| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kuje |
Posted - 05 Feb 2009 : 18:29:51
See, this is why I want to know about the fan policy!
From ENworld's news page:
Ema's Character Sheets Closed "Right now, the site is in an "indetermined" state, as I've just received a Cease & Desist letter from Wizards of the Coast. I'm currently looking into the problem, and I hope I will be able to provide you with more details in the near future."
http://www.emass-web.com/
is the web site where the char sheets were stored and where he/she said him/her is shut down. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 02:05:38
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Oh, I can see that, but about half of the people registering is a large number don't you think?
Aye. Though it could also suggest that this forum is popular enough to have such a number for members.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 01:37:48
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
It was confirmed on EnWorld by one of the WoTC forum guides that the real number of DDI subscribers is much higher; this number represents only those who have the forum account, and according to his WoTC sources that is only a fraction of the subscribers have it.
I'd like to see some numbers, myself... 1/8 is a fraction, but so is 7/8. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 06 Sep 2009 : 23:36:05
It was confirmed on EnWorld by one of the WoTC forum guides that the real number of DDI subscribers is much higher; this number represents only those who have the forum account, and according to his WoTC sources that is only a fraction of the subscribers have it. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 06 Sep 2009 : 11:37:24
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
How many of our 5000 are 'active'?
2919. 
I always wondered why so many people registered without posting, why not just lurk?
I suppose it just strikes them at the moment, to register. Since you can't post without registering, some lurkers [no, not the Babylon 5 variety  ] might initially have an intention to contribute here.
Oh, I can see that, but about half of the people registering is a large number don't you think? And I must admit that I have never wathced a single episode of Babylon 5 |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Sep 2009 : 11:28:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
How many of our 5000 are 'active'?
2919.
I always wondered why so many people registered without posting, why not just lurk?
I suppose it just strikes them at the moment, to register. Since you can't post without registering, some lurkers [no, not the Babylon 5 variety ] might initially have an intention to contribute here.
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 06 Sep 2009 : 11:18:05
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
How many of our 5000 are 'active'?
2919.
I always wondered why so many people registered without posting, why not just lurk? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Sep 2009 : 07:45:03
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
How many of our 5000 are 'active'?
2919. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 06 Sep 2009 : 06:54:04
'Tis true, oh wooly one. How many of our 5000 are 'active'? That should give an idea of how many are active over there... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Sep 2009 : 20:03:28
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Also, don't forget that the group is a subset (D&DI Subscriber) of a subset (Forum member) of D&D players, so it in no way reflects anything on 4th Edition's popularity or how well it is selling.
There are around 7000 D&DI subscribers in a forum with almost 175,000 users. That's still a lot of people, and it doesn't take into account all those that play that have never subscribed to the forum. And on a side note, according to Candlekeep's member list, we have over 5000 members, so the pool of D&DI subscribers isn't too shabby...
Yeah, but how many of those users are active? I'm at least one of their users, and I've not posted over there in 4 or 5 years. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 05 Sep 2009 : 18:50:58
Also, don't forget that the group is a subset (D&DI Subscriber) of a subset (Forum member) of D&D players, so it in no way reflects anything on 4th Edition's popularity or how well it is selling.
There are around 7000 D&DI subscribers in a forum with almost 175,000 users. That's still a lot of people, and it doesn't take into account all those that play that have never subscribed to the forum. And on a side note, according to Candlekeep's member list, we have over 5000 members, so the pool of D&DI subscribers isn't too shabby... |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 05 Sep 2009 : 11:12:56
If these numbers are even near to correct, it will be interesting to see what grips Wizards will take to increase the membership. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 05 Sep 2009 : 07:19:50
If it's a group in the 'new' forums, then the person has to have an account on the forums and choose to join that group. And, having just looked at the group, it's set to private, so you have to contact the owner of the group (wotc_youngs) about membership. I'm not sure if they have it set up to 'automatically' join up D&DI members who create a profile or not. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 05 Sep 2009 : 02:43:09
That number seems terribly low -- it's far, far less than what I would have estimated myself. Either the vast majority of DDI subscribers don't use a forum account, or DDI is doing horribly.
Regardless of the lower expenses for publishing digital content, I suspect even 50K wouldn't be enough to meet their expectations.
|
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Sep 2009 : 18:58:24
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
When you look at the profile of someone who has that red-white symbol (DDi insider) below their avatar then in the lower right corner there's a sidebar ''GROUPS'', and within it is a group D&D Insider, 7259 members at the moment,
I don't know about the old numbers.
By the rate the number is climbing I believe it is only counting those who have a DDI account that bother to log into the forums. If you have an account but don’t log in then you are never recorded.
Probably, and a lot of people had problems reactivating the accounts. We'll see ...
Jorkens, don't know, maybe 100 000 would be acceptable for them. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Sep 2009 : 15:09:46
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
And does anyone recall what Dragon's subscription numbers were?
According to http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html Dragon had more than 36000 subscribers in 1992, and that was only a third of the sales of the magazine.
http://www.dquinn.net/dragon-magazine4/ says that circulation was down to 41000 by 2006, when they decided to pull the plug. But even that is still better by far than the 7000 DDI members mentioned above. |
| Bakra |
Posted - 04 Sep 2009 : 12:31:06
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
When you look at the profile of someone who has that red-white symbol (DDi insider) below their avatar then in the lower right corner there's a sidebar ''GROUPS'', and within it is a group D&D Insider, 7259 members at the moment,
I don't know about the old numbers.
By the rate the number is climbing I believe it is only counting those who have a DDI account that bother to log into the forums. If you have an account but don’t log in then you are never recorded. |
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Sep 2009 : 07:37:43
When you look at the profile of someone who has that red-white symbol (DDi insider) below their avatar then in the lower right corner there's a sidebar ''GROUPS'', and within it is a group D&D Insider, 7259 members at the moment,
I don't know about the old numbers. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 03 Sep 2009 : 20:08:45
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
quote:
Originally posted by Ikki
I know that quite well, very few do visit.
Which is what my numbers are based upon. One does not pay for content on a website one does not visit in the first place at all!!!
Note that was all about ordering the DDI content.
According to the new wotc group thing, it seems there are the rough numbers, about 7000 DDi members (and slowly rising).
Is that enough profitable, probably not.
That sounds terribly low, how many would you think they were counting on getting? |
| Quale |
Posted - 02 Sep 2009 : 10:10:21
quote:
Originally posted by Ikki
I know that quite well, very few do visit.
Which is what my numbers are based upon. One does not pay for content on a website one does not visit in the first place at all!!!
Note that was all about ordering the DDI content.
According to the new wotc group thing, it seems there are the rough numbers, about 7000 DDi members (and slowly rising).
Is that enough profitable, probably not. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 28 Aug 2009 : 20:03:13
An update on this, taken from ENworld's thread.
JohnRTroy posted:
"I have attached updated Zip files of the PDFs for this case. Here's a quick status summary report.
Thomas Patrick Nolan is taking it to trial, and representing himself Pro Se. The trial should come up in Summer/Fall, 2010. No word on the other guy.
Arthur Le who also represented himself Pro Se agreed to the penalty of $100,000.00. I think the co-consipirator has been declared "in default" because he has not responded.
The guys from Poland, no significant progress...so I didn't attach any documents for them."
I didn't post the links to the court docs though. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Jun 2009 : 01:00:38
We don't need those kind of statements, Mace. I know you're angry, but that's a little harsh. Remember, this is a public forum, and we should demonstrate a little respect -- especially when it comes to people and/or groups that we may disagree with.
|
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 18 Jun 2009 : 22:48:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So, eight people with brand new stuff are the reason the rest of us can't legally obtain digital copies of older stuff... 
Yea, legally is the thing here... driving the people to piracy cuz you can't purchase the old stuff... morons of the coast |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Jun 2009 : 20:04:38
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Dungeons & Dragons, created in 1974 and described in the lawsuit as "the first role-playing game," involves the use of pen, paper and dice to create imaginary characters of varying attributes and randomly determined levels of skill as players search for treasure and battle monsters in magical lands.
Accent, mine.
Well, at least I'm glad to see that they are admitting that 4e is entirely based on encounters and contains no rules for anything even resembling 'roleplay'. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jun 2009 : 17:24:31
So, eight people with brand new stuff are the reason the rest of us can't legally obtain digital copies of older stuff... |
| Kuje |
Posted - 18 Jun 2009 : 17:05:19
'Dungeons and Dragons' game handbooks the subject of lawsuits
By TIM KLASS The Associated Press
Updated: 06/18/2009 09:20:18 AM EDT
SEATTLE - Dungeons & Dragons & lawyers, oh my - eight people face accusations they illegally posted the pioneering role-playing game's newest handbook for download on the Internet.
Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc., is seeking unspecified damages in three copyright infringement lawsuits naming a total of eight defendants in U.S. District Court in Seattle.
More than 2,600 copes of "Player's Handbook 2," released March 17 with a suggested retail price of $39.95 a copy, were downloaded from Scribd.com, and more than 4,200 copies were viewed online before the material was pulled from the document-sharing site at Wizards' request, according to two of the lawsuits.
One of those cases, which names as defendants Thomas Patrick Nolan of Milton, Florida, and Stefan Osmena of the Philippines, is headed for mediation, according to a court filing Tuesday.
Another case is against Mike Becker of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and Arthur Le of San Jose, California.
The third, filed against Krysztof Radzikowski of Poland and three people whose identities remain unknown, did not cite any numbers but asserted that unauthorized copies of that handbook and "Manual of the Planes," ''Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead" and "Dungeon Delve," each retailing for $29.95, also were found on document-sharing Web sites.
Tolena Thorburn, a Wizards spokeswoman, would not give the home towns or other personal or contact information for Osmena or Radzikowski.
Dungeons & Dragons, created in 1974 and described in the lawsuit as "the first role-playing game," involves the use of pen, paper and dice to create imaginary characters of varying attributes and randomly determined levels of skill as players search for treasure and battle monsters in magical lands.
According to the lawsuits, all filed on April 6, about 20 million people worldwide are believe to have played the game, including 6 million at present.
The handbook, which includes 242 pages of rules, and manuals sold online bear electronic watermarks that restrict use of copyright material to a specific buyer or user.
Nolan, denying that he uploaded the handbook for public access or committed other wrongdoing, wrote personally to the court on May 20 that he lost his wallet with material showing his Web site usernames and passwords on a trip to Michigan in February.
"Any person who looked at my Scribd page could tell that I was an avid Dungeons & Dragons player and could use the page to post the file," he added.
Nolan, representing himself in the case, and Wizards have agreed to submit their dispute to mediation and to allow Osmena to be included in the mediation effort if he is formally served with the lawsuit by Dec. 4, according to the most recent filing.
According to the lawsuit against Becker, he was identified through investigation as "Humble Apostle," owner of another Scribd Web page from which the handbook was viewed and downloaded by hundreds of people. There was no telephone listing for Becker in Bartlesville.
A micro-watermark indicated that the copy on the "Humble Apostle" site belonged to Le, who described himself in a letter to the court on May 11 as a 19-year-old unemployed student at Mission College in Santa Clara, California, whose parents recently were laid off.
Le acknowledged that he bought a copy of the handbook online but denied any association with Becker.
"I have made no profit off of this venture," he added. "I, however, deeply apologize for my actions and realize that I am in the wrong." |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 16:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by MarkustayTo me, this is akin to your freind lending you his car, and then when you take it again a few weeks later - without permission - you get mad that he reports it stolen.
I think I know that guy |
| Ikki |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 15:03:46
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Ikki, I don't think you can base your assumptions on how many people regularly post on the WoTC boards -- most of the D&D fans I know (who have been devoted customers for 15+ years) *never* even visit there. In fact, I think I'm the only one (out of the 50 or so gamers I know) who has time to post regularly on RPG forums.
I know that quite well, very few do visit.
Which is what my numbers are based upon. One does not pay for content on a website one does not visit in the first place at all!!!
Note that was all about ordering the DDI content.
quote:
There's one really interesting Poll on the EnWorld, though. Now, as far 4E goes, I've thought EnWorld may be a bit too "4E-friendly" for any polls to project an accurate result on any "edition vs. edition"-type of topic. Although I think the poll conducted on "Will you switch to 4E?" last year (at least based on my own observations) was probably more or less accurate (about 80% intending to buy 4E stuff) on how the gamers felt. Anyway, the poll I'm talking about is about "Are you still playing 4E?" (or something along that line), and the most interesting thing is that since last I took a look at the results, about 60% of the voters (out of about 1300 voters or so?) seemed to have tried and quit 4E. Even if the results were "skewed" one way or the other (and note that as far as the posters go, EnWorld has been a *very* 4E-friendly forum so far), it's a disturbing sign that may (or may not) indicate that 4E won't do very well this year. I guess we'll be all the wiser in a year or so.
As ive been observing in the gameshops too. 3e had several shelves and stuff placed prominently... 4e is hidden away between blue planet and runequest (new edition)... and evidently seeing about as much customers as either.
Vampire/werewolf etc are evidently the sellers.. althought that too would seem to primarliy concern the old edition.
It is telling since this is the only retailer in the whole country, with shops in all the major cities... and this is their "flagship" shop.
I probly could get an short interview of sorts, they have always been quite friendly about such. But the product placing is, if not telling, atleast damning.
This in turn, about the actual books.
ps: noticed you are from finland aswell :P And know what fantsu is.. and where the 4e d&d stuff is hidden away :P |
| arry |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 13:06:36
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As much as I'd like to once-again break-out the torches and pitchforks, this is becoming a witch-hunt. 
WotC turned me into a NEWT!
I got better |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 17:36:01
As much as I'd like to once-again break-out the torches and pitchforks, this is becoming a witch-hunt.
NOTHING about 4e is open source! What part of that don't these people understand? True, we have been spoiled by nine years of 'gaming paradise', wherein everyone was allowed to contribute to the 'greater good'.
But thats gone now... at least with D&D. You want those 'good times' back? Stick with OGL/D20/3e (ANY version)!
Don't re-produce someone else's property and then cry about it. They never gave it away (unlike 3e), and most folks are acting like 'spoiled children' now that we have had a taste of what freedom was like.
You have a choice - do what you want with 3e, or don't do anything at all. 4e is completely off-limits for everyone who isn't under Hasbro's umbrella.
To me, this is akin to your freind lending you his car, and then when you take it again a few weeks later - without permission - you get mad that he reports it stolen.
Stay away from 4e people - it's poison, plain and simple. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 20 Feb 2009 : 18:24:14
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
-IIRC WotC was going to make Power Cards since August of Last Year. I know I have heard about them before on the WotC Site.
BRIMSTONE
That may be true. I haven't been following it as much.
It still seems strange that they didn't have the cards ready to publish right after the Core Books. You'd think that would've been #2 on the list of sure-fire money-makers! Why wait over six months to do it?
BTW, I've done a self-imposed exile of the WotC boards for the last week or so, Brimmy. I have to say, I'm a much calmer person this past week in regards to discussions on D&D. |
|
|
