|
2 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2011 - 5:45PM
#361
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2008
|
Yeah, this thread has quite a number of people rightfully saying "Yeah, Wizards, we don't buy it, we know you have ulterior motives" so it's not a new thought =P
Still. There must be some hefty corporate reasoning behind this. I can find threads scattered around these forums where Wizards decides on something, people say 'please don't do that' and either a WotC employee will log on and say something neutral OR Wizards will straight up change their mind.
But this MASSIVE, OFFICIAL THREAD filled with almost PURE complaints? We don't get even a slight peep.
So... probably there is some sort of product they intended to sell instead of magazines, like some people have speculated an 'online, no-download' application, and because that product exists WotC employees can't even COMMENT on the thread, because of their NDA's.
But that's just me wearing a tinfoil hat, which I so rarely do but come on--there's some VERY conspicuous silence in this matter. Not even a "We know some people don't like it, but we're going to try and offer great services in exchange for this loss!" or even (and we know Wizards isn't opposed to lying through their teeth, see the entire Offline->Online Character Builder chronology for proof) simply coming on and saying "We didn't realize how big of an impact this made on everyone. We'll discuss it at our offices, and reconsider in light of our customers's valid complaints." and then they could simply IGNORE the issue and never follow up on that promise, but it would placate a large number of people.
But no. Not even a placating lie like Wizards is so used to doing, not a shining used-car-salesman-like positive spin on the issue ("it's not a loss of product--it's a GAIN of QUALITY!"), not even a WotC employee logging on and clarifying exactly what went into compiling the issues so that our wild, increasingly agitated speculations would calm down.
There's some serious NDA **** going on here.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2011 - 7:17PM
#362
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2005
|
Wow, 357 posts and not one person thinks the discontinuation of the magazine compilations was a good idea.
Is there anyone at WotC that is reading this? Are you listening to you customer base at all?
-TC
Yeah you do realize that 350 or so posts to a message board is a small drop in the bucket compared to their overall customer base.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2011 - 12:50AM
#363
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
You do realise that only a very small percentage of customers actually complains on the forums? If this thread represents even 1% of dissatisfied customers, DDI is taking a significant hit on their subscriber numbers over this.
I'd guess it's less than that. But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2011 - 1:39AM
#364
|
|
|
Because of the online aspect I'd say the forum base is a little more representative of DDi. So if 99% of forums goers are annoyed with the compilation problem, then I'd say WotC needs to listen...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2011 - 5:14AM
#365
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2011
|
Hmmm, I have only just signed up to DnD Insider after getting back into D&D after 20 years with some mates and it is already looking like a very shaky "deal". The character generator appears to have more issues that National Geographic (that's right, I went there) and among a few other probs I just realised that I have to download each article separately and then stitch them together myself?
I am only a noob to all these kinds of shenanigans, but from reading various forums it seems like more than a few players are confused by most things WoTC do that would be loosely described as "marketing" in the business world.
Hoping it picks up and I gain a little more confidence in the past time that I am sinking money into.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2011 - 7:30AM
#366
|
|
|
Yeah, this thread has quite a number of people rightfully saying "Yeah, Wizards, we don't buy it, we know you have ulterior motives" so it's not a new thought =P
Still. There must be some hefty corporate reasoning behind this. I can find threads scattered around these forums where Wizards decides on something, people say 'please don't do that' and either a WotC employee will log on and say something neutral OR Wizards will straight up change their mind.
But this MASSIVE, OFFICIAL THREAD filled with almost PURE complaints? We don't get even a slight peep.
Well, they did say if enough people commented on it, they'd think about it, but IIRC (and I might not RC), they said in effect "if enough people complain in twitter and blogs and stuff" (i.e., anywhere but the forums) they might reconsider.
The forums, from everything I gather, are rather low on their priority list for feedback.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2011 - 8:02AM
#367
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2004
|
Just because the forums are the loudest doesn't mean they are the most people. I have 6 people in my group and am the only one on the forums.
I'd like to see some %s on the customers on here vs not. My bet is that the forum base is way less.
And don't forget that people are less likely to come on and say good things vs the people who complain about stuff. I'm not saying that the concerns aren't warranted, as a matter of opinion, but just because they don't compile the issues doesn't mean that they should because some people want it. It's a service not used as much as they need to make it something they do.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2011 - 1:07PM
#368
|
|
|
Just because the forums are the loudest doesn't mean they are the most people. I have 6 people in my group and am the only one on the forums. I'd like to see some %s on the customers on here vs not. My bet is that the forum base is way less. And don't forget that people are less likely to come on and say good things vs the people who complain about stuff. I'm not saying that the concerns aren't warranted, as a matter of opinion, but just because they don't compile the issues doesn't mean that they should because some people want it. It's a service not used as much as they need to make it something they do.
Yes, but how many of your players have or have had DDi? how many are interested in DDi and would subscribe if it were more viable. I'm not saying we are 100% representative, but I think there is a good crossover because if you have DDi, its a good chance that you get on the forums...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2011 - 7:21AM
#369
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2004
|
Yes, but how many of your players have or have had DDi? how many are interested in DDi and would subscribe if it were more viable. I'm not saying we are 100% representative, but I think there is a good crossover because if you have DDi, its a good chance that you get on the forums...
My last post was from my mobile, so exept my appology for not expanding my thoughts. I knew this and other questions were possible, but my "small post" got too big to continue on my phone, hehe.
They all have DDi, with the exception of 1 guy who doesn't much like spending money, so he is a non factor. So 1 out of 5 are on the forums. You may be right in thinking that the forum goers are a majority, but It's my opinion that we are not. Unfortunately, we have no way to actually settle that one because we don't see those numbers.
I just use the logic that 20% of the people create 80% of the problems, as an analogy not as an insult to the community. We put our complaints on here and come up with ways to make the products more efficient, faster, cross platform and, for the sake of this thread, we say they need to compile the magazines for us. They have the actual download numbers. They know what % of subscribers downloaded the compilations each month.
For the record, I would love the compilations, and have downloaded them. So I feel like they removed a bit of service from me. This is something they do need to look at, but if the money into that is not worth the number of people using it, it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 27, 2011 - 10:16AM
#370
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2008
|
Yes, but how many of your players have or have had DDi? how many are interested in DDi and would subscribe if it were more viable. I'm not saying we are 100% representative, but I think there is a good crossover because if you have DDi, its a good chance that you get on the forums...
My last post was from my mobile, so exept my appology for not expanding my thoughts. I knew this and other questions were possible, but my "small post" got too big to continue on my phone, hehe.
They all have DDi, with the exception of 1 guy who doesn't much like spending money, so he is a non factor. So 1 out of 5 are on the forums. You may be right in thinking that the forum goers are a majority, but It's my opinion that we are not. Unfortunately, we have no way to actually settle that one because we don't see those numbers.
I just use the logic that 20% of the people create 80% of the problems, as an analogy not as an insult to the community. We put our complaints on here and come up with ways to make the products more efficient, faster, cross platform and, for the sake of this thread, we say they need to compile the magazines for us. They have the actual download numbers. They know what % of subscribers downloaded the compilations each month.
For the record, I would love the compilations, and have downloaded them. So I feel like they removed a bit of service from me. This is something they do need to look at, but if the money into that is not worth the number of people using it, it makes sense.
I dunno, since one guy over the course of one day could compile the magazines (assuming you're not doing anything fancy like hotlinking ToC or setting up bookmarks or making sure there's no blank space or whatever) just fine... let's take a day's wages for him, and look at the number of people who are withdrawing from D&Di treating this as the last straw (or me, who refused to come back to D&Di because of this, when I was totally about to had it not happened) multiplied by how much they spend on D&Di per month...
I definitely think it's a valid argument that the forums are a small selection of the D&D player base, and that this thread is a small sample of that sample... but I think that those facts don't matter compared to the fact that they could take the money they lost by this decision FROM THE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD ALONE, and use it to get an intern to compile the magazines over a day once a month, slap the PDFs together in Acrobat or whatever. That'd take 10 minutes. Then he could spend the next 7 hours and 50 minutes on that day adding page numbers if he wants. And the fan base is made happy again. It wouldn't be the high-quality super-digital magazines they'd been doing up until now... but then, I never really wanted all of those digital whatsits like hotlinked text or advertisements (not that the magazines are anything but advertisements nowadays), so I'd be happy with a simple magazine compilation.
|
|
|
