The opinions and views expressed in the following post are those of AlioTheFool only and do not reflect those of RPGMusings or any of its staff beyond AlioTheFool.
I was debating writing this post. I’ve clogged up RPGMusings quite a bit lately with rants, and I figured this was just one more for the pile. Yet, I think this really needs to be written out in a forum with more space than one such as Twitter allows.
We’ve all heard the Dungeons & Dragons insider news by now. The digital tools are going to a web-based-only format. Support for the standalone Character Builder and Monster Builder will be discontinued. This announcement caused a massive rift in the D&D online community. My Twitter stream was inundated with tweets happy, angry, and the gamut of emotions between them on the day of the announcement.
One style of response has been repeated a lot, and it’s the one I want to focus on here. There is a sizeable contingent of people who are saying they’re in “wait-and-see” mode in regard to this new tool and others should follow their lead. These people are willing to give Wizards of the Coast the benefit of the doubt until after they’ve had a chance to play with the new tool.
I get it. Patience is a virtue, and generally I agree. It’s hard to knock something you haven’t yet seen, at least with any credibility.
Unless you have seen a pattern of behavior has developed.
When Wizards pulled the license for Dragonlance material from Margaret Weis Productions late in the 3.5 cycle I was told to “wait-and-see” what their plans were for the setting. It’s over 3 years later and I’m still waiting.
In the weeks leading up to GenCon after the 3rd party licenses were pulled I was told to “wait-and-see” because WotC was just looking to clean things up and bring it all back in-house. Wizards employees were telling people not to listen to the 4th edition rumors and that 3.5 was still healthy. (Before anyone asks for a source on that, I’m not searching for it. I know I remember it clearly enough, and I’m not going to argue the point.)
At the time I was deeply involved in the official WotC D&D Miniatures game. I was told not to worry, and that the game would be fine. Then they changed the game completely. That was fine, except they also said they’d update all the statistic cards for all of the old figures in a timely manner. It’s debateable whether they succeeded or not, and if not for the uproar that the community made, and got directly involved in, those stats might still not be available.
Then they dropped support of the game altogether. It’s been kept alive by a dedicated community, but that doesn’t change all of the broken promises from Wizards.
In the meantime 4E was getting off the ground. When the edition was announced it was coupled with the grand idea of conjoining tabletop gaming with a fantastic digital toolbox, not to mention taking ownership back of Dragon and Dungeon magazines from Paizo Publishing to move to a web-based format, much to many people’s chagrin.
Again, we were told to have patience. “Wait-and-see” the big new things planned for D&D in fourth edition.
Some people are satisfied with the content in the magazines, but how many people are truly happy? Are they all in the mythical quiet majority that is satisfied with everything. Supposedly there is a contingent of people who just don’t speak because they’re happy, and it’s just nerdragers who clog the internet with dissatisfaction. Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps not. Anecdotally, I’ve spoken to players who don’t post in online forums who don’t even bother with the magazines and they aren’t happy. I’m betting they’re not alone.
We were promised a fantastic new community area where gamers could find other gamers. LGSes could set up wonderful pages to interact with their clients. DMs could construct wondrous web portals for their group’s campaign. All manner of games, not just D&D, could be discussed openly and welcomed. Well, Gleemax was the answer. Sure, now we have a reasonably functioning community area but it took a while to get there, and it’s nothing like the product described early on.
We were promised a virtual table top. Now I’m not one of those who usually holds this one against Wizards. They took a “poll” and supposedly gave the subscriber base what they wanted. Viewed in a vacuum, this was a good business move by WotC. Viewed in the lens of the all-encompassing eye? It’s one more broken promise. Not to mention the controversy of the poll not appearing for everyone, or excluding people who hadn’t yet subscribed because they were waiting for the previously promised tools.
We were promised a Character Visualizer. See the above paragraph regarding the virtual table.
I understand the last two products were being developed out of house and that things happened behind the scenes. Again, I generally don’t hold this against Wizards. However, it’s when viewed along with everything else that we see a pattern of failed promises.
Once we had a functional Character Builder we were told to “wait-and-see” the great lineup of tools that would be delivered; in the 2 years since, we’ve received the Compendium, the buggy Monster Builder, and a name generator.
WotC seemingly openly embraced third party development by opening their API to the world. Products like iPlay4E and Masterplan flourished. Until WotC either served Cease & Desist letters or prepared to break the export functionality in the upcoming changes. (Now I’ll grant that Masterplan was “too open” for abuse and that exporting has become a top priority by the DDi team but again, the all-encompassing eye sees all.) When effectively shutting down products that give people a reason to buy yours, it’s polite to offer something akin to said products in return. Even the evil Microsoft does that much. (I know, I know, be patient Alio, something is planned.)
As far as the “insider” program itself, you might notice I never use a capital “I” in any discussion. That’s because there isn’t much “insider” in the program. Assassin was supposed to be a “subscriber-only” content thing. The class is going to appear in a print product in just a few months. Subscribers were supposed to get news before anyone else at events like GenCon. Well, you can “blame” Twitter or blogs, but there hasn’t been a single news item since DDi started that I didn’t hear somewhere else first.
Now I’m being told to “wait-and-see” this new web-based-only toolset. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Macs, but I don’t dislike people who use Apple products. I’m glad that the DDi users who’ve been getting shafted for 2+ years are finally getting a tool they can use. The problem is, it’s coming at my own expense.
I don’t always have access to wi-fi. I can tether my phone to my laptop if absolutely necessary, but it’s against my contract and I reserve that usage for emergencies. The house where I DM (which is not my own) has a wi-fi connection, but my player leaves it wide open. A snowball has a better chance in Asmodeus’ hand than does my laptop connecting to a completely unsecured network. I assume LGSes wouldn’t have significant differences. Conventions either. That’s not to mention having no access to even my phone’s connection on one of my cross-country business flights. Having a standalone Monster Builder is critical to me.
That’s not to mention that I do a lot of my campaign planning at my desk on my lunch hour at work. With the standalone tools I am able to work with the material. I am completely blocked by my corporate firewall from hitting any of Wizards’ websites. That completely shuts me out of the new tools at the time I most have available to plan. I’m a married father of three whose wife works nights. When I leave my day job I am the parent. By the time I get the kids to bed I’m spent. I don’t need to spend hours of sleep planning adventures at night when I could be doing it while eating in the middle of my day.
Now it’s been written off as an off-hand comment made on the WotC forums by one of the developers that the new tools would compliment the existing ones. While it’s not an outright lie, since the old tools are still going to be usable if you have them installed already, it’s at the very least misleading. Couple that with the repeated requests that we wait patiently for Dark Sun and Essentials to be entered into the toolset, only to finally learn months later that they’ll only be in the “new” tools, and the hole gets deeper.
Speaking of Essentials, we were told this wasn’t a 4.5 edition. Many of us jumped on that and staked our names to claims by high-ranking D&D people that this was not a half-edition. That everything would be playable together.
Well, it is, and it isn’t. Yes, you can play a Slayer next to a PHB Fighter, but you really can’t mix them up at this point. There is a book coming that will allow you to do this though. Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell looks like it specifically has rules updates and errata that will allow you to mix and match the original PHB classes with the new Essentials iterations. Given all the errata in the Essentials books from the original hardcovers, it’s a bit hard to say that this isn’t a revised edition of the game; perhaps not a half-edition, but at least a 4.25. I like the Essentials books, even though I think the rest of the things like the tokens and such are terrible; but convincing my group to use them is pretty close to impossible. They’re convinced it’s 4.5 and won’t entertain the thought (and they’re not forum-goers, so you won’t see them say that.) It’s getting harder and harder to convince people that anything Wizards says is honest, even those not nerd-raging on the forumscape or blogosphere.
Now Heroscape has been lost. While not a D&D product, it was brought under Wizards’ care. That was a pretty dedicated community who are left with broken hearts today. Granted, this is a rumor so far, spread after a store or distributor supposedly received a letter, but these sources have proven a lot more reliable than our buddies on the Coast in the past.
I’ve been asked to “wait-and-see.” Quite a few times. Every time in the past I have; though I grant that I rarely do so patiently. In the end, I’m repeatedly let down. So why exactly should I be patient now for a tool I can’t utilize? There’s an old saying, something along the lines of “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” How does that translate after 3, 4 or 5 times?
I’ve donned my flame-retardant jacket. Talk back to me in the comments.
EDIT: In the time since writing this post, WotC has introduced a Virtual Table Top into Beta, albeit nothing like the originally announced product and has officially pronounced the end of the Heroscape line following the most current set.
For the most part, everything you listed except the character builder is something I don’t use or not a part off.
-I use 3 different virtual tables, 2 of the free and the third paid by someone else. Why pay for a virtual table when you get one for free
-I have 2 DnD minis, never played the official game
-Don’t have a need for an established setting, so waiting for Dragonlance is a non-starter
-Never been to a Gleemax or heard of it.
-I installed Masterplan but never really got used to it. I have the old version 7 installer that has compendium intergration still, can find it and send it to you if you want.
-iPlay4e isn’t that useful when all my games involve virtual table tops and people have their character sheets as tokens
-I seem to be the only person in the DnD web-a-sphere not interested in Essentials at this point. My players aren’t picking them up, so support for them in normal 4e games at this point is a non-starter.
-What’s Heroscape?
All those things are issues that personally don’t effect me; don’t show up on my radar at all. I vaguely know they’re issues for other people, and I do feel some empathy that those people feel they’re getting shafted.
But for me, when I go to do prep, all the tools I need are there. When I go to make a character, all the tools I need are there. I have no greater expectations over more tools, or content, or any of that.
I guess I’m just trying to demonstrate why one person, me, can be patient. I haven’t been shafted over and over again, and in fact have been impressed and content with the DDI services.
I’m not going to disagree with your statements. I will note that the Sword and Spell preview today makes it pretty clear that it is just a formatting change not a rules change for the existing material to expose it to the internet silent majority of players. (That’s an important thing to keep in mind people like you and I are actively paying attention, we are a very small minority as a SMS exchange with one of my players today reminded me.)
I also expect the Heroes of Shadow Assassin to be complimentary to the Executioner, not the PHB style Assassin – for me that isn’t a broken promise. If I’m wrong I’ll not have to be angry enough others will do it for me.
As to Dragon and Dungeon, well they are bonuses to me, so yes I am happy with their content. I’m also in a good position over the change to the CB – we all have secure networks (we don’t want our $$ being spent by strangers or them invading our data), and my laptop comes with a wireless connection, but I’ll not be uninstalling the MB. After all it will not stop working (even if buggy) just because WotC put the CB online.
Still I’m ambivalent, and as I renewed my 12 month sub in August, I guess I will get to “wait and see” what they do. I am hopeful we will see an improvement in the next 12 months, but….
I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
As for the dispute that WotC personnel stated that 3.5 was going strong and there was no 4e, I’m right there with you. I was gullible, believed it and even defended WotC (kinda) on the matter. Even after certain well known 3rd edition developers started dropping hints online about it.
To me it feels like every time you put your trust in WotC they kick you when you aren’t looking. I didn’t like original 4e and quit playing it to go back to 3.5, until Pathfinder came out. However, I bought into the “white flag” crap and bought Essentials. Don’t get me wrong I like it better than original 4e but not enough to make it my primary game. That’s still Pathfinder’s territory. I even got a DDi subscription for my daughter so I she could have the CB on her laptop to make characters when I wasn’t at home to help her. When I got it I thought there was an Essentials update coming in a few weeks to go along with the product I’d just bought and that I had started teaching her to play using. No I find out that I wasted my money on because there is no update coming. I’ll have to subscribe to the online only service to get the CB, and that ain’t happening. Other than the CB and the two times I used the MB there was nothing on DDi that was worth my time and money. I didn’t want access to all of the other books and material, I just wanted the Essentials data for the CB, that was it. I don’t care about the powers books or the stuff from what they call dragon magazine. Essentials was what we played and that was what I wanted. Now I have to explain to my daughter that she won’t be getting it and I’ve canceled the subscription.
It’s their IP so they can do what they want with it, but I’m tired of feeling like I lose out every time I try to be a part of the D&D community. A game I have played and supported for over 20 years. Looks like Pathfinder will continue to reign supreme at my table.
First of all, to some extent I support the “wait and see” approach, but when the company comes out and lists the features that will or will not be included in an iminent product release (as in no off line availability of Character Builder), I think it is fair to judge those features.
The reason I support the “wait and see” approach is that that promises from any business aren’t worth a damn and I think people who base their buying decisions on what the future might hold are unrealistic and perhaps a bit foolish. I also think companies that talk about future plans are rather foolish and unrealistic.
Let’s look at the Minis Game as an example. No product line lasts forever and the moment a product line stops being profitable, its going to get the axe. A company cannot predict when that is going to happen or even when the definition of profitable is going to change. A company that is doing very well will support a niche line that is only marginally profitable because they have the resources to do so and they realize dropping a line will alienate those fans. However, if, next year, the company isn’t doing as well, they have to lay people off and shift resources. The marginally profitable niche line loses.
Am I defending WotC? No. I really think they need to learn to shut up. Take a look at Blizzard. They don’t talk about their future plans until they are assured that the plans will come to fruition. When pressed, they give excellent non-answers. “Is the mini game going to continue to be supported?” “We are looking at a variety of ways we can bring the miniatures game in line with other new products, but I can’t say anything definitie at this time.”
And I think that consumers need to stop buying things based on promises. Does DDI have the features you want? Yes? Pay for it. No? Don’t pay for it. Are you interested in product x? Yes? Buy it. No? Don’t buy it. End of story.
The problem is not that WotC has a problem with breaking promises, they have a problem with making promises. And when reality gets in the way of those promises, the fans who listened to the promises call foul and feel betrayed. That just shouldn’t happen.
So, what are the future plans for DDI? “At this time, we are continuing to listen to the feedback from our amazing fans and look for ways to enhance their play experience by updating existing tools as well as new offerings. We have a couple of exciting projects already in the works and I look forward to being able to share more details with you as development proceeds.”
WotC is certainly guilty of poor communication with their customers. And of a sort of delayed shotgun approach to product design (most of their attempts at digital products have been flawed in various ways.) And yes, Essentials is equivalent to what they did when they released 3.5 (a move that enraged me at the time until I bought the books and appreciated the improved organization and mechanics.)
All that said, the company is like a software company. They have a product that needs to develop to meet customer needs. A product that, as it was released, was being pirated (either in PDF form, or in the form of on again, off again “renters” of the Character Builder.) Their response has been frustrating to me as a customer, but ultimately it’s my choice how I’m going to use their stuff (or if.)
Things change. I remember borrowing a friend’s 2e DMG and typing up the tables on a typewriter. Early piracy that. Now it’s easier just to buy the books (just the basics) and subscribe to the Character Builder for the rest. It’ll probably be vastly different next year. Maybe they’ll figure out a way to do mobile apps. I’ll work with what I have access to, and if it gets too cumbersome I’ll homebrew something up and play that.
@Mike Hasko I hear you, and it’s great that this doesn’t affect you. I’m not arguing that everyone is hurt by this. I really wanted to show my point that there are people affected and that others shouldn’t write off legitimate concerns simply because it doesn’t affect them.
@ObsidianCrane Hey, that’s all cool. Again, I don’t knock people who want to wait and see. I take issue with the people who continually insist that I do so. As I illustrated, for me, the “wait-and-see” approach has led to continued disappointment, frustration, and anger. If those emotions have not been evoked in someone, that’s great! Seriously, I don’t have any issue with people being happy about the turn of events. I don’t have a problem with people who are willing to wait and see what happens before making a decision. I do have a problem with anyone who tells me that I should follow suit.
That’s akin to those who say “don’t play 4E because you’re doing it wrong!”
In terms of the Sword and Spell preview, it does specifically say errata. I’m not trying to make things up. I’m simply reading what’s there. If I’m wrong, that’s fine, I’ll happily admit it. Still, it’s just one more thing under that “all-seeing eye” so please forgive me if I don’t grant benefit of the doubt.
As far as the Assassin, I have a problem with any iteration in a printed source. It’s completely opposite from what they originally, and emphatically, stated.
@Geek Gazette I am 100% with you. Obviously we’re not the only people WotC has to please, but the truth is, they aren’t pleasing either of us at all. (Not that I believe they have any obligation to, but it doesn’t motivate me to support them when they don’t.)
@The Angry DM I mostly agree with your post. I know you’re taking a bit of jab at me regarding my previous willingness to “trust” WotC, but in reality, I never actually have. As I said, I’m not a patient person, and every time one of these “announcements” comes around, I’m usually reacting with the feeling that they’re going to disappoint me again. Sadly, they manage to both disappoint me and not at the same time each time.
Taking the minis game as a specific example though, it became public knowledge that the game was dying before they “updated” the game. Supposedly the reboot was an attempt to re-energize the game. Would it have made more sense to tell people “Hey, the game is becoming less profitable, and if you don’t pick up your buying habits we’re going to have to pull the plug” rather than changing the rules and causing long-time players with big investments to decide that the reboot wasn’t worth it? I think so.
I disagree a bit on the topic of promises though. I don’t think the answer is that they should not make promises, though I think that’s not the word I’m looking for. What I expect is to not have them tell me one thing while covering up something else.
They told “me” (figurative me, not literal) that the minis game was being updated to coincide with 4E. They knew the line was suffering. Tell me that. I would have been happy to help. In all reality, I didn’t slow down buying minis even with the switch, but a few of the guys in my Minis group did. The net effect was less players, which was the opposite of the intent.
They told “me” that Essentials and Dark Sun was coming to the toolset “soon.” Well, ignoring that WotC’s “soon” and mine have different definitions, they left out the part about those things not coming to the toolset I already have.
I try to take care to not say that WotC is dishonest because they never outright lie. The do have a penchant for stretching the truth to the very limit though.
You’re right though. Consumers do need to stop buying on promises, and I think we’re starting to see that in the case of DDi now. I know I’ve stopped, and it’s even affecting my forward outlook to future products.
@anarkeith I’m fully on board with the “things change” atmosphere. I understand business needs change. As I said above, it’s this penchant for half-truths that really gets me fired up.
I think we’re all in the same boat in terms of big dream for WotC. In the end though, as you said, we the consumers have to decide how, or if, we’ll use the material they produce.
In fairness, I do not count myself among the “wait and see” crowd. I know we’ve been told that in the past, with a very mixed bag of success and failure. Was Gleemax an absolute waste? Oh, sure. But, didn’t we also get a new edition that was accessible, playable, and all around fun? That’s a subject for debate, but the game still thrives.
I’m more of a “understand that they’ve made a crapload of mistakes to this point, hope they’ve learned from them, and hope that newer moves will be better thought out.” I am aware that Wizards has dropped the ball a number of times. There are plenty of other companies that have not dropped the ball, and that makes things look even worse. However, I also know that Wizards is not run by morons whose only motivation is to alienate their customer base.
It may need to be mentioned that WOTC was a smaller company, run by gamers, not necessarily business folk, who took up the mantle of a game that may have been a bigger fish than they might have thought they were able to handle. Then, they were picked up by Hasbro, and while this may not have been Hasbro’s first rodeo, it was totally new for them, too. Ideas were thrown around like tomatoes in a ketchup factory, and in the end you have a big red mess.
So, I’m not waiting. I’m just plugging along, and while I do, new things may come along. I’ll like what I will, and dislike what I don’t. Chiefly, I blame the internet for all of this. Because of the internet, we know the second something goes wrong. We also react a lot more quickly, meaning we’re always ready with the torches and pitchforks. My advice to all is to relax. This too shall pass.
You know, all I want is books that aren’t out dated in a month or so due to errata. I want a tabletop RPG, not a “online game” that REQUIRES patches for BUGS (i.e. errata) every month or so that now thanks to the new CB you won’t have access to unless you have an active subscription.
The wait and see has got up and left. None of my players are going to keep an active subscription for the services they are offering. Infact we might even go back to a older version of D&D just so we’re not constantly having to change due to new “patches”.
@The Opportunist Yeah, I actually mentioned on Twitter the other day that I’d probably be a lot less upset about things if not for the internet. Then again, we wouldn’t have had errata, Gleemax, DDi, iPlay4E, or Masterplan so it would be tough to compare situations.
@Bob I hear you. I am sorry to see you consider leaving 4E, but I understand. Of course, others would tell you to just play without errata, but I know just knowing it’s out there is enough to push me to use it. I used to argue that it was forced on me via the tools, but right now that complaint is a bit outdated I guess.
I’m sorry if you took my post as a dig. But, maybe I really was digging a little on reflection. I’ve always been just a little baffled by the idea among fans of RPGs and video games that companies owe them communication, promises, and discussion of future plans. From a business standpoint (and these companies are businesses), the only reason to discuss the future is to market, advertise, and build some buzz. But there are risks to discussing the future. One is that you risk losing credability and then customers if you fail to deliver or fail to live up to the hype you’ve built. Another is that you risk telling your competitors what you’re doing. Another is that you risk telling your owners, investors, and creditors more than you want them to know.
While you might have been willing to buy MORE minis if WotC had come out and said the mini line was dying, the response among most customers would be to stop playing for fear that it was really going to get chopped. Think about it. If I play a game and the company comes out and says there is a good chance support is going to dry up and then they release a supplement, most people aren’t going to waste their money. And then the line does die. Also, it gives competitors a chance to move in, capitalize, and snipe your customers (now play The AdventureQuest Miniature Game from Paizo: We’re Not Dying!). It also tells anyone with a stake in your company (those who have invested or lent money to your company) that you screwed up. So, if you want to raise capital to try and rescue the line, you’ll have a harder time.
The reality is that sharing information about things that don’t exist yet is extremely dangerous for a company and that’s why most companies don’t do it. Most companies don’t even share their sales numbers unless they have to, even if they are something to brag about it. WotC probably has the biggest market share of the Table Top RPG industry, but they won’t tell us how much they are making.
Getting back to the topic of future product releases. Yes, it does build hype, but projects fail all the time. Money or support dries up, markets change, priorities change, management changes. And everytime you run your mouth off about the next great thing you’re going to do, you build expectations among your customers and you’d better be able to meet them.
Once again, WotC needs to learn to shut their mouths up. No one, for instance, would be bashing them for not coming out with the Virtual Table Top if they had not said they were going to, but now they’ve pissed people off who wanted it. If WotC didn’t announce their DDi updates and then push them back, people would be more patient. They certainly couldn’t say “you promised October 12th, now its mid-November, when is Dark Sun coming the CB?” Yes, people would still eventually get impatient but it would take longer and it would be a smaller minority. Promising a date and then not delivering is worse than not making a promise at all.
Alio, I hear you about the “penchant for half-truths”. WotC is guilty of being that friend or co-worker who is quick to tell you all the ways they’re ready to help, but when it comes down to the actual task, has some other more pressing problem to deal with, and so provides a less-than-satisfactory quickie solution to fulfill the obligation they’ve created. In most cases it seems like they really believe they’ve come up with an elegant or creative solution. Unfortunately, their solutions seem to be developed in a vacuum that is isolated from users and fans.
Other times they’ve come out with some really substantial improvements and tried to mask the fact that said improvements were really a big deal through marketing spin. It’s the communication with customers that is tone-deaf and disjointed. Granted, the RPG-playing community is a pretty fractious one, but it’d be nice if WotC were a little smoother at the publishing game.
For players that are frustrated with ever-changing rules, I often wonder what prevents them from coming to an agreement within their own group on what edition or set of books to use? Then, if a piece of errata comes along, you’re free to ignore it, or adopt it if the group agrees on it. That’s kind of what house rules are all about anyway, and we all have house rules.
@The Angry DM I have to dispute that actually. WotC has tried the silent approach. I don’t know how much you visit the Wizards Community forums, but people are vocal about hating that too. I do agree with those that say WotC is damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Except, they should actually be fulfilling promises and not throwing out falsehoods, which is what they’ve been doing.
I realize I’m being excessively hard on the Minis situation. However, it’s one issue in the plethora of others, and they all add up. Any one on its own, or even two, can be considered a mishap. This is no longer legitimately viewed as accidental.
EDIT: A point I forgot to make was that most of the time, I agree with the stance that WotC is under no obligation to provide with anything, even if they promise it in advance. However, when people are subscribed to DDi, Wizards does have a responsibility to the people who’ve invested in the product in advance.
@anarkeith Well said. I’ve always maintained in 4E that the errata only bothers me because it was forced upon users if they used the Character Builder. There was never a way to turn it off. Now maybe that will change in the new toolset, who knows?
WotC wouldn’t have an issue if they hadn’t gone from routine communication on the status of projects to near 0 communication on the status of projects. They created the expectation of information and then took the communication away, it is no wonder people are unhappy.
I have mentioned this on twitter, WotC is playing a dangerous game with expectations. The game is dangerous because for the first time ever there are two DnD games on the Market and they offer very similar things to the customers. As long as people perceive Pathfinder to be “meeting expectations” and WotC to be failing, Pathfinder will continue to errode 4E’s marketshare. WotC needs to get something sorted out. Essentials needed much better treatment to avoid allienating anyone.
Examples:
WotC says “fully compatible” this should have been supported by an article or two showing Essentials products integrated with PHB products. Specifically characters built using features from both class sets. Further Essentials should not have removed any rules or changed them (ie item rarity and treasure distribution), these rules should be options not replacements.
WotC should not have released Dark Sun or Essentials without being ready to support those products with their digital tools. Digital tools are a strong element of their marketing and the royal screw up that is the last 3 months handling of those products is a marketing disaster.
I am also firmly if the opinion that no effort should have been made to change 4E to gather in lapsed players by changing 4E to be in any way more like prior editions, doing so simply risks alienating current customers without gaining new customers. This is seen in the many “I don’t want Essentials” posts that show resentment at Essentials being forced on the poster.
Updates are also a two-edged sword. Don’t fix the problems people complain, keep fixing the problems and people complain. Basically monthly updates are too much. The game isn’t that broken despite the cries from the char op forums. Char op is trying to break the game, fixing things due to them isn’t necessary, fixing things that are routinely discovered to be unclear (Paladin’s Challenge & Sanction) is needed, fixing things that are not operating ‘as intended’ that are significantly impacting play and are not corner cases is needed. Much of the updated rules are subjective or worse (see Magic Missile) done for reasons other than game balance and function.
All of these things create perception issues for WotC, if people don’t feel that their opposition has these problems WotC will loose out. This is why “wait and see” is a terrible response. Sure I am prepared to do it, but that was a happy moment of timing, if I had not renewed I would not be renewing now, and I’m not leaving 4E for Pathfinder 3.X isn’t for me, but I can leave 4E for other games. WotC needs to start getting their communication right, because right now it is creating problems for them.
A big part of getting communication right is listening. Right now I have no idea who they are listening to, but it seems to be people other than a significant proportion of their customer base (why yes I’ve seen the mess that is the DDi forum play out in smaller scale in local groups). WotC seems to be hoping that their efforts to gather new customers will keep existing customers happy – ie lots of research into what non-customers want but not a lot of checking if existing customers want the game to change that way.
I feel like they asked if I want more online tools and I said “yes” so they took away my current tools to give me online ones. That’s a problem.
So yes I will wait and see, but that is because I’ve already paid, and because I am happy to ignore future developments if I really want to do so.
I don’t expect anyone else to do that, and WotC shouldn’t be hoping anyone will do that.
@ObsidianCrane Your point about communication is a very valid one. The DDi team definitely doesn’t communicate properly. Updates on the current process would be nice.
Your point about competition is an interesting one though. I noticed yesterday that not only was Stephen Radney McFarland (I hope I spelled that all correctly) hired to work on Pathfinder for Paizo, but Paizo also put out a call for a programmer to join their digital team. Methinks someone is positioning to capitilize on the community’s anger. Again.
I agree on your options comment. WotC seems to love forcing updates down our throats though. You made a great point, and one I’ve made in the past, regarding changes to system due to optimizers. I’ve cried out angrily at changes made to trump min/maxers. The fact is, they’re always going to try to game the system. You can’t stop that, so stop breaking everyone else’s game in a vain attempt.
I’m actually curious to know how many new people Essentials actually brought in. I know of none, but I do know people who Essentials turned off that already play 4E.
There are some comments on EnWorld that suggest Essentials has brought in some new players. If that number is greater than the number it may have removed or isolated into “pre-essentials” remains a mystery.
After all just because XorGOBTheDude posts of impending Rage Quit and never buying Essentials doesn’t mean the Dude isn’t down there at the FLGS on release day handing over his money and staying subscribed to DDI.
I do know my LGS took in a lot less of Essentials than it did of say PHB1, and that Pathfinder is gaining ground, and that WotC is doing itself a lot of damage with him, and his customers. But the reasons are far more complicated than just DnD.
Me I remain happy with 4E. Not that happy with WotC. But happy with the game. That’s the important thing really when it comes down to it.
@ObsidianCrane I agree. The game is more important than WotC. I’d be curious to hear what the in vs. out is with Essentials though.
On another note, Mark over at Dice Monkey made a sort of response post, and I responded to him. In doing so, I was forced to check into just how valid the argument is that it is only a fringe case that people don’t have internet access to use the tools. Well, I came across the following article. The title is “1/3 of Americans don’t use fast internet” and the article is dated February 24, 2010. http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/02/24/13-of-americans-dont-use-fast-internet/
It’s not nearly the case of internet ubiquity that many would like to believe. I’d love to see someone sit there with the digital D&D tools on a dial-up connection!