|
The way I look at this is RW needs to focus on what will best help it grow its user base and increase profit so it can grow and afford to continue developing the product. That is why the marketplace and the more collaborative features have be given preference, even though I could care little about them. They just are not going to do as well focusing on GMs like me who are using the tool as a way to organize and build their world, but not to share with players. They need to sell player licences. They also need to bring in busy GMs that prefer to work with pre-created content. The marketplace is critical for this.
I do wonder, however, if the focus on keeping the current user base happy is creating a feedback loop and overlooks what may be keeping larger numbers from buying the software?
I wonder how many people have turned away from buying the program because they would not be able to export or print their content. As much as I REALLY want calendars, I can see the inability to export/print being a more common deal breaker.
As for calendars versus journal—I don't know—I would think lack of custom calendars would be a bigger turn off for potential buyers than lack of journaling. But this may just be a blind spot I have, as lack of journal features is not something I've missed in months of heavy use for how I use the tool.
The blinds spots, I think, are the risk that are the hardest for developers to identify. The survey seems to be designed to be very helpful for retaining users. 15% seems like a good sampling of perspective users, but it is a highly select group of potential users and not a very good sampling of larger market. More interesting to me would be a survey given to a randomized group of gamers (e.g. people who have registered to play one or more role playing games at a large gaming convention) and asking them rate the importance of features, including allowing for the selection of multiple items that would be "deal breakers" if not provided.
I think it might be enlightening to the developers what answers they would get if a large random sample of DMs, who were not current customers, if they would buy a campaign management tool that did not allow them to export or print their work. As a current user, when i go through this thought experiment, I find myself saying no. So why did I buy RW? Because I didn't conduct much due diligence, bought it on impulse, and just assumed that this would be available. I remember being surprised when I learned that I couldn't export/print, but I was more disappointed by lack of calendars.
The good news is that after the initial frustration, I started using the tool and have found it immensely useful. I have not seen anything that comes close to RW for what I use it for. The bad news is that it wouldn't take much for me to change allegiances. If a campaign-management tool came along that offered a decent content-management system with a workable solution for multiple calendars, and an ability to export/print, I would switch. Hours of cutting and pasting would seem like a worthwhile investment.
This, ultimately, is what the RW team needs to focus on. I think that is what they are trying to do with their survey, but when putting myself back into the shoes of a hypothetical GM who is informed about the product's features and limitations, I can see that, yes, the Marketplace is red-hot critical, but I have a difficult time seeing the existence or lack of journaling to be a deal breaker for a potential buyer. It seems to be more about making the existing user base happy.
|