuff myself. Most if it seems average to okay to me. Still, in comparison to a printed item, the electronic format is lacking.
And the price question is a valid one. Given that the major costs of a magazine include printing and shipping, an electronic offering ought to be much cheaper than a physical product or at least offer much more content to balance out the difference. This has not happened, at least judging by the free copies I've seen thus far. Of course, advertising also balances out the costs in a printed medium, which leads one to wonder how long it will be before the electronic copies begin featuring adverts?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Well, that's the thing - I'm not saying the price can't be questioned, just that it clearly is enough of a matter of debate that calling it a scam or "shameless exploitation" is rather absurd.
Yes, it no longer has printing and shipping costs, but it does still have design and development time. It is now 2/3 to 3/4 of the previous price, no longer has any advertising attached to it, and comes with a compilation of all the rules in all the current products. I don't object to thinking that price should still be lower - I object to presenting the idea that it is some sort of scam built out of rampant greed, rather than an actual offering for customers, and that WotC is an evil corporation if they aren't giving this material away for essentially nothing.
I do concur. I do however foresee that if this does seem to be a lucrative revenue stream for Wizards that they will eventually add adverts to it, probably under the aegis of "Gamer Life" or something similar. Success will force them to create more revenue. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; the old print magazines had some great ads for things that I genuinely enjoyed.
But I agree: they shouldn't necessarily give it away for free. However so much of what falls under the heading of Dungeon and Dragon these days WAS given away for free in the form of adventures and web enhancements during the 3.x years. There's bound to be some resentment over charging now for what was free then. And the rules compendium is a good idea, but during 3.x we had the SRD, which was free and websites such as D20srd.org, which prettied it up for free. Now I realize that this compendium includes more than what the original SRD did, but the resentment that Tatterdemalion and others are feeling over the charging for it is understandable, even if you or I don't share it as fiercely.
Isn't the Character Creator Beta starting this month? Is anyone participating in the Character Creator Beta? Any feedback yet?
Yes, and I'm happy with it so far.
Unsurprised to see rhetorical fallacies still thrive here.
That's what the internet is for, dude.
|
I am not going to subscribe. The only element of D&DI I want is Scales of War. I am sure it shall pop-up elsewhere. I've never used Dragon, so I won't be missing anything there. None of the other tools of the present D&DI line-up seem too important to pay for as of now.
I've changed my mind about subscribing to D&D Insider. I subscribed early this week. The D&D Compendium was getting more and more useful weekly. Initially I scoffed at the idea of using it. But it has turned into the perfect utility to get the latest information on rules and errata.
Getting Dungeon for Scales of War was a must. And, getting both Dungeon and Dragon for less than my former Dungeon hard copy subscription is a boon. I did think I would get no use out of Dragon, but it has been very useful for Living Forgotten Realms and for providing options for our two weekly home games.
I have been completely satisfied with my nascent subscription to D&D Insider. The chance to tinker with Character Builder for a year is an added bonus. But, the real value for me are the magazines and the compendium.
|
|
I am subscribing and I visit the D&D site once a day.
Love the content and with the 4E rules I am a happy DM. I have happy players who are enjoying the game.
Love what I have got so far.
Paizo gets $10 a month on EBooks so does wizards I dont have problem with it. I would love if Paizo had a $AU option for the store Wizards offered it and i am sooo happy.
Just a minor thing
...I'm not saying the price can't be questioned, just that it clearly is enough of a matter of debate that calling it a scam or "shameless exploitation" is rather absurd.Matter of opinion (and debate, as you admit). The entire platform is obviously retooled across the board to dramatically increase profit:
- the new magazines have eliminated virtually all costs beyond paying authors' fees, offer drastically-increased subscription levels, yet the price remains essentially unchanged (and as a side benefit, competitors have been denied their best advertising platform)
- prices on minis are increasing significantly (for good reasons, but that's not the point right now)
- the three core books are no longer considered 'core,' and are not considered self-sufficient for play (by WotC's own admission)
- as all this occurs, they show signs of pinching pennies to further increase profit -- the technical expertise to implement DDI was completely absent initially, and print quality issues have been raised regarding the rulebooks and print supplements (poor quality ink and paper, specifically)
- adding insult to injury, the OGL severely restricts the format of third-party publishers' supplements, hurting their quality and thus shifting profits back into the hands of WotC (this from a company that has a long history of praising the value of competition and the involvement of 3PPs)
All of these changes are arguably to the detriment of players -- all of them. While I certainly don't begrudge WotC the right to make money, presumably there's a point beyond which their schemes become brazen and excessive. I believe that point has been reached and passed. If not now, then at what point should I call their behavior shameless?
And for the record, I didn't suggest this is a scam -- that's a very different thing.
All this said, I think the product is good -- it's just not for me, or my group.
Regards :)
Matthew:
Obviously we're going to disagree on a lot of stuff. I think my opinions and statements are defensible positions, and I'm not alone in holding them. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it should discourage dismissing such claims out of hand.
I'm just voicing my opinions. I think point-by-point arguments intended to prove people right or wrong are unlikely to do anything beyond re-igniting flame wars.
One one point, though:
the three core books are no longer considered 'core,' and are not considered self-sufficient for play (by WotC's own admission)
Now that is just incorrect. The three core books are certainly considered core. So is everything else.
That's a misuse of the word. It's impossible to say, in English, that everything in the system is 'core' -- it contradicts the word's meaning.
WotC is no doubt continuing to use the word to discourage the notion that certain books are less important than others, an idea which is inimical to their profits. If they stop using that word, my objection disappears. But so does any pretense that the first three books are sufficient to satisfy most players.
My claim that the first three books of 4e are not self-sufficient for play was just plain wrong. I meant to suggest something different, and my words were poorly chosen.
I don't mean to offend with any of this. These are just some of my reasons for no longer buying WotC products.
Regards again :)
Let's redirect this thread!
The Character Creator is starting to get good reviews. The reviews are posted on ENWorld. But the Beta tool only goes to 3rd level and I am already 4th level. I will have to wait to get what I want. Sad face.
|
|
The Character Creator is starting to get good reviews.
Some thread redirection is a good idea. I do agree largely with Matthew, though. I appreciate the time he took to share his views, as he articulated my sentiments exactly.
The character builder is awesome. I spent hours and hours tinkering with it yesterday. I was pleasantly surprised. I cannot wait for the full version, either. I think the character builder easily surpasses the magazines and the compendium in its potential for usefulness. It was well worth the wait, because Wizards of the Coast has done the character builder right. It has made me go from happy with my D&D Insider subscription to being ecstatic about it.
Does anyone else find the Wotc website overly confusing.
Does anyone not?
Funny thing is, they responded to some online criticism -- specifically, they improved the quality of a troll pic that was on the page. The criticism, though, was thoughtful, specific, and comprehensive -- it went far beyond the quality of a single image, and addressed far more important points.
That seems to have been lost on WotC -- which is not a new story.
There are reasons colleges offer classes in Web Design nowadays -- WotC's site is one.
Does anyone else find the Wotc website overly confusing.
If you want to really be confused, try to figure out how to remove auto-renewal from your DDI subscription!
If the 4.0 books were 'core' then the PH would have included the traditional races (Gnomes & Half Orcs), traditional PC classes (Druids & Bards), Frost Giants in the Monster Manual, etc, all of which have not been included.
WoTC deliberately did NOT put those classes & races (and other items) in the first three so-called "core" books, because they want you to buy the future books (PH2, MM2) that will contain the races/classes/monsters that were left out of the first three 4.0 books.
In 3.0/3.5, (and for that matter in 1st and 2nd edition) all the needed stuff is/was in the PH/DMG/MM. That is not true of 4.0. Plain and simple.
This practice of "watering" down the concentration of needed rules/materials in the first 3 books is not accidental, nor an oversight. It is my opinion done in an effort to increase sales of the additional splat books by WoTC/Hasbro.
I really consider this a false claim. Classes and races you prefer are not more important to the game than those someone else prefers. 3.5 was missing Dragonborn, Warlocks, Warlords, Skull Lords and so forth in the core rules - this did not mean it was an incomplete game.You do not need a druid to play D&D, no more than you needed a warlord to play it. You can certainly prefer what they should have included or not included, but claiming it is incomplete because of it is really misleading.
Dude, they are not false claims. Those classes & races have been in the PH since D&D began. 4.0 is the first edition of the game to omit those classes & races. What is false about that? Where is the historical presidence for Dragonborn and Warlords? There is NONE.
New Guy, pull out your 1st edition AD&D PH, and you'll find the druid, bard, half-orc and gnome. My prior post made reference to 1st edition d&d, not basic d&d or anything else.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh god, not the argument about the excluded "core" material again. I thought that horse died. If that's still an issue for you, just bypass the 4e forums altogether. You aren't going to find anything you like here and there's nothing new to be said about that topic. Each edition has had different classes and races, and it's only by coming up with some gerrymandered definition of "core" that you can argue about what should/should not have been included in 4e. In the meantime, I hear there are some exciting conversations regarding Pathfinder in which you can participate rather than dredging up the flamewars of yore. Those of us who like 4e don't really care how you define "core." You don't actually want to play 4e and you don't need to justify that decision here. There's nothing for us to discuss and no reason for you to post in these threads. I'm not sure why it even matters to you anymore what is or is not in 4e. Please let me enjoy my cheerios, urine free.
Oh god, not the argument about the excluded "core" material again. I thought that horse died. If that's still an issue for you, just bypass the 4e forums altogether. You aren't going to find anything you like here and there's nothing new to be said about that topic. Each edition has had different classes and races, and it's only by coming up with some gerrymandered definition of "core" that you can argue about what should/should not have been included in 4e. In the meantime, I hear there are some exciting conversations regarding Pathfinder in which you can participate rather than dredging up the flamewars of yore. Those of us who like 4e don't really care how you define "core." You don't actually want to play 4e and you don't need to justify that decision here. There's nothing for us to discuss and no reason for you to post in these threads. I'm not sure why it even matters to you anymore what is or is not in 4e. Please let me enjoy my cheerios, urine free.
Why thank you, your exaltedness, for setting me straight. As someone who has largely, if not almost entirely avoided the 4.0 debate, I was unaware that the subject: of what constitutes “core” material, was previously debated. I am not in the habit of reading the old threads and posts, and hence seldom know what topics you and others have previously pontificated on in scholarly fashion. Perhaps when brilliant minds like yours are in control of these message boards, you will be able to bar people from me from posting our mindless ramblings, or you can at least censure us when we make posts that live up to your esteemed viewpoints.
I have been quite supportive previously made posts from February to June of this year in support of 4E. I played 4E in February and from June to September. Notwithstanding my prior tacit support for the new edition, it appears that if I dare make a disparaging comment about it, then apparently (as you put it) there’s “no reason for me to post in these threads”. That’s nonsense, and I hope you realize that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As they say at the end of each episode of G.I. Joe, knowing is half the battle.
Now you know.
I'd provide a quick heads up on the other topics that have been brutally beaten to a bloody pulp over and over and over again, but I worry that would cause someone to pop in and decide to take their own personal whack at the old horse-paste. Lord knows the horse isn't really dead until everyone's had a chance to bludgeon it personally.
Oh god, not the argument about the excluded "core" material again. I thought that horse died...
Wise though your words may be, they're futile. Arguments like these are like undead -- they rise endlessly from the grave, smell bad, and poison everyone they touch.
I'm not criticizing anyone -- I've cast animate dead a couple of times myself :/
But WotC made a really fun game, and it very much feels like D&D to play if you let it.
Not really arguing, but my group wanted to "let" it feel like D&D, and it didn't quite make the cut. There are some nice improvements, and there are some changes we don't want.
D&D is many things to many people. 4e fits the bill for many, and doesn't for many others. I'll concede that some of the people in the second group aren't giving it a chance, but many are.
Regards :)
Why thank you, your exaltedness, for setting me straight. As someone who has largely, if not almost entirely avoided the 4.0 debate, I was unaware that the subject: of what constitutes “core” material, was previously debated. I am not in the habit of reading the old threads and posts, and hence seldom know what topics you and others have previously pontificated on in scholarly fashion. Perhaps when brilliant minds like yours are in control of these message boards, you will be able to bar people from me from posting our mindless ramblings, or you can at least censure us when we make posts that live up to your esteemed viewpoints.
I have been quite supportive previously made posts from February to June of this year in support of 4E. I played 4E in February and from June to September. Notwithstanding my prior tacit support for the new edition, it appears that if I dare make a disparaging comment about it, then apparently (as you put it) there’s “no reason for me to post in these threads”. That’s nonsense,...
You need to take a step or two back. I don't care how much you've supported 4th Edition in the past; that has nothing to do with the current argument. The very notion that there is some mystical "core" set of races or classes that D&D MUST HAVE in order for it to be considered "complete" is nonsense, as has already been pointed out. Editions of D&D have existed without those elements. You're just griping because you liked those races or classes in your D&D and now they've been replaced - and by replaced, I mean you're going to have to wait a couple months to play them. Oh no.
Furthermore, you need to tone down the sarcastic rhetoric. It's not needed here. You were corrected and refused to acknowledge it, instead turning back on those who corrected you and acting like you're somehow being persecuted. When you're corrected, the polite thing to do is to thank the person who corrected you for setting you straight.
Mr. Betts, my issue with Sebastian is between he and myself. When I have the time, I will put together a response for his remarks. As for yourself, Kindly tell the Psychiatric Nurse on hand to give you your medicine and quit interjecting yourself where your assistance is clearly not needed.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Uh...there's not actually an issue between us, you posted something that I (and many others on these boards) are sick of hearing. I told you so. So did others. I'd say the same to anyone else who took to beating that particular dead horse with such vigor. No need to respond, just let old flamewars lie. It's not some sort of exclusive personal confrontation or vendetta. Do what you have to do, but that's all I've really got to say on the topic.
The end.