Each one of us dont need the same things from DDI, and the biggest difference is between what a DM needs and what the players need. I think the future may look like that :
We will have to choice between DM and player account. Each of these providing diferent acces to the DDI tools.
Player account (smaller annual fee)
- MUST be linked to a DM account (see below)
- Dragon magazine only
- acces to CB with 3D visualizer with limited character slots (20)
- acces to compendium
- acces to DM's VTT for online play
- limited acces to DM's Campaign manager
DM account :
- Dragon and Dungeon magazine
- acces to all tools :
- CB with 3D visualizer and more character slots (200+)
- compendium
- MB with 3D visualizer
- trap builder
- encounter builder
- campaign manager
- VTT
A DM account giving acces to each linked player account's characters.
A DM account can be use to create Sub-accounts working as players' account
Would that kind of situation appeal to you ?
Please discuss.
My ideas may not be as clear as i wish. Please forgive me as english is not my native language
1: Penalising the DMs for running games.
While it is common for DMs to spend more resources on games, I still don't think WotC would go so far as to say "You run D&D, you know, giving people an actual reason to buy our stuff apart from arguing in forums and looking at pretty pictures in books? We are going to charge YOU more."
2: Telling us to how to play.
The assumption that all players play in ONE group, and this group has ONE DM, is a bit iffy.
3: It is bloody complicated.
No, that situation would not appeal to me, and I doubt it would appeal to WotC either. There are many problems with this:
1: Penalising the DMs for running games.
While it is common for DMs to spend more resources on games, I still don't think WotC would go so far as to say "You run D&D, you know, giving people an actual reason to buy our stuff apart from arguing in forums and looking at pretty pictures in books? We are going to charge YOU more."
2: Telling us to how to play.
The assumption that all players play in ONE group, and this group has ONE DM, is a bit iffy.
3: It is bloody complicated.
1- it's not about making DMs paying more but players paying less. A way to attrack them by provinding a lite option that could fill their needs whithout acces to tools they wont use.
2- OK, misunderstandig here. The lite option is for players that DO play in ONE group with ONE DM (such things exist you know and may well be more common than posters here think) I am in that situation as DM and none of my players are insiders.
For people who play in more than one game, they could have a "DM" account and link it to others "DM" account.
3- i admit i have no idea as how complicated that would be to implement.
Hope that make my 1st post a bit clearer.
So far I've played the first chapter of "D&D Encounters Dark Sun" before shipping miscomunication between WotC and my hobbyshop forced us to stop playing while they insisted that they DID send the chapter 2 stuff. (Causing everyone including the DM to longer show up for the rest of the chapters even after the new chapter came. I played the first encounter in the second chapter and then no DM's sigh) and the "D&D Encounters Keep on the Borderlands" that's going on now.
I've had a couple DM's but none I know past "hey cool game, see you next week".
No, that situation would not appeal to me, and I doubt it would appeal to WotC either. There are many problems with this:
1: Penalising the DMs for running games.
While it is common for DMs to spend more resources on games, I still don't think WotC would go so far as to say "You run D&D, you know, giving people an actual reason to buy our stuff apart from arguing in forums and looking at pretty pictures in books? We are going to charge YOU more."
2: Telling us to how to play.
The assumption that all players play in ONE group, and this group has ONE DM, is a bit iffy.
3: It is bloody complicated.
1- it's not about making DMs paying more but players paying less. A way to attrack them by provinding a lite option that could fill their needs whithout acces to tools they wont use.
2- OK, misunderstandig here. The lite option is for players that DO play in ONE group with ONE DM (such things exist you know and may well be more common than posters here think) I am in that situation as DM and none of my players are insiders.
For people who play in more than one game, they could have a "DM" account and link it to others "DM" account.
3- i admit i have no idea as how complicated that would be to implement.
Hope that make my 1st post a bit clearer.
1:
If the players pay less than the DM, you are still financially punishing the DM for DMing. I mean, it makes sense from an, amount of content provided directly, point of view, but I am not sure it would be a good move. Most new players are introduced to the game through existing gamers who run games. These players would also, indirectly, get access to the content through games. We don't pay for words on a page, we pay for how these words on a page facilitate an evening of fun, killing monsters and taking their stuff.
2:
Again, this would mean that WotC financially punishes the people who are not playing it right.
3:
I am not a coder, but I do a lot of design-work on interactive systems. There are tons of complexities to consider, how many players can each DM register (Too many and you can just snag some DM advertising online at random, too few and we start complaining), what happens if gaming groups disband, what content should each person get, blah blah blah. Tying the delivery of your product to the (transient) relationships of a random bunch player would just be a nightmare.
That said, I would not be surprised to see a dual pricing system in the future. I wouldn't be happy about it, but from a content delivery point of view I can see how it is tempting.
Of the 5 people I game with I am almost always the DM. The only thing the others care about is the CB, and one of them reads some of the articles. Most of the rest have never even heard of the Monster Builder. Also, as a DM I would be less likley to use an adventure in Dungeon if I knew a player had access to read it (though not really an issue with my group).
If there was a lower-priced player option, I'm almost positive more than one of my players might have a DDI account. WotC should take a look at this.
From a business perspective... A (for example) $40/year option is a lot more doable for folks hurt by the economy, meaning more income. You could stipulate that a Player account is only available as a year subscription, and even if a player updgrades to a DM account they maintain their contacted year (paying only the difference for the remainder of the year of course).
No, that situation would not appeal to me, and I doubt it would appeal to WotC either. There are many problems with this:
1: Penalising the DMs for running games.
While it is common for DMs to spend more resources on games, I still don't think WotC would go so far as to say "You run D&D, you know, giving people an actual reason to buy our stuff apart from arguing in forums and looking at pretty pictures in books? We are going to charge YOU more."
2: Telling us to how to play.
The assumption that all players play in ONE group, and this group has ONE DM, is a bit iffy.
3: It is bloody complicated.
1- it's not about making DMs paying more but players paying less. A way to attrack them by provinding a lite option that could fill their needs whithout acces to tools they wont use.
2- OK, misunderstandig here. The lite option is for players that DO play in ONE group with ONE DM (such things exist you know and may well be more common than posters here think) I am in that situation as DM and none of my players are insiders.
For people who play in more than one game, they could have a "DM" account and link it to others "DM" account.
3- i admit i have no idea as how complicated that would be to implement.
Hope that make my 1st post a bit clearer.
1:
If the players pay less than the DM, you are still financially punishing the DM for DMing. I mean, it makes sense from an, amount of content provided directly, point of view, but I am not sure it would be a good move. Most new players are introduced to the game through existing gamers who run games. These players would also, indirectly, get access to the content through games. We don't pay for words on a page, we pay for how these words on a page facilitate an evening of fun, killing monsters and taking their stuff.
2:
Again, this would mean that WotC financially punishes the people who are not playing it right.
3:
I am not a coder, but I do a lot of design-work on interactive systems. There are tons of complexities to consider, how many players can each DM register (Too many and you can just snag some DM advertising online at random, too few and we start complaining), what happens if gaming groups disband, what content should each person get, blah blah blah. Tying the delivery of your product to the (transient) relationships of a random bunch player would just be a nightmare.
That said, I would not be surprised to see a dual pricing system in the future. I wouldn't be happy about it, but from a content delivery point of view I can see how it is tempting.
DM and player account are probably not the best terms. Lets say Premium and Basic.
Frankly, however accounts may come in different ways the DM is almost always "punishing" himselh already by buying more stuff than players. No reason to aggravate that I agree.
Basic account (not necessary for players) may grant acces to a limited pool of tools. I'm pretty sure that many people would agree to pay a minimum fee just for the CB. I'll probably never use a VTT and a way to have acces to some tools only may have an interest.
Linked account is just a way to perform sharing. That one feature is very important. There is certainly other ways that can be easier and more pertinent.
I have to say that what i write in my first post is not necessary what i want, just a thinkering of what could be.
making DMs pay more then players (for whatever reason) is a bad idea, in fact since i have done both and like doing both i think there should be one account with maximum functionality
the VTT is not coming until wizards employs a real software company, witch i dont think they have the money to do and would be a huge gamble given the current state of affairs with customer dissatisfaction
but if they had a system like this in place id subscribe until then no trust no business
- a Standard account which grants access to all features.
- a Premium account which grants access to all features as well as provides 5 "player accounts" that the Premium account can hand out.
- a Player account (granted by the Premium account) which grants access to the Character Builder and Dragon magazine (as well as any future player utilities that may be created).
I think there should be the options for:
- a Standard account which grants access to all features.
- a Premium account which grants access to all features as well as provides 5 "player accounts" that the Premium account can hand out.
- a Player account (granted by the Premium account) which grants access to the Character Builder and Dragon magazine (as well as any future player utilities that may be created).
This I could get behind provided the premium is only 2-3x more than the standard. better would be 100 per year instead of 70
I think there should be the options for:
- a Standard account which grants access to all features.
- a Premium account which grants access to all features as well as provides 5 "player accounts" that the Premium account can hand out.
- a Player account (granted by the Premium account) which grants access to the Character Builder and Dragon magazine (as well as any future player utilities that may be created).
This I could get behind provided the premium is only 2-3x more than the standard. better would be 100 per year instead of 70
Defnitely. The Premium account shoud supplement (ugh, that word
) the DM and the group that uses it. This would promote more casual players into its usage, letting them experience the Wizards site, D&D, and DDI, potentially promoting them to upgrade to Standard accounts. It would also help curb the cost of an entire group to play the game. Maybe these Player accounts could even be purchased individually beyond 5. $5 - $10 per year, per account beyond the 5th.I think there should be the options for:
- a Standard account which grants access to all features.
- a Premium account which grants access to all features as well as provides 5 "player accounts" that the Premium account can hand out.
- a Player account (granted by the Premium account) which grants access to the Character Builder and Dragon magazine (as well as any future player utilities that may be created).
This I could get behind provided the premium is only 2-3x more than the standard. better would be 100 per year instead of 70
Defnitely. The Premium account shoud supplement (ugh, that word
Actually, I like this idea from a different perspective. I think a liot of groups that might not go for DDI normally(especially the groups that previously "pooled" their account) would go for this--The group could pool their money (with 5 players and a GM $100 comes to about $17 US--it wouldn't be unreasonable to make it $120 or even $180 for the Premium account [$180 at 6 people =30/person])
I've been DMing since the early 80's, and I've always paid more for D&D stuff than my players. DMs are (obviously) the only ones who have any real use for Monster Manuals, etc. as well as DMGs and a lot of the campaign guide books. I've even been the sole source for some of the Sword & Sorcery books as well as things like (my all-time fave) 'Tall Tales of the Wee Folk' books.
Currently I'm the (long-standing) sole DM of one group, and one of 5 rotating DMs in another.
What follows assumes they actually start doing what they said they were going to:
I think a DM sub makes a lot of sense, and I really don't see how it would be that difficult for programmers worth their salt. I think it would add more income than it would lose. I can't imagine it would ever happen, though.
I've been DMing since the early 80's, and I've always paid more for D&D stuff than my players. DMs are (obviously) the only ones who have any real use for Monster Manuals, etc. as well as DMGs and a lot of the campaign guide books. I've even been the sole source for some of the Sword & Sorcery books as well as things like (my all-time fave) 'Tall Tales of the Wee Folk' books.
Currently I'm the (long-standing) sole DM of one group, and one of 5 rotating DMs in another.
What follows assumes they actually start doing what they said they were going to:
I think a DM sub makes a lot of sense, and I really don't see how it would be that difficult for programmers worth their salt. I think it would add more income than it would lose. I can't imagine it would ever happen, though.
Aye. DM's have always taken the brunt of the resources, both money and time. That's why I am a bit upset that they came out with a second character builder before providing any more DM utlities.
I would love to see strides taken to improve the DM's efficiency all around. DM's are the one's that really do keep the games going. This is not a slight on players, in any way, mind you. We just need a little more DM lovin'.
EDIT: Believe me, I do understand. 1 DM per 5 players on "average." It's easy for Wizards to follow the money trail on that one. But with more DM utilities, you may manufacture more DM's. Those DM's manufacture more players. And so on.
I think there should be the options for:
- a Standard account which grants access to all features.
- a Premium account which grants access to all features as well as provides 5 "player accounts" that the Premium account can hand out.
- a Player account (granted by the Premium account) which grants access to the Character Builder and Dragon magazine (as well as any future player utilities that may be created).
I like this idea quite a bit. I doubt I would have any problem selling my group on a "premium" account.
The "premium" account, with several "sub-accounts" is a good idea, especially if those sub-accounts can later be upgraded to full accounts should the people with them desire.
I think I could easily get my players to split the cost of a "premium" account, or at a minimum just to pay me the difference for them to have their own access to the CB and Dragon, without having to use it on my computer. (This would also be a lot more convenient for me as the DM...). As it is, I find it pretty unlikely that any of them will pony up for a full account, (they haven't yet and we've been playing 4E for over a year now), but I'd be willing to bet they would pay a smaller amount for a limited account. (And once they were used to it, some of them might just decide to upgrade later, especially if one of them decides to DM for a bit).
I have no problem with the idea of an "Insider Lite" account for people who only want to play, not DM. I do have a problem with the suggestion that a lite account would have to be linked to a full account. That's just silly. What happens if the person who owns the full account I'm linked to decides to end their subscription?
You get your own Standard account or find another Premium account member to ride the coattails of.
Basic:
CB with limited number of characters.
Standard:
Basic plus higher character limit, Compendium, Dragon, 3D Visualizer, VTT - player only, campaign manager - player only.
Premium:
Everything available plus unlimited charaters for CB.
This is a horrible idea. Linking accounts, for anything of this caliber, never ends well.
It works great for Fantasy Grounds. But if you have some examples that I could see, I would like to research those.
This is a horrible idea. Linking accounts, for anything of this caliber, never ends well.
It works great for Fantasy Grounds. But if you have some examples that I could see, I would like to research those.
There's no reason to force someone to link a player account to one GM account but if the interconnectedness tech is there it might be a nice option to allow people to link with each other (like facebook or something).
There's no reason to force someone to link a player account to one GM account but if the interconnectedness tech is there it might be a nice option to allow people to link with each other (like facebook or something).
No one would be "forcing" anything. It would be an option for Premium accounts to gift Player accounts. It's a cost effective way for gaming groups to get their entire group the ability to use the CB, which has been a rallying cry of players that they pay too much for only the CB and don't need the other tools.
No one would be "forcing" anything. It would be an option for Premium accounts to gift Player accounts. It's a cost effective way for gaming groups to get their entire group the ability to use the CB, which has been a rallying cry of players that they pay too much for only the CB and don't need the other tools.
Ah, when I read linking I was thinking of the OP:
Player account (smaller annual fee)
- MUST be linked to a DM account (see below)
Ah, when I read linking I was thinking of the OP:
Ah, gotcha.
I thought we were discussing my suggestion since you quoted me. All is groovy with the world. So where's the DM lite option...?!? ;)
(I just wants my MB and Encounter Builder... and encounter manager... and a pony... ;) )
Hey folks,
I have been trying to engage some of the WotC staff regarding this very issue without a response. I give 2 of my CB updates each month to players in my group who can’t afford it. Yes, I am aware that this is in violation of the EULA, and I would prefer that discussion be kept to another thread. The point is to my mind our group is sharing a resource, not engaging in the theft of WotC’s IP. Below is my proposal for a “family” plan subscription. I have a few family plans (museums, organizations, AAA, etc.), and pay 30% more on average than a “standard” plan or membership. With that in mind . . .
Standard annual subscription: $(Rate set by WotC). Includes all DDi benefits currently available.
Family annual subscription: $(WotC standard rate + 30%). Includes all DDi benefits currently available plus; 5 additional separate logins that can be distributed and moderated by the subscription holder, character limit for CB set to 20 plus 10 for each “active” login
Rollover annual subscription: $(Special rate). Option for a member of a family plan to gain their own independent subscription at a one-time reduced cost.
First, you will notice that these all say “annual”. This stops the whole “dip & drop” mentality. If the rate is too high, break it up into “3 easy payments”, or something to that effect. Here is an example of how this family plan works:
I purchase a family subscription. This gives me the “parent” login and password for this account. I also gain the ability to assign up to five “family” logins and passwords, each one unique, but tied to one account (the “parent"). As the account holder I can assign, and rescind, logins up to my five login limit. For this example let’s say I have four players. I assign a login & password for each. For the character builder I gain a 60 PC capacity (20 for the base account +10 for each additional login assigned). If one of my players leaves our group I can remove their login from my account, which would also reduce the available capacity for my account on the CB. Likewise, if one of my players would like their own account they can purchase the “rollover” plan at a special first year rate.
Well, thats my idea. I hope my rambling is not too confusing, but I really feel something like this could work, and would be a win-win for WotC and subscribers alike. My father always said “Locks are for honest people”. Let’s give honest people a viable economic option so they can continue to respect the lock.
Aside from that, it's not like DDI is that expensive. My guess is that if you lowered the price, the same people would still moan that it's too expensive—at least I highly doubt lowering the price by 20% would get them more than 20% more users.
I purchase a family subscription. This gives me the “parent” login and password for this account. I also gain the ability to assign up to five “family” logins and passwords, each one unique, but tied to one account (the “parent"). As the account holder I can assign, and rescind, logins up to my five login limit. For this example let’s say I have four players. I assign a login & password for each. For the character builder I gain a 60 PC capacity (20 for the base account +10 for each additional login assigned). If one of my players leaves our group I can remove their login from my account, which would also reduce the available capacity for my account on the CB. Likewise, if one of my players would like their own account they can purchase the “rollover” plan at a special first year rate.
Granting the Premium account full control over the child acccounts allows for abuse:
Problem: The ability to add/remove inherently allows abuse so the 5 limit could be easlity breached. "Okay, guys, just call me if your account is disabled and I'll knock someone off and add you back on."
Solution: The accounts cannot be rescinded. Additional gift accounts can be purchased, up to a limit of 10.
Problem: Groups can abuse the account limit by child accounts shuffling accounts back and forth. (if child accounts are given the ability to close their account to grant the premium account an additional child account).
Solution: The only way that child accounts are awarded back to the premium account is if that child account converts to a standard account.
Problem: Premium accounts can sell child accounts at a reduced price to make money. This potentially opens up the possibility to scam others, particularly if the premium account can rescind child accounts.
Solution: The child accounts must have capabilities limited to player resources alone. Accounts cannot be rescinded.
Problem: Even with this method, various types of exploitation and the possibility of selling of child accounts still exists. "Hey, I gave this guy $20 for child account access and he never added me." Or "Hey, this guy said he'd give me $20 if I added him and he hasn't paid me."
Solution: Wizards is never responsible for problems that arise regarding any tertiary transactions, as this would be against the ToS set forth. In other words, know who you are dealing with.
Either way, this whole scenario freaking sucks and screws me over. Hell, WotC hasn't even invented a working VTT. Screw the monster and character visualizers, just get a dang token system in place.
If Wizards can't even handle subscription extensions in lieu of refunds what makes you think they can handle even more complex account management strategies?
That is more likely either a policy limitation or the system is not configured to extend subscriptions. In either scenario, customer service would not be able to offer this solution. Making assumptions on their ability to provide anything more complex moving forward is really not anything but projecting negative bias and opinion.