|
2 years ago ::
Feb 10, 2011 - 11:30PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2008
|
I dropped DDI... many reasons.
First.. I get creepy about privacy, and WOTC is very clear they they own everything you do on their computers. This includes your characters.
Second.. I found the new builder much harder to use.
Third... I don't rent software.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 2:19AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
I cancelled but not because of the move online in itself, but more how poorly implimented it has been. If the OCB actually had the functionality of the old one, or could even print character sheets properly, if they hadn't decided to screw around with Dragon and Dungeon and abandon the MB, I'd probably still subscribe even though it was online. In many ways I actually think the move online was a good idea, it has just been so poorly executed.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 2:52AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2003
|
I didnt quit for the move to online but because of the way WOTC decided to make the transition.
Online or offline makes no differance to me but if I pay for a service then I think I´m entitled to quality products and far better communication then what WOTC have been able to provide. I can´t help but feeling cheated by the way the company gladly took my money but refused to deliver the promised services. But live and learn I guess.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 6:47AM
#54
|
|
|
I kept mine. I actually like it better online. Once we get feature parity I'll delete the old builder entirely (for now I use it for workarounds and stuff).
Sums up my feelings on the matter quite nicely.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 7:51AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I was never fully sold on DDI to begin with. Mostly because WoTC failed to deliver the much vaunted VTT.
THAT interested me. And a great many others who I game with (some of them do have accounts). Had that been available? Or become available? I might have signed up for a DDI account.
But without the VTT I had no/little use for the rest of the content. So it wasn't really worth it to me.
Alas, over the course of 2 years I've determined that I don't really like 4e. So I saw even less reason to sign up.
And even had I signed up? The current crap would've caused me to drop it. Why would I pay the same for a now inferior product???
Because they now have the VT?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 8:00AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2006
|
If I could afford to pay, I would subscribe. As others have said, the compendium alone is awesome. Toss in the other stuff and it is a very sweet deal.
Automobile radiator fluid is very sweet, too. Doesn't keep it from being a lethal poison.
Do they need to put warning labels on DDI now?
"Do not attempt to drink the Character Builder."
I know that I wouldn't.
Good point...because there exists something that is both sweet and a lethal poison, a DDI subscription is currently not a good deal for everyone because you don't like it.
I'd better be more careful with my word choice. How's this:
If I could afford to pay, I would subscribe. As others have said, the compendium alone is awesome. Toss in the other stuff and it is a very great deal.
But wait...Alexander the Great was great...and he killed thousands of people! Oh noes!
Eh, I never found Al to be all that great. To me he wasn't much more than Alexander the Moderately Okay. Maybe Alexander the Somewhat Neato. Perhaps even Alexander the Bordering-on-Relatively-Funky.
To make my position perfectly clear, if other people want to try DDI, it's no skin off my nose. However, with my personal experiences with it, I would advise against. (This past year has been nothing but bad experiences with DDI for me.) It's a free (somewhat, anyway) country, and your mileage may vary. Just remember to look at past performance from DDI products and the actions of the WotC DDI department. Maybe it'll get better, but "maybe's" don't get MY hard-earned dollar. As always, Buyer Beware.
The sycophants and EULA quoters aren't worth our time.
4E =/= Essentials; Essentials =/= 4E.
To WotC/DDI: GO "SOON" YOURSELVES.
Internet Rule #41. Needs moar Desu. No exceptions.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 8:57AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
So to make your position more perfectly clear, what exactly would it take in terms of improvements to have you get YOUR hard-earned dollar?
Do you have specific criteria, or are you just complaining while not paying attention to the good things they're doing with it?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 10:38AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2009
|
So to make your position more perfectly clear, what exactly would it take in terms of improvements to have you get YOUR hard-earned dollar?
I'm honestly not sure anymore.
I understand, now, that the reduction in service and content isn't WotC's fault, it's due to Hasbro's sweeping layoffs. That doesn't even begin to excuse the deception however. A good start would be an apology for that.
I really think Hasbro is a very poor fit for D&D on a lot of levels: WotC did fine by me, but the fact the D&D team gets layoffs because Transformers isn't selling well between movies just rubs me the wrong way. I know Hasbro won't sell the IP, but maybe they might lease it or something? I don't know what can really be hoped for now.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 11:13AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
I was never fully sold on DDI to begin with. Mostly because WoTC failed to deliver the much vaunted VTT.
THAT interested me. And a great many others who I game with (some of them do have accounts). Had that been available? Or become available? I might have signed up for a DDI account.
But without the VTT I had no/little use for the rest of the content. So it wasn't really worth it to me.
Alas, over the course of 2 years I've determined that I don't really like 4e.
I feel like if the VTT existed, I would have played so much more 4e, and been able to sell all of my main group on 4e. As it stands, a lot of my group moved far away, and we only really get the occasional one shot in. I also feel like if I had a working, decent online play platform, I would overlook loads of things I don't like about the system just for the ability to play something with that group. As it stands, we play once per 2 or 3 months. We would seriously be playing 2/3 times a week if we had a VTT. We have tried 3rd party ones, but didn't like them very much. The one they demo-ed was what sold the majority of my group on 4e. Since the release, i've been playing lots of other systems and am generally finding things i like about them more than 4e. I went from the guy selling every group I played with on the virtues of 4e to the guy is ambivilent or sometimes even bitter on 4e. I honestly think if I had a VTT, that would be different. I still might not like the system as much as I did day 1, but I would have the arguement "yeah but i have that sweet VTT and play so many games the little annoyances are vastly overshadowed".
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2011 - 11:18AM
#60
|
|
|
I feel like if the VTT existed, I would have played so much more 4e...
I agree wholeheartedly. Our group can manage to play once per month, maybe once every three weeks. With a VT, I would probably have played once per week.
Yes, I know that other VT's exist... But they're not in the spotlight, and it is much harder to organize a group for one of those tables.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
