With the exception of the removal of compiled issues (they should automate the process).
I think the content of dragon & dungeon is improving. Seems that later surveys did help
I think communication is improving, they are broadcasting almost every day and then. From bug fixes (300+ on the last CB update!!!) to delays on magazine articles (R&D involved on them!).
And finally, the CB ... I really like it, and I think it have a lot of potential.
Come on, one of the next things planed is characters sharing (yay!) ... and MB (Online) is in the works. I imagine MB will have sharing too ...
And the VT tool ... it's a nice application, and people are already sharing adventures, monsters and whatever in it.
The idea of all those applications working together (on a cloud system) is really exciting
... maybe in a future we would share house rules too. Who knows, maybe wizards could become the Valve+Steam of RPGs
Something like no subscription social platform where people can sell they works (monster packs, adventures, campaign settings) and WotC taking a % from the sell . That would be reaaaal nice.
So ... I'm very excited for D&D future, it has a lot of potential, and I'm happy with it.
Dimus, may your positivity be contagious. Yes The future is in DDi with the VT, the OCB and OMB the Compendium, Dungeon & Dragons + books worth of wealth canned in articles. It might be a great digital era for D&D debuting.
I like what DDi gives me so far. I currently am a BETA Tester in the VT and from what i could see, i could see a potential of a community sharing and playing that could be more than awesome. We are not there yet. But i can see a great potential.
Lets's stay optimists !
-Hoping R&D involvement will improve magazine quality, not reduce it (in the past, the magazines have had fewer errors and glaring imbalances than published books, due in large part to these forums tearing the article apart before compilation) The recent "crunchy" bits, limited as they are, have the appearance of a "design by committee" process.
-The CB's "potential". Good luck with that.
-Planned features for the CB, like character sharing.
-Online MB
-The VT
-All of the above "working together"
-Pure speculation of a "social platform" where people will be able to sell homebrew content.
You've been here a long time: you know WotC's track record on digital products. It's great to be an optimist, but I feel like you're setting yourself up for a major letdown when/if some/most/all of this proves to be too much to hope for.
I like what I have now.
It's not like I'm always 100% with WotC on his decisions, but overall I'm pretty satisfied. I know the track record of WotC, and I still have faith in them
Did you know a game made by Turbine called DDO? I have faith on it when it sold poorly, it had a lot of potential (for me at least), and liked what it had. While they made some poor decisions, they learned from them and finally did take great ones. Now the game is more alive than ever.
DDI and WotC make me remember them. They got a poor start, got a lot of bad rep ... but they continue, they work on new things, and ... while most people don't credit them for it ... they listen to his customer base.
And about R&D involvement ... I don't get your point. Forums will tear content anyway, so bugs and balance will still improve over books.
And as I see it, it seems WotC is pouring content of "canceled" books on DDI ... which is cool.
Potential does not make a good product. If you buy potential, I have some undeveloped land I'd like to sell you a house on at full price. You'll only have to live in a tent for a year or two whilst we build it.
You don't get it ...
I'm not paying WotC for what they are making. I'm paying WotC for what they have.
But ... to be true, if WotC crew asked for some kind of patronizing (like people of kobold quarterly) I would gladly consider it.
I will admit, there were some things I valued about my subscription. But they're gradually being stripped away. The only thing really remaining that I see as worth it is the Compendium. And it's not worth that much, particularly when it makes a functional reference tool in combination with the original CB and printed material, even without a subscription.
Fair enough.
I will admit, there were some things I valued about my subscription. But they're gradually being stripped away. The only thing really remaining that I see as worth it is the Compendium. And it's not worth that much, particularly when it makes a functional reference tool in combination with the original CB and printed material, even without a subscription.
I suppose you refer to the CB and MB becoming online tools ... (and later, the magazine compilation thing). While I understand the concern of other gamers about not being able to use the builders without a connection (to a certain point) ... for me it seems like a good move.
The data they can gather on his customer gaming habits is critical. They can analyze the impact of articles on character creation habits, detect tendencies, and a lot of things to help balance the game and make more interesting stuff.
And as I mentioned early, it serves as a base to creating a social network around the game where gamers can exchange content.
When Valve created Steam, they received a lot of bad mouthing for it (but I supported it too XD) ... nowadays it's clear it was the best decision they have made over his entire company history. From autopatching and surveys to statistics on games and gaming habits, they have great tools to comprehend their customers.
WotC is in the way, they are uploading all the info on his servers, so they can manage, analyze, and improve all of them. Sadly this means no offline tools ... but it isn't hard to imagine, that someday they could make some offline tools to support his online suit (like character trackers, etc).
Yeah, I'm dreaming a bit to far here, but dreaming is free, hehe
And anyways, now that you can export those files, 3rd party devs can make interesting stuff to try to supplement the system faults.
Sure, some have slowed down my ability to prep faster. And in the end, that's all DDi is meant to do. I don't use it for entertainment, in the sense of just sitting there making characters.
Sometimes the articles in the magazines are useful, sometimes not, but isn't that true of all magazines?
But it also seems like this is the first time that WoTc is actively trying to bring in more players.
And I think a lot of changes we are seeing to DDi is because they realize that they need to have an online playing area (The VT) that works with the tools, and be safe from people taking their IP and is completely intergrated. I think how they have handled their several changes in direction could have been way better. I think in a few cases, they really did try some spin doctoring, and it failed.
But over all, I am having way more fun being the DM this time around, because it's less work, and that is do to the choices they made in redesigning the game. Now if they can make prep time much easier, I will be a very happy customer.
Many of the things which please you appear to be speculative.
-Hoping R&D involvement will improve magazine quality, not reduce it (in the past, the magazines have had fewer errors and glaring imbalances than published books, due in large part to these forums tearing the article apart before compilation) The recent "crunchy" bits, limited as they are, have the appearance of a "design by committee" process.
-The CB's "potential". Good luck with that.
-Planned features for the CB, like character sharing.
-Online MB
-The VT
-All of the above "working together"
-Pure speculation of a "social platform" where people will be able to sell homebrew content.
You've been here a long time: you know WotC's track record on digital products. It's great to be an optimist, but I feel like you're setting yourself up for a major letdown when/if some/most/all of this proves to be too much to hope for.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Owned?
(It's still in beta)
I'm just saying, Monster Builder 1 never got out of beta. I'm not sure why anything different is expected out of Monster Builder 2.
Maybe it never get out of beta because they where planing to do the VT and they tough they needed his tools to become online to do a seamlessly connectivity between them. First the CB, next the MB.
Or not ...
But anyway, it isn't like they do nothing ... 300 bug fixes on last CB update, the VT is getting his fixes too, they are advancing with his agenda.
Once in a time, CBC was in beta.
What make you think this one will not get out of it?
my position was that if an object does what you want it to, it is not obsolete. DDi does what "I" want it to do. I do not care if it has a beta lable forever. it does what i want it to do.
get together, drink beer, role dice.
With so much doom and gloom I want to say ... I'm a happy customer and like the way things go.
With the exception of the removal of compiled issues (they should automate the process).
I think the content of dragon & dungeon is improving. Seems that later surveys did help
I think communication is improving, they are broadcasting almost every day and then. From bug fixes (300+ on the last CB update!!!) to delays on magazine articles (R&D involved on them!).
And finally, the CB ... I really like it, and I think it have a lot of potential.
Come on, one of the next things planed is characters sharing (yay!) ... and MB (Online) is in the works. I imagine MB will have sharing too ...
And the VT tool ... it's a nice application, and people are already sharing adventures, monsters and whatever in it.
The idea of all those applications working together (on a cloud system) is really exciting
Who knows, maybe wizards could become the Valve+Steam of RPGs
Something like no subscription social platform where people can sell they works (monster packs, adventures, campaign settings) and WotC taking a % from the sell . That would be reaaaal nice.
So ... I'm very excited for D&D future, it has a lot of potential, and I'm happy with it.
You know, I was a humongous fan at its beginings and almost all the way through the product till the last 3 or 4 months. New leadership and direction has hampered an already prospering product. I feel sometimes like if I were to go to the offices where they make and write the game everything would be working backwards, no gravity, people walking backwards, hairless cats, and toilets that flush water like in Australia. I don't share your optimism at all, there was a time when I did. From my stand point they have a long way to earn my respect and trust again. Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day, and when I go to budget anymore I hradly take WotC into consideration. I haven't bought books in a month, and now I have 2 new x-box games and a hamster, and even though I have to clean up after Mr.T's poop it bothers me less than the stuff they have done recently.
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
So yes. Optimism can pay your bills and pessimism can kill you.
Have a good one!
Study after study shows that pessimists live shorter lifespans. Also, that people with positive attitudes land jobs at interview more often than their negative counterparts.
So yes. Optimism can pay your bills and pessimism can kill you.
Have a good one!
Those studies are flawed as they don't take into account stress levels, depression, and other factors. All depressed people are pessimists and therefore the pessimist side of the study looks bad. While not all pessimists are depressed.
People with positive attitudes and "nothing can go wrong" is what happened to our economy... just saying...
Study after study shows that pessimists live shorter lifespans. Also, that people with positive attitudes land jobs at interview more often than their negative counterparts.
So yes. Optimism can pay your bills and pessimism can kill you.
Have a good one!
Those studies are flawed as they don't take into account stress levels, depression, and other factors. All depressed people are pessimists and therefore the pessimist side of the study looks bad. While not all pessimists are depressed.
People with positive attitudes and "nothing can go wrong" is what happened to our economy... just saying...
That's a big claim without either side being able to back up anything.
Study after study shows that pessimists live shorter lifespans. Also, that people with positive attitudes land jobs at interview more often than their negative counterparts.
So yes. Optimism can pay your bills and pessimism can kill you.
Have a good one!
Those studies are flawed as they don't take into account stress levels, depression, and other factors. All depressed people are pessimists and therefore the pessimist side of the study looks bad. While not all pessimists are depressed.
People with positive attitudes and "nothing can go wrong" is what happened to our economy... just saying...
You really take your pessimism seriously, don't you?
Study after study shows that pessimists live shorter lifespans. Also, that people with positive attitudes land jobs at interview more often than their negative counterparts.
So yes. Optimism can pay your bills and pessimism can kill you.
Have a good one!
Those studies are flawed as they don't take into account stress levels, depression, and other factors. All depressed people are pessimists and therefore the pessimist side of the study looks bad. While not all pessimists are depressed.
People with positive attitudes and "nothing can go wrong" is what happened to our economy... just saying...
You really take your pessimism seriously, don't you?
I just don't think pessimism is a negative thing. Its like everything in existence, a good balance of pessimism and optimism is best rather than too much optimism or too much pessimism. Since there are people that are way too optimistic, I balance this out with my pessimism.
Also when people ask me if the glass is half-full, I tell them it is at the mid-point...
Then again, both optimism and pessimism require making extrapolations based on known facts, so the real question is: What *are* facts, and how can we truly *know* anything? Once we come to a consensus on that, we can get back on topic.
We might as well start by defining "a positive opinion" and agreeing on what is happiness, while we're at it.
Study after study shows that pessimists live shorter lifespans.
I see you weren't including this study in your statement. :P
Study after study shows that pessimists live shorter lifespans.
I see you weren't including this study in your statement. :P
Umm . . . I guess it's good to know that being an extravert or neurotic aren't risk factors for getting or surviving cancer. Question: what was this thread about again?
Umm . . . I guess it's good to know that being an extravert or neurotic aren't risk factors for getting or surviving cancer. Question: what was this thread about again?
You know, the more I think about on-topic vs. off-topic, the more I think that it's quite alright to stray now and again. When you have conversations in real life, the topic most assuredly hops around, touching on different things, some completely off the track of the original topic. Especially when a topic is particularly generic.
And when a conversation strays in real life, it's not like you start an entirely new conversation from scratch (new post) or take it to the quiet room (PM).
*shrug*
If this business is going to stay as profitable as it needs to be for large parent corps like Hasbro (or even WoTC back in the late 90s) then they have to move toward the virtual realm. I just don't think there are enough new gamers being inculcated into the pen and paper style of buying hundreds of dollars worth of book, miniatures and what have you.
The VTT isn't a cool new feature so much as it is a survival tool for the forerunner in the "hobby" (which really, it isn't anymore as such) who wants to get access to some small portion of the billions of dollars in revenue Blizzard gets from WoW.
They have (so I have heard) cancelled the minis line, ended D&D Essentials and sacked much of the upper management. What this means remains to be seen (if the rumors are true), but I believe it augurs a move toward the virtual and away from the paper product.
IMO.
There are simply too many potential customers out there who are currently playing Fallout, Dragon Age, Wow, Red Dead and the like for WoTC to ignore. These are the new gamers and that's who they have to go after.
So, as much as we might bemoan the lack of VTT or the erratic quality of this or that online product, I think we can have faith that the corporation, as the organism it is, will do all it can to thrive in the new environment of 21st century gaming.
They have (so I have heard) cancelled the minis line, ended D&D Essentials and sacked much of the upper management. What this means remains to be seen (if the rumors are true), but I believe it augurs a move toward the virtual and away from the paper product.
Can we get some references? I know they killed the minis, but ended D&D Essentials? fire upper management? I mean I'd be dancing on my hat if that were true, but I don't see it...
Supposedly, much of the former executive types and their replacements are from the toy industry. It very well might be untrue, but it sounded plausible to me.
Here is an article that mentions the possibility of a 5th Edition announcement. This article also corroborates a lot of what I heard about the product line: here
From WoTC's corporate site: http://www.wizards.com/Company/Press.aspx?x=wz/press/47
This is interesting as well: www.geeknative.com/17903/are-wizards-of-...
At any rate, my prediction is that they re-focus the brand toward an online approach. If the core books are what sell best, they can print those and put new material for the game largely online in the future. Publishing in general is (slowly) moving in a similar direction.
O think a move toward the online will better position the company to compete with today's gamer's attentions.
I think it would be a good move, though a difficult one. Many companies are feeling the growing (or perhaps mutation) pains of moving toward a larger online presence.
We'll see what happens.
Can we get some references? I know they killed the minis, but ended D&D Essentials? fire upper management? I mean I'd be dancing on my hat if that were true, but I don't see it...
Under the assumption that things would be more to your liking with the new management...
Can we get some references? I know they killed the minis, but ended D&D Essentials? fire upper management? I mean I'd be dancing on my hat if that were true, but I don't see it...
Under the assumption that things would be more to your liking with the new management...
Yeah, your right, they'd probably do something worse, like balance by level. "At level 5 the fighter is more powerful than the wizard, at level 6 the ranger is more powerful, at level 7 the wizard is more powerful. It follows this pattern all the way forward to level 30". I've really lost any optimism I had for WotC and D&D at this point...
As for physical products, personally I wouldn't care if they never released another book until they try creating 5E some day. I already have more resources than I need to play a rich and full game and if I want anything else I just make it up. Anything released from this point out is just gravy if you ask me.
Optimism is contagious. The persistent negativity from certain posters is just tedious, even if it sometimes is factual. Furthermore, it's unimaginative and makes them look ... well, I don't need a ban so I'll shut up now.
Forward, DnD4E!
Blah, blah, blah, negative, blah, blah, ripoff, blah, blah, 4E is finished, blah, blah ...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Owned?
Owned. Perhaps we can just have a standard template for those who care to trash everything and just replace it with what I suggested above. Of course everyone's entitled to their opinions here as long as they're on topic, even though they may be tedious and repetitive, which is why I'll continue to counter those posts with cautious positivity (but not as relentlessly, since WoTC doesn't live rent-free in my head).
D&D does, however, get a huge discount for my head space. Can't help it, I've been playing since 1981!
Like i said, I don't know if it's true, but someone in the industry told me that they were dropping support for D&D Essentials and that the upper management had changed (in particular a marketing head had been replaced) but that none of the talent had changed. It certainly wouldn't be uncommon for a company to gut their management and replace them if said company felt that performance expectations had not been met.
Supposedly, much of the former executive types and their replacements are from the toy industry. It very well might be untrue, but it sounded plausible to me.
Here is an article that mentions the possibility of a 5th Edition announcement. This article also corroborates a lot of what I heard about the product line: here
From WoTC's corporate site: http://www.wizards.com/Company/Press.aspx?x=wz/press/47
This is interesting as well: www.geeknative.com/17903/are-wizards-of-...
At any rate, my prediction is that they re-focus the brand toward an online approach. If the core books are what sell best, they can print those and put new material for the game largely online in the future. Publishing in general is (slowly) moving in a similar direction.
O think a move toward the online will better position the company to compete with today's gamer's attentions.
I think it would be a good move, though a difficult one. Many companies are feeling the growing (or perhaps mutation) pains of moving toward a larger online presence.
We'll see what happens.
A 5th edition announcement is the authors pure conjecture. Nothing in the quoted parts from wotc hinted to me of a 5th edition, nor anything about firing upper management.
5th edition would be a disaster for D&D right now. essentials/4.5 just came out relatively speaking.
D&D isnt Magic the Gathering where the player base is willing to rebuying the entire game everything year when a new standard set comes out.
Like i said, I don't know if it's true, but someone in the industry told me that they were dropping support for D&D Essentials and that the upper management had changed (in particular a marketing head had been replaced) but that none of the talent had changed. It certainly wouldn't be uncommon for a company to gut their management and replace them if said company felt that performance expectations had not been met.
Supposedly, much of the former executive types and their replacements are from the toy industry. It very well might be untrue, but it sounded plausible to me.
Here is an article that mentions the possibility of a 5th Edition announcement. This article also corroborates a lot of what I heard about the product line: here
From WoTC's corporate site: http://www.wizards.com/Company/Press.aspx?x=wz/press/47
This is interesting as well: www.geeknative.com/17903/are-wizards-of-...
At any rate, my prediction is that they re-focus the brand toward an online approach. If the core books are what sell best, they can print those and put new material for the game largely online in the future. Publishing in general is (slowly) moving in a similar direction.
O think a move toward the online will better position the company to compete with today's gamer's attentions.
I think it would be a good move, though a difficult one. Many companies are feeling the growing (or perhaps mutation) pains of moving toward a larger online presence.
We'll see what happens.
A 5th edition announcement is the authors pure conjecture. Nothing in the quoted parts from wotc hinted to me of a 5th edition, nor anything about firing upper management.
5th edition would be a disaster for D&D right now. essentials/4.5 just came out relatively speaking.
D&D isnt Magic the Gathering where the player base is willing to rebuying the entire game everything year when a new standard set comes out.
The biggest issue I feel for doing a 5th edition is that what new system can they come up with, while still retaining the base ideas of DnD (Like ability scores, and bonus) that is going to be unique enough. Part of 4E was to reduce the complexity of 3.5, which could get pretty complex. I think they did that, and some complexity has creeped back in, simply because of volume of material, which isn't unexpected.
So, it would basically be a reboot, and rehashing of the same things. Lets start this time with Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, um...Ranger...and Druid and um...swordmage!
It would be bad. I don't think I would go for it, personally. There's enough 4E material for me to still get through that I wouldn't be interested in a 5th edition.
Yeah, your right, they'd probably do something worse, like balance by level. "At level 5 the fighter is more powerful than the wizard, at level 6 the ranger is more powerful, at level 7 the wizard is more powerful. It follows this pattern all the way forward to level 30". I've really lost any optimism I had for WotC and D&D at this point...
0.o Where is this coming from?
The biggest issue I feel for doing a 5th edition is that what new system can they come up with, while still retaining the base ideas of DnD (Like ability scores, and bonus) that is going to be unique enough. Part of 4E was to reduce the complexity of 3.5, which could get pretty complex. I think they did that, and some complexity has creeped back in, simply because of volume of material, which isn't unexpected.
So, it would basically be a reboot, and rehashing of the same things. Lets start this time with Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, um...Ranger...and Druid and um...swordmage!
It would be bad. I don't think I would go for it, personally. There's enough 4E material for me to still get through that I wouldn't be interested in a 5th edition.
Fully agree with you Dane. I think its pretty obvious what wotc business model they want to go with and its akin to MTG. Quick sets of rules that can be changed and replaced for a constant income stream. They tried it with minis, the gamma world cards, and they are adding it to D&D now.
WHen 5th ed comes out (whenever that may be) they would have to further change the ruleset to accomdate this income style.
At a certain point its no longer an RPG and the player/fan base would have to work with that.
The biggest issue I feel for doing a 5th edition is that what new system can they come up with, while still retaining the base ideas of DnD (Like ability scores, and bonus) that is going to be unique enough. Part of 4E was to reduce the complexity of 3.5, which could get pretty complex. I think they did that, and some complexity has creeped back in, simply because of volume of material, which isn't unexpected.
So, it would basically be a reboot, and rehashing of the same things. Lets start this time with Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, um...Ranger...and Druid and um...swordmage!
It would be bad. I don't think I would go for it, personally. There's enough 4E material for me to still get through that I wouldn't be interested in a 5th edition.
Fully agree with you Dane. I think its pretty obvious what wotc business model they want to go with and its akin to MTG. Quick sets of rules that can be changed and replaced for a constant income stream. They tried it with minis, the gamma world cards, and they are adding it to D&D now.
WHen 5th ed comes out (whenever that may be) they would have to further change the ruleset to accomdate this income style.
At a certain point its no longer an RPG and the player/fan base would have to work with that.
I think we would need to see another shift in gaming attitudes before we are going to get a real new revision. If anything I think the next revision will likely be far more digital to start off with. If not all digital.
Such as, we aren't putting out any books, it's all online and electronic. Doing that would make it so doing a reboot of the rules could make sense.
We shall see. Cause it felt like that's what they partially wanted with 4E, and they didn't quite make it. Not surprising, it's a hard jump to make for a company that basically puts out a niche product.
Yeah, your right, they'd probably do something worse, like balance by level. "At level 5 the fighter is more powerful than the wizard, at level 6 the ranger is more powerful, at level 7 the wizard is more powerful. It follows this pattern all the way forward to level 30". I've really lost any optimism I had for WotC and D&D at this point...
0.o Where is this coming from?
Just an example of how much worse they could make the game than Essentials...
Yeah, your right, they'd probably do something worse, like balance by level. "At level 5 the fighter is more powerful than the wizard, at level 6 the ranger is more powerful, at level 7 the wizard is more powerful. It follows this pattern all the way forward to level 30". I've really lost any optimism I had for WotC and D&D at this point...
0.o Where is this coming from?
Just an example of how much worse they could make the game than Essentials...
Have you played much Essentials?
Yes, I played it with my nephews. I found it insulting and lacking options. The characters were pre-optimized and they got boring real quick...
Yes, I played (Essentials) with my nephews. I found it insulting and lacking options. The characters were pre-optimized and they got boring real quick...
Lacking options, sure, I can somewhat understand that. (Did you try playing any non-martial characters, like the Mage?)
Boring? Well, tastes vary, I suppose. And the martial characters are intentionally designed to be simplistic, a variant that many gamers were specifically requesting from WotC. But what they like may not be what you like - that's fair.
Insulting??? I missed the part where the new Monster Vault tokens included orcs who are flipping you off, or the Heroes books included "your momma" jokes in the flavor text. How in the world did Essentials insult you?
That sort of exaggeration is the problem. At worst, Essentials catered to a playstyle that was different from your own. Finding insult in that demonstrates either a disconnect from reality, or is itself an insult towards people who enjoy that differing playstyle. Which is it?
I think I know that's your opinion. It just doesn't make sense. You were insulted? By a game? An object insulted you?
Well, that's your opinion. It doesn't make any sense, and it offers no insight.
Yes, just like someone can find a picture insulting, or something else insulting. I am insulted by the Essentials classes and its my opinion. Now you can check my sig for factual reasons why Essentials is bad design when tacked onto 4E...
Yes, just like someone can find a picture insulting, or something else insulting. I am insulted by the Essentials classes and its my opinion. Now you can check my sig for factual reasons why Essentials is bad design when tacked onto 4E...
I'm pretty sure your definition of 'factual' is about as strange as 'insulting'.
Look, I'm not trying to take away your right to have an opinion. You are free to dislike Essentials and to agree with the arguments against it. But calling it insulting just doesn't make sense - especially when you explain it as then having a bunch of encounters you easily overcome. 'Unsatisfying' would seem a better description. Insulting requires some sort of offense or attack - I simply cannot comprehend how your mind can turn disappointment in a game into a personal insult.
Orc_Ertai
It seems some people need to go back and read my post, here let me save you some trouble and quote the part you glossed over "I found it insulting", note the opinion part "I found" as in its my opinion.
Just because something is your opinion doesn't make it logical or right. And, guess what? Other people are allowed to comment on it and give their opinions! It is truely an amazing world we live in, Lok. A golden era of two way communication.
It seems some people need to go back and read my post, here let me save you some trouble and quote the part you glossed over "I found it insulting", note the opinion part "I found" as in its my opinion.
Just because something is your opinion doesn't make it logical or right. And, guess what? Other people are allowed to comment on it and give their opinions! It is truely an amazing world we live in, Lok. A golden era of two way communication.
Nice.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion, but I do have a problem with people telling me my opinion is "wrong" and "you can't have that opinion", which is what happened. If they had said "It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!" I would have been fine, but "You can't feel insulted" doesn't cut it.
It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion, but I do have a problem with people telling me my opinion is "wrong" and "you can't have that opinion", which is what happened. If they had said "It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!" I would have been fine, but "You can't feel insulted" doesn't cut it.
It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!
I'm ok with that...
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion, but I do have a problem with people telling me my opinion is "wrong" and "you can't have that opinion", which is what happened. If they had said "It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!" I would have been fine, but "You can't feel insulted" doesn't cut it.
They can tell you that when and only when your opinion is based on a faulty premise. Like say... you could say the Executioner is overpowered... but if you have no facts, evidence, etc. to back it up than it becomes your opinion. If others provide evidence to the contrary then your opinion becomes wrong.
In short if you say that in your opinion that dinosaurs came from a secret underwater city... expect to be told you are wrong.
In short if you say that in your opinion there that dinosaurs came from a secret underwater city... expect to be told you are wrong.
So much for the fabled Atlantisaurus.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion, but I do have a problem with people telling me my opinion is "wrong" and "you can't have that opinion", which is what happened. If they had said "It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!" I would have been fine, but "You can't feel insulted" doesn't cut it.
They can tell you that when and only when your opinion is based on a faulty premise. Like say... you could say the Executioner is overpowered... but if you have no facts, evidence, etc. to back it up than it becomes your opinion. If others provide evidence to the contrary then your opinion becomes wrong.
In short if you say that in your opinion there that dinosaurs came from a secret underwater city... expect to be told you are wrong.
IOW, you have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. (This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a bit of pseudo-wisdom I heard somewhere.)
If others provide evidence to the contrary then your opinion becomes wrong.
Depends on the quality of the evidence.
But I digress. I still have a positive opinion of WoTC and am a happy customer. How's that for re-railing?
In short if you say that in your opinion there that dinosaurs came from a secret underwater city... expect to be told you are wrong.
So much for the fabled Atlantisaurus.
There isn't any proof that dinosaurs didn't build a secret underwater city... just that they didn't come from there.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion, but I do have a problem with people telling me my opinion is "wrong" and "you can't have that opinion", which is what happened. If they had said "It is my opinion that your opinion sucks!" I would have been fine, but "You can't feel insulted" doesn't cut it.
They can tell you that when and only when your opinion is based on a faulty premise. Like say... you could say the Executioner is overpowered... but if you have no facts, evidence, etc. to back it up than it becomes your opinion. If others provide evidence to the contrary then your opinion becomes wrong.
In short if you say that in your opinion there that dinosaurs came from a secret underwater city... expect to be told you are wrong.
IOW, you have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. (This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a bit of pseudo-wisdom I heard somewhere.)
Correct but if evidence comes up to prove the contrary of your opinion... it is probably the best to either grasp for anothe reason to back up your opinion or abandon it completely.
If others provide evidence to the contrary then your opinion becomes wrong.
Depends on the quality of the evidence.
But I digress. I still have a positive opinion of WoTC and am a happy customer. How's that for re-railing?
I have a positive opinion of WoTC but am a somewhat apathetic customer at the moment! Boom! Thread half de-railed! Only on one track now!
Please stay on topic, be polite and friendly, and if you have issues with others report their posts, or put them on ignore, or report them via the Help Site (wizards.custhelp.com). Do not discuss it in any forum thread, it's never on topic here.
Thanks.
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
And in the end, the most realistic POV is neither.
Any given thing will, in the greater likelyhood, be less awesome than the optimists hope for, and less crap than the pessimists insist will be the case.
Aside(even more): It always makes me laugh when pessimists think that they are realists. It's cute, really. Like little kids that try to wear their parents' clothes and look silly.
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
And in the end, the most realistic POV is neither.
Any given thing will, in the greater likelyhood, be less awesome than the optimists hope for, and less crap than the pessimists insist will be the case.
Aside(even more): It always makes me laugh when pessimists think that they are realists. It's cute, really. Like little kids that try to wear their parents' clothes and look silly.
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling the pessimists really are being realists...
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
************
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
And in the end, the most realistic POV is neither.
Any given thing will, in the greater likelyhood, be less awesome than the optimists hope for, and less crap than the pessimists insist will be the case.
Aside(even more): It always makes me laugh when pessimists think that they are realists. It's cute, really. Like little kids that try to wear their parents' clothes and look silly.
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling the pessimists really are being realists...
Thank you once again for your opinion represented as fact. Care to try again with a better/different argument?
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
And in the end, the most realistic POV is neither.
Any given thing will, in the greater likelyhood, be less awesome than the optimists hope for, and less crap than the pessimists insist will be the case.
Aside(even more): It always makes me laugh when pessimists think that they are realists. It's cute, really. Like little kids that try to wear their parents' clothes and look silly.
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling the pessimists really are being realists...
Thank you once again for your opinion represented as fact. Care to try again with a better/different argument?
*shrug* I didn't take his reply as anything but his opinion on the situation.
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling the pessimists really are being realists...
Thank you once again for your opinion represented as fact. Care to try again with a better/different argument?
*shrug* I didn't take his reply as anything but his opinion on the situation.
I see reasoning:
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling
followed by a claim.
the pessimists really are being realists...
I see reasoning:Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling
followed by a claim.the pessimists really are being realists...
I am going to *shrug* again. I see a lot more than that going on from your response than with Lokiare's comment.
Maybe actually discuss his comment rather than the way it was presented?
Maybe actually discuss his comment rather than the way it was presented?
Of course a pessimist would say his view is correct. It's his view. It would be odd (read: schizophrenic) for him to say otherwise. In other words, like many of Loks posts, there's really not much there to discuss.
Maybe actually discuss his comment rather than the way it was presented?
Of course a pessimist would say his view is correct. It's his view. It would be odd (read: schizophrenic) for him to say otherwise. In other words, like many of Loks posts, there's really not much there to discuss.
Yeah, so if there's nothing to say, why say anything?
/me is a cynical optimist.
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
And in the end, the most realistic POV is neither.
Any given thing will, in the greater likelyhood, be less awesome than the optimists hope for, and less crap than the pessimists insist will be the case.
Aside(even more): It always makes me laugh when pessimists think that they are realists. It's cute, really. Like little kids that try to wear their parents' clothes and look silly.
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling the pessimists really are being realists...
To use your phraseology: Except that the pessimists are stating opinions which amount to doomsaying, where a realistic review of the history of the company shows that there will be changes and decisions which irritate or anger segments of the community, but the game will carry on and survive. WoTC is unlikely to go under, and are almost as unlikely to lose/stop making DnD. In the meantime, the game will change, as it's always done. Those who like the changes will stick around, and those who don't will continue to play whatever ruleset they enjoyed.
Pessimism is rarely any more realistic than optimists. In most cases, things will both suck and rock, as it were.
Optimism doesn't give me a paycheck at the end of the day,
Neither does pessimism. Just sayin'.
And in the end, the most realistic POV is neither.
Any given thing will, in the greater likelyhood, be less awesome than the optimists hope for, and less crap than the pessimists insist will be the case.
Aside(even more): It always makes me laugh when pessimists think that they are realists. It's cute, really. Like little kids that try to wear their parents' clothes and look silly.
Except that in a down economy with companies pulling the stuff WotC has been pulling the pessimists really are being realists...
To use your phraseology: Except that the pessimists are stating opinions which amount to doomsaying, where a realistic review of the history of the company shows that there will be changes and decisions which irritate or anger segments of the community, but the game will carry on and survive. WoTC is unlikely to go under, and are almost as unlikely to lose/stop making DnD. In the meantime, the game will change, as it's always done. Those who like the changes will stick around, and those who don't will continue to play whatever ruleset they enjoyed.
Pessimism is rarely any more realistic than optimists. In most cases, things will both suck and rock, as it were.
This...
As for the VTT, so far, I'm loving it. I've tried to use stuff like maptools before and found it to be very offputting. The new VTT from wizards is beautiful and makes me just want to design and tinker and create. Instead of a giant pain trying to program everything from scratch, it just works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but its so user friendly, it almost makes up for all its flaws. I don't like that they've removed local import because I spend a lot of time building characters and backing them up. The imported version from the OCB are incomplete and there are lots of customizations I've made to the way they display. But thats small considering its in beta.
I'm also noticing increasing and improved dungeon/dragon content. This is great. I love the published adventure material and there is a LOT of it.
I'm looking forward to having a fully functional monster builder online so I can tinker with monsters on my multiple machines the same way I now tinker with characters and the VTT.
At 70$ a year for all this, I think its beyond a bargain. I mean I get years worth of gaming content, more than I can possibly consume, a solid character builder, a VTT in beta thats already usable, generally interesting articles and more. I spend more time online interacting with the DDI offerings from wizards than I do watching cable TV and I pay like $50 a month for that. DDI is barely more than that for a whole year.
I really like the OCB. I think its a great improvement in most areas. It's far from perfect, but so was the offline one. The biggest improvement for me is that I often work on characters for myself and for the people I DM for on several different computers. Before, it was always a pain to export and email the character file to the different locations and make sure I had updated versions of everything in multiple locations. Now, its not an issue at all. I work on a character and just close the app whenever I want. Next time I open it, it asks me if I want to continue working on it. Perfect. One of my players on a Mac used to always have to arrive early so he could do his character updates pre-game. Now he shows up with character sheet in hand. Wonderful. So far, I've not experienced the problems others have. But thats just me. Just the other day, I was at a friends house and we were talking D&D. He wanted to see my character and I just hopped on his computer and logged in. There it was. This is what I think modern D&D should look like. My only gripe is the limit on 20 characters. I could personally use about 25 and then I'd have no issues. (I run 2 separate campaigns and play in a third so 20 is just short of what I would really like to have)
As for the VTT, so far, I'm loving it. I've tried to use stuff like maptools before and found it to be very offputting. The new VTT from wizards is beautiful and makes me just want to design and tinker and create. Instead of a giant pain trying to program everything from scratch, it just works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but its so user friendly, it almost makes up for all its flaws. I don't like that they've removed local import because I spend a lot of time building characters and backing them up. The imported version from the OCB are incomplete and there are lots of customizations I've made to the way they display. But thats small considering its in beta.
I'm also noticing increasing and improved dungeon/dragon content. This is great. I love the published adventure material and there is a LOT of it.
I'm looking forward to having a fully functional monster builder online so I can tinker with monsters on my multiple machines the same way I now tinker with characters and the VTT.
At 70$ a year for all this, I think its beyond a bargain. I mean I get years worth of gaming content, more than I can possibly consume, a solid character builder, a VTT in beta thats already usable, generally interesting articles and more. I spend more time online interacting with the DDI offerings from wizards than I do watching cable TV and I pay like $50 a month for that. DDI is barely more than that for a whole year.
I'd say with the VT a bug free OCB, online compendium, and a bug free OMB it might be worth $70 a year, maybe...
I really like the OCB. I think its a great improvement in most areas. It's far from perfect, but so was the offline one. The biggest improvement for me is that I often work on characters for myself and for the people I DM for on several different computers. Before, it was always a pain to export and email the character file to the different locations and make sure I had updated versions of everything in multiple locations. Now, its not an issue at all. I work on a character and just close the app whenever I want. Next time I open it, it asks me if I want to continue working on it. Perfect. One of my players on a Mac used to always have to arrive early so he could do his character updates pre-game. Now he shows up with character sheet in hand. Wonderful. So far, I've not experienced the problems others have. But thats just me. Just the other day, I was at a friends house and we were talking D&D. He wanted to see my character and I just hopped on his computer and logged in. There it was. This is what I think modern D&D should look like. My only gripe is the limit on 20 characters. I could personally use about 25 and then I'd have no issues. (I run 2 separate campaigns and play in a third so 20 is just short of what I would really like to have)
As for the VTT, so far, I'm loving it. I've tried to use stuff like maptools before and found it to be very offputting. The new VTT from wizards is beautiful and makes me just want to design and tinker and create. Instead of a giant pain trying to program everything from scratch, it just works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but its so user friendly, it almost makes up for all its flaws. I don't like that they've removed local import because I spend a lot of time building characters and backing them up. The imported version from the OCB are incomplete and there are lots of customizations I've made to the way they display. But thats small considering its in beta.
I'm also noticing increasing and improved dungeon/dragon content. This is great. I love the published adventure material and there is a LOT of it.
I'm looking forward to having a fully functional monster builder online so I can tinker with monsters on my multiple machines the same way I now tinker with characters and the VTT.
At 70$ a year for all this, I think its beyond a bargain. I mean I get years worth of gaming content, more than I can possibly consume, a solid character builder, a VTT in beta thats already usable, generally interesting articles and more. I spend more time online interacting with the DDI offerings from wizards than I do watching cable TV and I pay like $50 a month for that. DDI is barely more than that for a whole year.
I'd say with the VT a bug free OCB, online compendium, and a bug free OMB it might be worth $70 a year, maybe...
I'd pay $70 a year for the VTT alone once it's finished. Like I said, I pay $50 a MONTH for cable and I get more content and use out of my DDI sub by FAR. We all have different ideas of value, but IMO DDI is an awesome one compared to what you spend elsewhere for less. I spend $70 to go to about 4 movies with popcorn and pop. Or I spent $70 on the last 2 hard cover monster manuals. I'd rather have a year of adventures in Dungeon to be played with my group all year than go to 4 movies in the theater or get a couple of hard covers. DDI is cheap when you think about what else you could get for that money.
I really like the OCB. I think its a great improvement in most areas. It's far from perfect, but so was the offline one. The biggest improvement for me is that I often work on characters for myself and for the people I DM for on several different computers. Before, it was always a pain to export and email the character file to the different locations and make sure I had updated versions of everything in multiple locations. Now, its not an issue at all. I work on a character and just close the app whenever I want. Next time I open it, it asks me if I want to continue working on it. Perfect. One of my players on a Mac used to always have to arrive early so he could do his character updates pre-game. Now he shows up with character sheet in hand. Wonderful. So far, I've not experienced the problems others have. But thats just me. Just the other day, I was at a friends house and we were talking D&D. He wanted to see my character and I just hopped on his computer and logged in. There it was. This is what I think modern D&D should look like. My only gripe is the limit on 20 characters. I could personally use about 25 and then I'd have no issues. (I run 2 separate campaigns and play in a third so 20 is just short of what I would really like to have)
As for the VTT, so far, I'm loving it. I've tried to use stuff like maptools before and found it to be very offputting. The new VTT from wizards is beautiful and makes me just want to design and tinker and create. Instead of a giant pain trying to program everything from scratch, it just works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but its so user friendly, it almost makes up for all its flaws. I don't like that they've removed local import because I spend a lot of time building characters and backing them up. The imported version from the OCB are incomplete and there are lots of customizations I've made to the way they display. But thats small considering its in beta.
I'm also noticing increasing and improved dungeon/dragon content. This is great. I love the published adventure material and there is a LOT of it.
I'm looking forward to having a fully functional monster builder online so I can tinker with monsters on my multiple machines the same way I now tinker with characters and the VTT.
At 70$ a year for all this, I think its beyond a bargain. I mean I get years worth of gaming content, more than I can possibly consume, a solid character builder, a VTT in beta thats already usable, generally interesting articles and more. I spend more time online interacting with the DDI offerings from wizards than I do watching cable TV and I pay like $50 a month for that. DDI is barely more than that for a whole year.
I'd say with the VT a bug free OCB, online compendium, and a bug free OMB it might be worth $70 a year, maybe...
I'd pay $70 a year for the VTT alone once it's finished. Like I said, I pay $50 a MONTH for cable and I get more content and use out of my DDI sub by FAR. We all have different ideas of value, but IMO DDI is an awesome one compared to what you spend elsewhere for less. I spend $70 to go to about 4 movies with popcorn and pop. Or I spent $70 on the last 2 hard cover monster manuals. I'd rather have a year of adventures in Dungeon to be played with my group all year than go to 4 movies in the theater or get a couple of hard covers. DDI is cheap when you think about what else you could get for that money.
I pay $8 for netflix on-demand per month and get access to 1000's of movies and tv series episodes. I use Hulu for free for ongoing shows. I pay $39.99 per month for mid speed DSL. I buy my video games used for $10-$30, and I do a lot of research before I buy anything. I mean sure if I had the disposable income to just flush down the toilet I'd jump on the DDi bandwagon, but I don't and I think a lot of people feel the same way...
I really like the OCB. I think its a great improvement in most areas. It's far from perfect, but so was the offline one. The biggest improvement for me is that I often work on characters for myself and for the people I DM for on several different computers. Before, it was always a pain to export and email the character file to the different locations and make sure I had updated versions of everything in multiple locations. Now, its not an issue at all. I work on a character and just close the app whenever I want. Next time I open it, it asks me if I want to continue working on it. Perfect. One of my players on a Mac used to always have to arrive early so he could do his character updates pre-game. Now he shows up with character sheet in hand. Wonderful. So far, I've not experienced the problems others have. But thats just me. Just the other day, I was at a friends house and we were talking D&D. He wanted to see my character and I just hopped on his computer and logged in. There it was. This is what I think modern D&D should look like. My only gripe is the limit on 20 characters. I could personally use about 25 and then I'd have no issues. (I run 2 separate campaigns and play in a third so 20 is just short of what I would really like to have)
As for the VTT, so far, I'm loving it. I've tried to use stuff like maptools before and found it to be very offputting. The new VTT from wizards is beautiful and makes me just want to design and tinker and create. Instead of a giant pain trying to program everything from scratch, it just works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but its so user friendly, it almost makes up for all its flaws. I don't like that they've removed local import because I spend a lot of time building characters and backing them up. The imported version from the OCB are incomplete and there are lots of customizations I've made to the way they display. But thats small considering its in beta.
I'm also noticing increasing and improved dungeon/dragon content. This is great. I love the published adventure material and there is a LOT of it.
I'm looking forward to having a fully functional monster builder online so I can tinker with monsters on my multiple machines the same way I now tinker with characters and the VTT.
At 70$ a year for all this, I think its beyond a bargain. I mean I get years worth of gaming content, more than I can possibly consume, a solid character builder, a VTT in beta thats already usable, generally interesting articles and more. I spend more time online interacting with the DDI offerings from wizards than I do watching cable TV and I pay like $50 a month for that. DDI is barely more than that for a whole year.
I'd say with the VT a bug free OCB, online compendium, and a bug free OMB it might be worth $70 a year, maybe...
I'd pay $70 a year for the VTT alone once it's finished. Like I said, I pay $50 a MONTH for cable and I get more content and use out of my DDI sub by FAR. We all have different ideas of value, but IMO DDI is an awesome one compared to what you spend elsewhere for less. I spend $70 to go to about 4 movies with popcorn and pop. Or I spent $70 on the last 2 hard cover monster manuals. I'd rather have a year of adventures in Dungeon to be played with my group all year than go to 4 movies in the theater or get a couple of hard covers. DDI is cheap when you think about what else you could get for that money.
I pay $8 for netflix on-demand per month and get access to 1000's of movies and tv series episodes. I use Hulu for free for ongoing shows. I pay $39.99 per month for mid speed DSL. I buy my video games used for $10-$30, and I do a lot of research before I buy anything. I mean sure if I had the disposable income to just flush down the toilet I'd jump on the DDi bandwagon, but I don't and I think a lot of people feel the same way...
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
See that's where we differ. I use Netflix and Hulu almost exclusively. So I'm getting 100+ hours a month out of both combined (I watch a lot of shows while I'm doing other things). So I'm really paying pennies to watch each show. DDi I used once to twice a month when my nephews come over to play D&D. I use it when I argue over the forums, but that's about it. So with buggy tools and lowered content. I get very little out of it.
If your happy about it, I encourage you to use it and have fun. I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
See that's where we differ. I use Netflix and Hulu almost exclusively. So I'm getting 100+ hours a month out of both combined (I watch a lot of shows while I'm doing other things). So I'm really paying pennies to watch each show. DDi I used once to twice a month when my nephews come over to play D&D. I use it when I argue over the forums, but that's about it. So with buggy tools and lowered content. I get very little out of it.
If your happy about it, I encourage you to use it and have fun. I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
I don't know what "should have been". I think thats a terrible thing to worry oneself about. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I look at what I actually have and how much I use it. If you don't use a tool, it makes no sense to pay for it. But I use it all the time so its a great value for me. If you're watching 100 plus hours of movies per month, that averages out to 2.2 movies per day. No wonder you don't have any money to spend. You're spending all your time watching 2 movies a day! ;) With a schedule like that, you probably don't have time to play D&D anyway. I don't experience much in the way of bugs but we all use stuff differently.
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
See that's where we differ. I use Netflix and Hulu almost exclusively. So I'm getting 100+ hours a month out of both combined (I watch a lot of shows while I'm doing other things). So I'm really paying pennies to watch each show. DDi I used once to twice a month when my nephews come over to play D&D. I use it when I argue over the forums, but that's about it. So with buggy tools and lowered content. I get very little out of it.
If your happy about it, I encourage you to use it and have fun. I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
I don't know what "should have been". I think thats a terrible thing to worry oneself about. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I look at what I actually have and how much I use it. If you don't use a tool, it makes no sense to pay for it. But I use it all the time so its a great value for me. If you're watching 100 plus hours of movies per month, that averages out to 2.2 movies per day. No wonder you don't have any money to spend. You're spending all your time watching 2 movies a day! ;) With a schedule like that, you probably don't have time to play D&D anyway. I don't experience much in the way of bugs but we all use stuff differently.
Well, I'm unemployed, so right now I have litterally all the time in the world...
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
See that's where we differ. I use Netflix and Hulu almost exclusively. So I'm getting 100+ hours a month out of both combined (I watch a lot of shows while I'm doing other things). So I'm really paying pennies to watch each show. DDi I used once to twice a month when my nephews come over to play D&D. I use it when I argue over the forums, but that's about it. So with buggy tools and lowered content. I get very little out of it.
If your happy about it, I encourage you to use it and have fun. I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
I don't know what "should have been". I think thats a terrible thing to worry oneself about. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I look at what I actually have and how much I use it. If you don't use a tool, it makes no sense to pay for it. But I use it all the time so its a great value for me. If you're watching 100 plus hours of movies per month, that averages out to 2.2 movies per day. No wonder you don't have any money to spend. You're spending all your time watching 2 movies a day! ;) With a schedule like that, you probably don't have time to play D&D anyway. I don't experience much in the way of bugs but we all use stuff differently.
Well, I'm unemployed, so right now I have litterally all the time in the world...
Sorry to hear that. Hope things turn around for you.
I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
A difference in expectation.
I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
A difference in expectation.
An expectation brought about by WotC, not people with their head in the clouds...
I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
It's quite trivial.
People look at what DDI currently offers. If, to them, it is a good deal for the price, they will be happy.
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
See that's where we differ. I use Netflix and Hulu almost exclusively. So I'm getting 100+ hours a month out of both combined (I watch a lot of shows while I'm doing other things). So I'm really paying pennies to watch each show. DDi I used once to twice a month when my nephews come over to play D&D. I use it when I argue over the forums, but that's about it. So with buggy tools and lowered content. I get very little out of it.
If your happy about it, I encourage you to use it and have fun. I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
A difference in expectation.
An expectation brought about by WotC, not people with their head in the clouds...
You seem to be arguing two different points here Lokiare. The baseline of course is "what is". This represents what you are specifically actually getting for your sub as it stands right now.
- What could have been (or as you phrased it "what should have been")
- What is advertised
Your post seems to be suggesting that (for example) if they hadn't made the move to online tools we would (right now) have feature set A ("what should have been") because they would have spent all that "lost time" on other stuff. Instead we have feature set B ("what is") and "you don't see how people can be happy about the gap between (feature set A and feature set B)". Neither of those feature sets have anything to do with "what is advertised". This makes your claim of "an expectation brought about by WotC" false. The correct comparison for "An expectation brought about by WotC" is between feature set C ("what is advertised") and feature set B ("what is"). If I have misunderstood what you're saying please correct me.
Good point. I pay $8 per month on Netflix too. I spend about 4-6 hours per month watching steamed Netflix movies. I spend about 24 hours per month on DDi or using content from DDi. So I spend more on Netflix then I do on DDi and I use it less each month. So you're right, DDi IS a great value in comparison for me.
See that's where we differ. I use Netflix and Hulu almost exclusively. So I'm getting 100+ hours a month out of both combined (I watch a lot of shows while I'm doing other things). So I'm really paying pennies to watch each show. DDi I used once to twice a month when my nephews come over to play D&D. I use it when I argue over the forums, but that's about it. So with buggy tools and lowered content. I get very little out of it.
If your happy about it, I encourage you to use it and have fun. I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...I just don't see how people can be happy about the gap between what should have been and what is now...
A difference in expectation.
An expectation brought about by WotC, not people with their head in the clouds...
You seem to be arguing two different points here Lokiare. The baseline of course is "what is". This represents what you are specifically actually getting for your sub as it stands right now.
- What could have been (or as you phrased it "what should have been")
- What is advertised
Your post seems to be suggesting that (for example) if they hadn't made the move to online tools we would (right now) have feature set A ("what should have been") because they would have spent all that "lost time" on other stuff. Instead we have feature set B ("what is") and "you don't see how people can be happy about the gap between (feature set A and feature set B)". Neither of those feature sets have anything to do with "what is advertised". This makes your claim of "an expectation brought about by WotC" false. The correct comparison for "An expectation brought about by WotC" is between feature set C ("what is advertised") and feature set B ("what is"). If I have misunderstood what you're saying please correct me.
You got the gist of it. But you are still incorrect. WotC brought about our expectation by saying when 4E came out that we would have X, Y, and Z on release day. Then they changed it to X, and Y. Then they changed it to X, then they said a few month out we will have X. Then they finally got X, and then they finally got Y. Then they started over. The expectation was that we would have X, Y, and Z on release, it was set by them and their massive (for WotC) advertising campaign. Our expectation are also set by outside companies that regularly deliver content in a reasonable amount of time.
You got the gist of it. But you are still incorrect. WotC brought about our expectation by saying when 4E came out that we would have X, Y, and Z on release day. Then they changed it to X, and Y. Then they changed it to X, then they said a few month out we will have X. Then they finally got X, and then they finally got Y. Then they started over. The expectation was that we would have X, Y, and Z on release, it was set by them and their massive (for WotC) advertising campaign. Our expectation are also set by outside companies that regularly deliver content in a reasonable amount of time.
Then I still have to disagree on the basis of "buyer beware". One of the following is true:
1) You bought DDI expressly because of something they promised, but never delivered
2) You bought DDI because of what it offers "right now"
3) Some combination of the above.
You cannot simply absolve the buyer (anyone in general) of any responsibility which is what you are attempting to do. If reason #1 had any part in a persons reason to purchase DDI then that person set themselves up to be disappointed and have no one but themselves to blame when that disappointment comes to fruition. Capitalism works specifically becuase both parties are looking out for their own interests. You can't just wave your hand and lay all the blame for your own personal failure at the feet of the other party.
You cannot simply absolve the buyer (anyone in general) of any responsibility which is what you are attempting to do. If reason #1 had any part in a persons reason to purchase DDI then that person set themselves up to be disappointed and have no one but themselves to blame when that disappointment comes to fruition. Capitalism works specifically becuase both parties are looking out for their own interests. You can't just wave your hand and lay all the blame for your own personal failure at the feet of the other party.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the buyer is absolved. Merely that he/she has the grounds to complain.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the buyer is absolved. Merely that he/she has the grounds to complain.
Lokiare isn't arguing that a customer has the grounds to complain - that's perfectly fair. He's arguing that customers don't have the grounds to not complain - that it isn't possible for someone to be satisfied with the current offering, on the basis that it doesn't live up to the original promised offering.
I find that profoundly silly, myself. One's satisfaction with a product should be measured by the product itself. Is it worth the price? That's the question.
For me, I'm disappointed with some of the changes that have been happening in DDI. I'm hopeful about others. But overall, I still find it worth my money. I'm not seeing that needs to be the same for others.
You cannot simply absolve the buyer (anyone in general) of any responsibility which is what you are attempting to do. If reason #1 had any part in a persons reason to purchase DDI then that person set themselves up to be disappointed and have no one but themselves to blame when that disappointment comes to fruition. Capitalism works specifically becuase both parties are looking out for their own interests. You can't just wave your hand and lay all the blame for your own personal failure at the feet of the other party.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the buyer is absolved. Merely that he/she has the grounds to complain.
But in this case Jharii he is attempting to say that WotC is to blame for the complaints which is completely untrue. If you pay for a service for a feature a company advertises "will be available in the future" and something happens and the plans change and said feature never happens, then the only person to blame is the buyer. I'm sick of people not being willing to take responsibility for their own failures and trying to blame someone else.
If his comment had been something like:
"I'm such an idiot for believing WotC would deliver X" then I'd be more than happy to go along with it.
You cannot simply absolve the buyer (anyone in general) of any responsibility which is what you are attempting to do. If reason #1 had any part in a persons reason to purchase DDI then that person set themselves up to be disappointed and have no one but themselves to blame when that disappointment comes to fruition. Capitalism works specifically becuase both parties are looking out for their own interests. You can't just wave your hand and lay all the blame for your own personal failure at the feet of the other party.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the buyer is absolved. Merely that he/she has the grounds to complain.
But in this case Jharii he is attempting to say that WotC is to blame for the complaints which is completely untrue. If you pay for a service for a feature a company advertises "will be available in the future" and something happens and the plans change and said feature never happens, then the only person to blame is the buyer. I'm sick of people not being willing to take responsibility for their own failures and trying to blame someone else.
If his comment had been something like:
"I'm such an idiot for believing WotC would deliver X" then I'd be more than happy to go along with it.
It looks to me like your absolving WotC of blame and trying to make it look like the customer was to blame.
Your right though, SHAME on us for taking WotC's word on what they said they'd do. We know better now...
If anything customers of WotC should learn from this that WotC cannot be trusted and we should have a wait and see attitude from here on out. They can announce whatever they want, but I won't believe them... They sure taught me THAT lesson...
...we should have a wait and see attitude from here on out...
Huh, this has been my stance from the beginning. I guess we can finally agree on something.
It looks to me like your absolving WotC of blame and trying to make it look like the customer was to blame.
In this case that is essentailly correct.
If a company has a service and says "our plan is to add these features some time down the road to the service", then you (a paying customer) buy the service for the features that are not yet available then you are making a bet. You are gambling that the company can/will deliever. It's pretty much no different from putting your money in the stock market or going to the race track and betting on the horses. Some times your bet will pay off and some times it won't. Regardless, you are responsible for the outcome because you are the one betting YOUR money. On the other side the company is betting it's money that there will be enough customers that will buy a product to justify investing money in the development of said product. There is never a time when a customer should be betting their money on an unreleased product. Let the company bet their money and buy it when it's done.
Your right though, SHAME on us for taking WotC's word on what they said they'd do. We know better now...
What I am saying is true for any company/product in existance, not just WotC. I'm sorry that you're so bitter and therefore think I'm limiting my comments to just them.
If anything customers of WotC should learn from this that WotC cannot be trusted and we should have a wait and see attitude from here on out. They can announce whatever they want, but I won't believe them... They sure taught me THAT lesson...
No company should ever be trusted pretty much. Let them bet their money and IF they produce a product you want then spend your money.
You cannot simply absolve the buyer (anyone in general) of any responsibility which is what you are attempting to do. If reason #1 had any part in a persons reason to purchase DDI then that person set themselves up to be disappointed and have no one but themselves to blame when that disappointment comes to fruition. Capitalism works specifically becuase both parties are looking out for their own interests. You can't just wave your hand and lay all the blame for your own personal failure at the feet of the other party.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the buyer is absolved. Merely that he/she has the grounds to complain.
But in this case Jharii he is attempting to say that WotC is to blame for the complaints which is completely untrue. If you pay for a service for a feature a company advertises "will be available in the future" and something happens and the plans change and said feature never happens, then the only person to blame is the buyer. I'm sick of people not being willing to take responsibility for their own failures and trying to blame someone else.
If his comment had been something like:
"I'm such an idiot for believing WotC would deliver X" then I'd be more than happy to go along with it.
It looks to me like your absolving WotC of blame and trying to make it look like the customer was to blame.
Your right though, SHAME on us for taking WotC's word on what they said they'd do. We know better now...
If anything customers of WotC should learn from this that WotC cannot be trusted and we should have a wait and see attitude from here on out. They can announce whatever they want, but I won't believe them... They sure taught me THAT lesson...
I have had that since the beginning. However, I have learned something new as well. Never trust WotC with the CURRENT products as well, and never trust the things they say as the reason they are doing what they are doing.
Well done WotC, well done.
@rjdafoe & Lokiare: Do you trust anything that comes out of a politicians mouth? If not, then why would a company be any different. You're trying to cast this as if we should have trusted WotC at some point in the past and that current events should cause us to not trust them any more. What I'm saying is that you never should have trusted them in the first place, and if you did then it's your own damn fault.
I trusted them that when they came out with a product, that they would not then, 2 years later, start all over again instead. My already low opinion of digital products at WotC are now non-existant. At this point, they will never receive money from me again for digital products - as they cannot be trusted at all.
Most companies build a trust with their customers. That is the way it works. WotC seems to be the exact oppposite of companies such as Blizzard and Paizo.
Most companies build a trust with their customers.
Yes. Indeed they do. As a matter of fact, that same trust exists within Wizards of the Coast and their customers in the Magic: The Gathering family. Unfortunately, that same bond does not exist with the D&D product line, for the most part.
Trust is a huge commodity in business. All companies cherish it. It's what drives brand recognition. If you don't have the trust and faith of your regular customers, you will soon find yourself in failing business venture.
Most companies build a trust with their customers.
Yes. Indeed they do. As a matter of fact, that same trust exists within Wizards of the Coast and their customers in the Magic: The Gathering family. Unfortunately, that same bond does not exist with the D&D product line, for the most part.
Trust is a huge commodity in business. All companies cherish it. It's what drives brand recognition. If you don't have the trust and faith of your regular customers, you will soon find yourself in failing business venture.
Exactly. Its why I drop $60 on a new halo game every time it comes out. I do glance at the reviews first, but I don't examine it with an electron microscope like I would a totally new game that I didn't know anything about.
Its brand recognition. Beleive it or not it does make a difference, and you can lose it with continuous bad decisions...
Your right though, SHAME on us for taking WotC's word on what they said they'd do. We know better now...
If anything customers of WotC should learn from this that WotC cannot be trusted and we should have a wait and see attitude from here on out. They can announce whatever they want, but I won't believe them... They sure taught me THAT lesson...
At the time one purchased a subscription, it listed what WotC was offering as part of that subscription. When the original VTT and such were abandoned, and DDI just offering the Compendium, Character Builder, and magazines, then yes, the customer is at fault if they sign up expecting a VTT and get mad at WotC for it not being available.
If the customer instead chose to not get a subscription because of the lack of a VTT, then WotC is the one who loses a customer and pays the price for not following through on their original plans.
The 'Wait and See' approach is exactly what people are talking about as the reasonable approach for customers. If the current offering is worth the price, pay for it. If not, don't.
Buying a subscription when you know it doesn't contain what you want, and then blaming WotC because of it, is not a reasonable course of action.
rjdafoe talks about being upset that WotC changed direction for their digital products. I can understand being disappointed in such a thing, and no longer subscribing to a service that does not offer what one wants. But his stance makes it sound like he feels that the change in direction somehow retroactively reduced the value of his previous subscription. That because of it, even if WotC starts offering a digital product that is perfect for him, he will never again be willing to pay for it.
That's what I don't get. You don't like what they are offering, don't buy it. Were you dissatisfied with their service for the last two years? If not, then clearly they were delivering an acceptable service for that period of time, and it is possible for them to do so again. If not, then why in the world would one subscribe for two entire years??
Except they kinda did promise us more than they delivered. Remember the "lock in your price now before we add more stuff and raise it" near the beginning. They were implying that you could get some kind of discount if you locked your sub in for another year or two, when in actuality they did little or nothing...
But they *did* raise the price when the introductory pricing ended, which was why they offered the lock in deal. The people who locked their accounts in then got an extra year (or two, depending on how close to renewal their account was) at the lower introductory price.
People were given, IIRC, about 2 months of warning that the Introductory price was ending, prices *were* going up, and that if they wanted, they could lock in. It was also noted that people who were locked in would not be forced to pay extra for any additional tools should they come out during the life of their contract.
Your right though, SHAME on us for taking WotC's word on what they said they'd do. We know better now...
If anything customers of WotC should learn from this that WotC cannot be trusted and we should have a wait and see attitude from here on out. They can announce whatever they want, but I won't believe them... They sure taught me THAT lesson...
At the time one purchased a subscription, it listed what WotC was offering as part of that subscription. When the original VTT and such were abandoned, and DDI just offering the Compendium, Character Builder, and magazines, then yes, the customer is at fault if they sign up expecting a VTT and get mad at WotC for it not being available.
If the customer instead chose to not get a subscription because of the lack of a VTT, then WotC is the one who loses a customer and pays the price for not following through on their original plans.
The 'Wait and See' approach is exactly what people are talking about as the reasonable approach for customers. If the current offering is worth the price, pay for it. If not, don't.
Buying a subscription when you know it doesn't contain what you want, and then blaming WotC because of it, is not a reasonable course of action.
rjdafoe talks about being upset that WotC changed direction for their digital products. I can understand being disappointed in such a thing, and no longer subscribing to a service that does not offer what one wants. But his stance makes it sound like he feels that the change in direction somehow retroactively reduced the value of his previous subscription. That because of it, even if WotC starts offering a digital product that is perfect for him, he will never again be willing to pay for it.
That's what I don't get. You don't like what they are offering, don't buy it. Were you dissatisfied with their service for the last two years? If not, then clearly they were delivering an acceptable service for that period of time, and it is possible for them to do so again. If not, then why in the world would one subscribe for two entire years??
It sounds like you do not have a history with D&D digital products. I was happy for 2 years with what I purchased. In fact, despite my comments that I was unhappy that new products where not coming out and such, I said that the CB is what made me subscribe and it was worth the price for me.
The problem is this: I lived through and was part of the 3e "digital stuff" - e-tools, master tools, and what they became in the end. Now, after doing the SAME THING (actually maybe worse IMO) I am done with their digital offerings. I will not be fooled again.
So yes, I will never again pay for it, or trust the company in their digital offerings. Maybe in 2 years or so when they re- release the CB in whatever is the current "cool" format, you may feel the same.
But his stance makes it sound like he feels that the change in direction somehow retroactively reduced the value of his previous subscription. That because of it, even if WotC starts offering a digital product that is perfect for him, he will never again be willing to pay for it.
That's what I don't get. You don't like what they are offering, don't buy it. Were you dissatisfied with their service for the last two years? If not, then clearly they were delivering an acceptable service for that period of time, and it is possible for them to do so again. If not, then why in the world would one subscribe for two entire years??
I'm pretty much in the "never again willing to pay" position too: I was satisfied with the service I had for two years (mostly; there were small wibbles here and there but it was quite a lot of fun). In the space of about 3 months late last year, though, WotC completely expended any goodwill I had for them, any benefit of the doubt I might offer them, and any tolerance for failure that I formerly possessed (granted, I didn't have much to begin with).
As a result, I no longer have any interest in what they do now with DDI, nor any particular interest in what they might do in the future - it's already too late for them to fix it. What's more, I have been compensating for the missing elements of DDI for 2 years myself, and while they're finally catching up on a few of their goals, they're not currently offering anything beyond what I can do now, myself. I don't have confidence in the DDI service, and I'm not willing to pay for a service that's two years behind me.
I'm pretty much in the "never again willing to pay" position too: I was satisfied with the service I had for two years (mostly; there were small wibbles here and there but it was quite a lot of fun). In the space of about 3 months late last year, though, WotC completely expended any goodwill I had for them, any benefit of the doubt I might offer them, and any tolerance for failure that I formerly possessed (granted, I didn't have much to begin with).
As a result, I no longer have any interest in what they do now with DDI, nor any particular interest in what they might do in the future - it's already too late for them to fix it. What's more, I have been compensating for the missing elements of DDI for 2 years myself, and while they're finally catching up on a few of their goals, they're not currently offering anything beyond what I can do now, myself. I don't have confidence in the DDI service, and I'm not willing to pay for a service that's two years behind me.
I think my point is that your last few sentences are the real heart of the matter - DDI doesn't offer anything you need. Hence, it seems quite reasonable not to be a part of it.
But that isn't what people are saying. What you are saying instead is that, even if DDI suddenly offers you something worlds ahead of what you can do on your own, you wouldn't want to be part of it because they've 'used up your goodwill'.
Honestly, 'good will' just shouldn't be that big a part of any purchase decision. There is a place for it sure - there are companies people might boycott or similar. But saying that because they provided acceptable service for two years, and unacceptable service for 3 months, you will never subscribe to DDI again... it just doesn't quite make sense for me.
If they don't offer you what you want (as seems to be the case), that's a reason to not be a subscriber. That should be the only - or at least the primary - reason for making or not making a purchase. And it could absolutely be a legitimate reason, even if their service becomes perfect, for being cautious about resubscribing.
But saying "never again!" without any other context just seems shortsighted.
It sounds like you do not have a history with D&D digital products. I was happy for 2 years with what I purchased. In fact, despite my comments that I was unhappy that new products where not coming out and such, I said that the CB is what made me subscribe and it was worth the price for me.
The problem is this: I lived through and was part of the 3e "digital stuff" - e-tools, master tools, and what they became in the end. Now, after doing the SAME THING (actually maybe worse IMO) I am done with their digital offerings. I will not be fooled again.
So yes, I will never again pay for it, or trust the company in their digital offerings. Maybe in 2 years or so when they re- release the CB in whatever is the current "cool" format, you may feel the same.
I find it doubtful. Sure, in 2 years - or at any point - if I don't like whatever DDI offers, I will stop subscribing. And if, 2 years after that, DDI offers everything I need in the game, I'll likely resubscribe. Having one period of service impact another seems to hurt me far more than the company.
In fact, look at precisely what you just said. The 3e digital tools were a huge failure and disappointment to you. And yet, you tried out DDI anyway, and were happy for 2 years with your purchase. Shouldn't the same remain true?
If you had sworn off all WotC products after the failure of e-tools, you would have deprived yourself of 2 years of useful tools.
The same holds true - right now, DDI is not what you want. So don't subscribe.
If, a year from now, WotC has gotten their act back together - and have a working VTT, Character Builder, Monster Builder, other Adventure Tools, a complete Compendium, and magazines that have regained what they lost?
Boycotting that because of poor service a year ago... hurts you far more than it does WotC.
Now, I'm not saying WotC is going to pull that off, nor am I saying that you will specifically need that service if it happens. Just saying that just because a product is currently a disappointment doesn't mean it always will be, and swearing off anything WotC offers - even if it is an absolutely perfect product - is an ultimately meaningless gesture.
It sounds like you do not have a history with D&D digital products. I was happy for 2 years with what I purchased. In fact, despite my comments that I was unhappy that new products where not coming out and such, I said that the CB is what made me subscribe and it was worth the price for me.
The problem is this: I lived through and was part of the 3e "digital stuff" - e-tools, master tools, and what they became in the end. Now, after doing the SAME THING (actually maybe worse IMO) I am done with their digital offerings. I will not be fooled again.
So yes, I will never again pay for it, or trust the company in their digital offerings. Maybe in 2 years or so when they re- release the CB in whatever is the current "cool" format, you may feel the same.
I find it doubtful. Sure, in 2 years - or at any point - if I don't like whatever DDI offers, I will stop subscribing. And if, 2 years after that, DDI offers everything I need in the game, I'll likely resubscribe. Having one period of service impact another seems to hurt me far more than the company.
In fact, look at precisely what you just said. The 3e digital tools were a huge failure and disappointment to you. And yet, you tried out DDI anyway, and were happy for 2 years with your purchase. Shouldn't the same remain true?
If you had sworn off all WotC products after the failure of e-tools, you would have deprived yourself of 2 years of useful tools.
The same holds true - right now, DDI is not what you want. So don't subscribe.
If, a year from now, WotC has gotten their act back together - and have a working VTT, Character Builder, Monster Builder, other Adventure Tools, a complete Compendium, and magazines that have regained what they lost?
Boycotting that because of poor service a year ago... hurts you far more than it does WotC.
Now, I'm not saying WotC is going to pull that off, nor am I saying that you will specifically need that service if it happens. Just saying that just because a product is currently a disappointment doesn't mean it always will be, and swearing off anything WotC offers - even if it is an absolutely perfect product - is an ultimately meaningless gesture.
You don't get that I have been burned twice I guess. When something happens I don't like, I give it another chance. If it happens again, there are plenty of other RPGs, RPG companies, and RPG tool companies that want my money as well. That is the great thing about competition. In fact, because of this whole fiasco I have purchased PDFs of Pathfinder to check it out. I did not want to even look at it before. That does not mean that I will stop playing 4E. We have decided, that what is in the old CB, and the stuff we added to it (custom elements through the XML using "that tool"), as well as the tools we are using now is fine with us. It does not hurt us in anyway and I am not sure why you think it does.
I have all the tools I need NOW, and they do things that some of the WotC stuff ISN'T doing NOW. These tools will continue to work even after 5E comes out. At this point, we have decided that if 4E lives out it's usefullness to us, we will play a different game for the freshness. No more 4E content for us - even new books. We purchased plenty of 4E books as well as subs for DDI.
The funny thing about this is that out of 10 people in my group - 7 of us are tech people. Almost all of us have iPhones, Andriods, iPads, Android tablets, or the like. We even use a digital table for our maps that I have built with a projector that rear projects through the table.
We are a perfect group of people for technology - just usefull technolgy that does not go backwards or replacing prodcuts based upon some cool new presentation that they saw at MS TechEd. None of us buy any of the reasons that WotC have given for their moves (except for content control), and none of us like to be misled.
BTW - we do not like the online all the time. With offline tools, we could decide that we do not like a change and freeze the content and still be able to use this content. With online tools, youo play their way and that is all.
But that isn't what people are saying. What you are saying instead is that, even if DDI suddenly offers you something worlds ahead of what you can do on your own, you wouldn't want to be part of it because they've 'used up your goodwill'.
Honestly, 'good will' just shouldn't be that big a part of any purchase decision. There is a place for it sure - there are companies people might boycott or similar. But saying that because they provided acceptable service for two years, and unacceptable service for 3 months, you will never subscribe to DDI again... it just doesn't quite make sense for me.
I'm not sure how to convey it any other way; that really is what I'm saying. Three months of screwing the pooch undermined what had come before to the extent that I'm just not willing to invest time or money in it again. The fact that it's not up to par with existing stuff is actually a smaller part of my disinclination.
But that isn't what people are saying. What you are saying instead is that, even if DDI suddenly offers you something worlds ahead of what you can do on your own, you wouldn't want to be part of it because they've 'used up your goodwill'.
Honestly, 'good will' just shouldn't be that big a part of any purchase decision. There is a place for it sure - there are companies people might boycott or similar. But saying that because they provided acceptable service for two years, and unacceptable service for 3 months, you will never subscribe to DDI again... it just doesn't quite make sense for me.
I'm not sure how to convey it any other way; that really is what I'm saying. Three months of screwing the pooch undermined what had come before to the extent that I'm just not willing to invest time or money in it again. The fact that it's not up to par with existing stuff is actually a smaller part of my disinclination.
You care enough to continue to read and post on these forums(DDI General). Are you sure you're not just waiting for WotC to 'make it up to you'?
You care enough to continue to read and post on these forums(DDI General). Are you sure you're not just waiting for WotC to 'make it up to you'?
I'd say that free community interaction on forums is a very different thing from paid subscription to a service.
Anyway, I still don't quite get the idea of depriving yourself of future potentially good products over current dissatisfaction with a product, but that is their call to make, and I'm willing to leave it at that.
You care enough to continue to read and post on these forums(DDI General). Are you sure you're not just waiting for WotC to 'make it up to you'?
I'm sure. I mean, I hang around the other parts of the board, but I don't play D&D much anymore (mostly Gamma World). D&D and DDI remain an interest, in the "these are one of the forums I hang around on" way.
Plus, I like you guys. Especially you.
Anyway, WotC doesn't have anything to make up - they don't owe me anything. They gave me back money, even.
You care enough to continue to read and post on these forums(DDI General). Are you sure you're not just waiting for WotC to 'make it up to you'?
I'm sure. I mean, I hang around the other parts of the board, but I don't play D&D much anymore (mostly Gamma World). D&D and DDI remain an interest, in the "these are one of the forums I hang around on" way.
Plus, I like you guys. Especially you.
Anyway, WotC doesn't have anything to make up - they don't owe me anything. They gave me back money, even.
I seem to have come across as a douche. My apologies. I in no way want you to leave. I just find myself at odds with our difference of opinion. But I can't rectify that any more than I could a differing opinion on any other game. I guess my previous post was just wishful thinking.
You care enough to continue to read and post on these forums(DDI General). Are you sure you're not just waiting for WotC to 'make it up to you'?
I'd say that free community interaction on forums is a very different thing from paid subscription to a service.
Of course. I just often forget that forums hold interest for many, beyond the focus they are intended.
Anyway, I still don't quite get the idea of depriving yourself of future potentially good products over current dissatisfaction with a product, but that is their call to make, and I'm willing to leave it at that.
Relationships between customer and content provider often become personal. Emotions run deep. Much like personal relationships, if you get burned, you will want to avoid such pain in the future.
I seem to have come across as a douche. My apologies. I in no way want you to leave. I just find myself at odds with our difference of opinion. But I can't rectify that any more than I could a differing opinion on any other game. I guess my previous post was just wishful thinking.
No hard feelings; that was a bit barbed on my end, too. I guess in the end it's just "this is how I feel, though if you press me for rational explanation, I'll have to say 'I got nothing.'"