How about a deadline to WotC?

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by carmachu

True. But I'm under no obligation to give them money either. They may want to think on that when wondering about expectations.

Indeed! It is your right to not buy things you don't want.

It is not your right to be able to buy things you wished you could, if only they existed.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Hmmm...wow. Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now? Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?

Oh, now come on.... there is a world of difference between 7-11 adding a $0.25 surcharge to a product they sell and WOTC deciding that they no longer want their IP, their 4e system (which cost them untold $$ in R&D), to be copied or changed in such a way that others can run and sell derivative products without any need for their core books.

Imaro, I may not often agree with your opinions about game systems, but I DO respect your reasoning for your arguments. But this one? It was a reach into the stratosphere.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

So the adventure is not up to your personal liking, so therefore the quality sucks? The first Rise of the Runelords AP adventure had print that was too small and the art wasn't to my liking. So does it suck? No, but it wasn't the quality that H1 was, for sure. The adventure was a PRE-RELEASE adventure designed for beginners and those new to 4e. Of course it wasn't going to have the story depth of P1 (which, BTW, is awesome). Comparing H1 to a Paizo AP is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both fruit, but if you cook with them, they accomplish different goals.

I said NOTHING about not liking it. I said its quality was bad. And it is. I'm not alone in that thinking.

Yes the first AP had small print and art that you didnt like. But you have said NOTHINg about the quality of the adventure, which was good.

Quality of H1 as an adventure? Not so good.

No its not. Its only apples and oranges to YOU. H1 isnt even the quality of Red Hand of Doom or Return to the temple of EE. YOU just dont wish to compare them. Both are adventures. Whether one is an adventure path or not is irrelevant. YOU just dont want to make any comparisons.

But irregardless.....H1 was poor quality adventure. Both RHoD and RtTEE both beat it in quality, as do many of the game mastery/pathfinder modules from paizo, as do more than a few Necros adventures.

Ahhhhhh.... so in business, if I need to put something off for a customer because I have other PRESSING priorities, then I don't care about my customer? That's highly simplistic and could be considered a downright strawman. Just because they haven't executed on the GSL yet, doesn't mean that they don't care about the 3PP. I am not a 3PP, I cannot speak for them, but the ones that have spoken out on the boards say that, while the current GSL doesn't meet their business goals for publishing 4e content (due to some restrictions, current OGL product lines, etc..), many have said, on this board no less, that the gang at WOTC does care and that when Scott get's it done, they'll look at it. Maybe not said in the same post, but said nonetheless.

Whats so pressing beyond DDI?

You keep saying that the gang at WOTC CARES. So again I'll reiterate my question: show me.

I can point to all Wotc's actions and inactions regarding to the GSL. The vast majority show the opposite in fact.

But lets go back to the pressin matters. Yes, it does show your lack of caring to my customers, when you put them off. YOu show them that their concerns arent a priority.

When I put off my customer to do something else, or help someone else....yes they do feel like I dont care. its business 101.

You can buy what you want. That is the nature of capitalism (unless you live in a country that tells you from whom to buy things). You can speak with your wallet. Excellent.

But that has nothing to do with whether Scott's priorities are such that the GSL revision takes second fiddle right now. It doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the 3PPs.

I absolutely believe that Scott cares. But Scott isnt WOtC. And Wotc as a whole? Doesnt care. Their actions and in actions show it.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

Oh, now come on.... there is a world of difference between 7-11 adding a $0.25 surcharge to a product they sell and WOTC deciding that they no longer want their IP

Exactly. The 7-11 example is just a price increase. If WotC increases their prices by 10% have they taken any rights away?

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Yes the first AP had small print and art that you didnt like. But you have said NOTHINg about the quality of the adventure, which was good.

I thought the adventure was just OK.

Originally Posted by carmachu

Quality of H1 as an adventure? Not so good.

No its not. Its only apples and oranges to YOU. H1 isnt even the quality of Red Hand of Doom or Return to the temple of EE. YOU just dont wish to compare them. Both are adventures. Whether one is an adventure path or not is irrelevant. YOU just dont want to make any comparisons.

I agree, path or not, that's irrelevant. I was very impressed with the materials, the maps, the way the adventure was designed physically. The adventure was very basic, very geared towards beginners. I ran it with some newbies, and they had a great time. RHoD, that would have much more difficult and would NOT have had the "fun" effect I was looking for for new players. For that purpose (and, quite frankly, the one that was intended), it was better than RHoD, which was an awesome adventure.... for experienced players and DMs.

Originally Posted by carmachu

But irregardless.....H1 was poor quality adventure.

Of course, this goes without saying that this is only your opinion, and not stated fact. My opinion differs.

Originally Posted by carmachu

Both RHoD and RtTEE both beat it in quality, as do many of the game mastery/pathfinder modules from paizo, as do more than a few Necros adventures.

I love Necro products, I own almost all. I own the first 2 Paizo APs fully, and MANY of their products. The physical quality of H1 was superior than any Necro adventure, and better than the first RotR adventure, again, in my opinion. As for the gaming quality, I already stated that it was full of win for the new people I gamed with.

Originally Posted by carmachu

Whats so pressing beyond DDI?

You keep saying that the gang at WOTC CARES. So again I'll reiterate my question: show me.

I can point to all Wotc's actions and inactions regarding to the GSL. The vast majority show the opposite in fact.

But lets go back to the pressin matters. Yes, it does show your lack of caring to my customers, when you put them off. YOu show them that their concerns arent a priority.

I am not going to dig around for the threads where Clark and many others have stated that the people at WoTC care about the 3PP. Just ask the publishers themselves.

Originally Posted by carmachu

When I put off my customer to do something else, or help someone else....yes they do feel like I dont care. its business 101.

Again, this is an over-simplistic view of things. Running a business for the past 15 years has proven this to me.

Originally Posted by carmachu

I absolutely believe that Scott cares. But Scott isnt WOtC. And Wotc as a whole? Doesnt care. Their actions and in actions show it.

Well, for what it's worth, I disagree. Scott represents WOTC, he speaks for them. So when he says that they care about the 3PP, then it is WOTC saying it. Let's not dance around semantics.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by carmachu

I said NOTHING about not liking it. I said its quality was bad. And it is. I'm not alone in that thinking.

Okay, you're going to have to define "quality" for us. You and everyone you know not liking something does not make it low quality. You're taking0 your subjective opinion and using it as fact. If I told you that I like H1, and so does everyone else I know, and we think it's a great adventure, does that mean it's high quality?

Originally Posted by carmachu

I absolutely believe that Scott cares. But Scott isnt WOtC. And Wotc as a whole? Doesnt care. Their actions and in actions show it.

Again, you're going to have to be more specific. WotC is a fiction, an entity only in the legal sense. It cannot care about anything. Who, specifically, within WotC do you need to "care" about the GSL in order for you to think the company as a whole does? Le Rouse is in charge of the D&D brand. That's a darn good start on the "who cares?" roster. Who else do you need, and how do you know they don't care?

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

Oh, now come on.... there is a world of difference between 7-11 adding a $0.25 surcharge to a product they sell and WOTC deciding that they no longer want their IP, their 4e system (which cost them untold $$ in R&D), to be copied or changed in such a way that others can run and sell derivative products without any need for their core books.

Imaro, I may not often agree with your opinions about game systems, but I DO respect your reasoning for your arguments. But this one? It was a reach into the stratosphere.

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Exactly. The 7-11 example is just a price increase. If WotC increases their prices by 10% have they taken any rights away?

Hey, guess what... you guys are both right, my example is as absurd as Moruss's blanket statement on people who feel entitlement towards things they were given for free and then had taken away being "childish".

WotC fostered this sense of entitlement in it's consumers and it is the direction many believed they would take, as they supported their product. (Of course this was in no way helped by WotC's "super secrecy" around the GSL during the release of 4e, which in turn leads me to believe they knew many fans and companies would not be happy with the changes). To then turn around and say they are childish for feeling anger about this is ridiculous. especially when presenting the case that WotC themselves hold no fault or blame in the ill will their reversal of direction fostered.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Imaro

And as far as feelings of entitlement... Who exactly fostered these "feelings". Shouldn't they have a certain amount of responsibility for the effect of years of conditioning those feelings, only to abruptly end them?

Simple answer, NO!


WoTC did not "foster" feelings of entitlement, neither did they imply or state that said entitlement existed, except as far as the original OGL grants. The OGL did not imply, state, or grant that all WoTC products, in prepetuity, would be Open Content. From this interpretation, it sounds like you are saying that WoTC gave up all of their current and future rights to any IP they have, or may develop in the future. That is an absurd assumption, one that seems to be based in an immature sense of entitlement. Just because some chose to view it as entitlement, even when it wasn't, does not ascribe resonsibility for those feelings to WoTC.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Hey, guess what... you guys are both right, my example is as absurd as Moruss's blanket statement on people who feel entitlement towards things they were given for free and then had taken away being "childish".

Except Morrus didn't say this.

1. The OGL was free, AND STILL IS FREE. It hasn't been, and can't, be rescinded. All Open Content from the OGL, is still Open Content, and therefore is still free and will be FOREVER.

2. 4E is a completely new product. One which WoTC is under absolutely no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to release as Open Content. Just as you have every right to create content or products that are Open Content or not, at your discretion and pleasure.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Hey, guess what... you guys are both right, my example is as absurd as Moruss's blanket statement on people who feel entitlement towards things they were given for free and then had taken away being "childish".

I agree with the first part, but not the second. Morrus' 'childish' comment was a cheap shot, I think. It wasn't called for, and I never said I agreed with it. The rest of his post was relevant though.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Except Morrus didn't say this.

1. The OGL was free, AND STILL IS FREE. It hasn't been, and can't, be rescinded. All Open Content from the OGL, is still Open Content, and therefore is still free and will be FOREVER.

2. 4E is a completely new product. One which WoTC is under absolutely no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to release as Open Content. Just as you have every right to create content or products that are Open Content or not, at your discretion and pleasure.

You know what's funny, if WOTC had never called 4e dungeons and dragons, and called it instead "1e Mini's and Maps" we wouldn't be having this ridiculous argument.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Simple answer, NO!


WoTC did not "foster" feelings of entitlement, neither did they imply or state that said entitlement existed, except as far as the original OGL grants. The OGL did not imply, state, or grant that all WoTC products, in prepetuity, would be Open Content. From this interpretation, it sounds like you are saying that WoTC gave up all of their current and future rights to any IP they have, or may develop in the future. That is an absurd assumption, one that seems to be based in an immature sense of entitlement. Just because some chose to view it as entitlement, even when it wasn't, does not ascribe resonsibility for those feelings to WoTC.

Uhm, that is nothing even close to what I said, and I agree it is absurd.

You know what else is absurd? For a business to go in a certain direction, which many of it's fans support (regardless of whether it's the OGL or the free material given away on the website during 3e and 3.5)... Totally change that direction (while being exceptionally hush, hush and secretive about it) and expect those customers (some of which may have supported the company because it did go in this direction) to not be angry or peeved about it. Furthermore it is also absurd to then claim these people's anger is childish and basically without merit...

Does that clear up what I'm saying?

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

their 4e system (which cost them untold $$ in R&D)

I recall Scott Rouse mentioning somewhere here a range of the $$ so it is not wholly untold, but I have to ask this question with 100% seriousness.

Who asked them for it, and why are gamers responsible in some way for helping WotC or any other company for something that could have been a huge waste of money?

Not to pick on the man, but just one example among many and to continue with the same name....

Is it my job to help Scott Rouse in some way because he bought some lemon car and paid to much for it? Do I owe him anything for that to keep food on his table? How about anyone else at WotC?

Do they in some way perform some service that puts food on my table?

We are talking about the entertainment industry here. One false step means life or death. You want your investments secure then you better make sure people wants whatever avenue of entertainment you are wanting.

I get so sick and tired of hearing people talking about the money WotC spent to develop some new thing. It was their money to risk to lose. They will have to take it up with HASBRO should it fails, and with the shareholders.

I owe them nothing, not does any other gamer here; so why should it be made in some way to look as thought every gamer is responsible for WotC making a decision to make something like 4th that had no want or interest in.

So it is childish to think that somehow gamers should be responsible to make sure WotC did not lose those $$ on R&D and are somehow responsible.

"Daddy daddy I broke my new toy I bought and need another one."

That is what I hear anytime someone speaks of how much money WotC sank into creating 4th.

So let's just drop it. I didn't tell them to spend it, and ain't responsible to help them get it back.

They should be doing what they can to get it back the best and quickest way possible. Since the original GSL was so delayed they lost their precious $5000 early buy in. But that would have helped them get it back.

WotC is the ones screwing up as a whole company, and it is in now way the fault of gamers, but the execs at WotC. So again I say let's drop the whole "WotC spent X dollars on something so you should feel bad for them" bit.

I don't. It wasn't my money, and I laugh at people that waste money and shortly after [self censured] because they needed it for something else!

You should have compared to an analogy of WotC raising the price on the second print run of books or something rather than basing it on R&D costs that has nothing really to do with the quarter increase for the cup at 7-11. Like somehow WotC deciding to charge extra for the pictures where they were fre before or something.

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

You know what's funny, if WOTC had never called 4e dungeons and dragons, and called it instead "1e Mini's and Maps" we wouldn't be having this ridiculous argument.

And it would have been a heck of a lot better name as well, because it is more truthful.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Except Morrus didn't say this.

1. The OGL was free, AND STILL IS FREE. It hasn't been, and can't, be rescinded. All Open Content from the OGL, is still Open Content, and therefore is still free and will be FOREVER.

2. 4E is a completely new product. One which WoTC is under absolutely no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to release as Open Content. Just as you have every right to create content or products that are Open Content or not, at your discretion and pleasure.

Are you even reading what I'm posting??

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Hmmm...wow. Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now? Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?

If you simply decide not to buy the 2.24 Big Gulp, then no, you are not childish. If you get personally angry about it and feel that you have been personally wronged in some way, then yes, you are childish.

I actually think that the example you gave is an excellent illustration of the childish way that people view economics. People who would look at a 25 cent price increase and shrug it away as inflation will get incredibly angry at a new 25 cent surcharge for a cup. That's childish. Its exactly the same thing, except that a cup surcharge can be bypassed by bringing your own cup.*

*Disclaimers so that the Generic Food Metaphor doesn't get out of control: If they don't allow you to bring your own cup, or in any way sever the cup from the soda in the transaction, then its not a cup surcharge, even if they say it is. Its a flat, run of the mill price increase. If they don't allow you to bring your own cup, and they don't include the cost of the cup on their price schedule or on any place visible to consumers, its a hidden fee. There are different and legitimate reasons to become upset at hidden fees. In such a case I would suggest calling your better business bureau, and asking whether you should notify your state attorney general.

And this is where we disagree... there is nothing inherently childish about getting angry about something one feels is owed to him or her, whether they are correct or wrong. It is in how one handles those feelings that speaks to maturity... venting those feelings on a message board is not childish (though I would argue trying to tell someone how they should feel about something is.) ... burning one's 4e books, yeah that might be childish.

Are you actually arguing that the motivation behind your actions isn't relevant in determining whether you are behaving in a childish way, and that what you do based on that motivation is the only relevant factor?

That would mean that:

1. It would not be childish to whine on a message board because you falsely and irrationally believe that WOTC owes you something they don't owe you.

2. It would be childish to burn your 4e books in protest because you correctly believe based on evidence and investigation that 4e was written entirely by children that Scott Rouse kidnapped and chained to typewriters in his basement.

Obviously that doesn't make any sense. Motives are incredibly important. Perhaps its not what you really meant to say.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Who asked them for it, and why are gamers responsible in some way for helping WotC or any other company for something that could have been a huge waste of money?

Who said they were? And what does that have to do with the discussion?

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Are you even reading what I'm posting??

His response actually makes sense. In relation to your argument, in which you claim that its reasonable for people to get upset if something they used to get for free now costs money, he's pointing out that the free thing people used to get is still free- there's just a new, different thing that costs money, and people are arguing that because Thing One was free, Thing Two should be free as well.

[joethelawyer]

This is kind of like cars and trucks, to make an analogy. Let's say you were a ford pickup truck lover all your life. You come from a long line of ford pickup truck lovers. Let's assume for the sake of the analogy that up until 2008, ford pickup trucks were incredibly easy to work on, modify, tinker with pimp-out, repair them yourself, etc. Basically, whatever you wanted to do with them, you could do. And it still remained the basic manly looking ford pickup truck at its core. Ford never cared that you tinkered with them, and in fact made it easy for you to do so in every way.

Now lets say that in 2009, Ford decides to revamp the pickup truck. They make it pink with purple polkadots, and give it green furry trim all over. They make the engine so electronic based and confusing for the average backyard mechanic, that you can no longer freely tinker with it. Even worse, they make you sign an agreement upon purchase that you will not be able to change its exterior or engine, or else you agree to be subject to a high fine.

You are outraged at the new direction ford went in.

You can do one of 2 things, as i see it.

1. Rant and rave like an idiot, but knowing all the while that nothing will really come of it, AND BE MISERABLE.

2. drive your old ford pickup and just tell yourself that you had the last true ford pickup, the new one is not really a ford pickup, (regardless of the truth of that statement or not--people convince themselves that what is false is true, all the time) AND BE HAPPY.

I'd rather be happy driving my old pickup. Why be miserable about not being able to drive a pickup you didn't really like anyway? It's much more pleasant than choosing to be miserable.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Both actually.
Face it, wotc's adventures as a whole, arent very good. H1 was bad no matter which way you cut it, I havent bothered with H2 or H3 as a result. Their track record in adventures throughout 3.x was about the same with a couple of exceptions.

So, you are claiming that WotC’s adventures are bad, yet you have only had any experience with H1? Would you be surprised if I told you that it is the weakest of them all? (H2 and P1 are better by miles, H3 depends on taste)

Originally Posted by carmachu

No its not. Its only apples and oranges to YOU. H1 isnt even the quality of Red Hand of Doom or Return to the temple of EE. YOU just dont wish to compare them. Both are adventures. Whether one is an adventure path or not is irrelevant. YOU just dont want to make any comparisons.
But irregardless.....H1 was poor quality adventure. Both RHoD and RtTEE both beat it in quality, as do many of the game mastery/pathfinder modules from paizo, as do more than a few Necros adventures.

Yet again, you are comparing the worst 4e WotC adventure, to some of the best of 3.5. Sure, we expect the best from WotC, but still. Give them a chance.

Originally Posted by justanobody

Snipped a very long rant

Seriously, you got things backwards. It’s not about us having to help out WotC. It’s about their right to do whatever the hell they want with their products, in order to recoup the expenses they have had. And they did. They didn't ask for help, they didn't do things the easy way. They did what they thought best - for them. They made the GSL. And yet, people keep on whining…

Originally Posted by Morrus

It's simply human nature. Those used to getting something for free develop a sense of entitlement to that thing, and erroneously equate the cessation of that free supply to actual loss; and further develop the belief that someone NOT giving them something for free is therefore in the wrong.

A behavioural trait often displayed by children; most people grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood, but some never shake it.

Thanks for posting this Morrus. Now I can quote you, without fear of being banned.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Are you actually arguing that the motivation behind your actions isn't relevant in determining whether you are behaving in a childish way, and that what you do based on that motivation is the only relevant factor?

That would mean that:

1. It would not be childish to whine on a message board because you falsely and irrationally believe that WOTC owes you something they don't owe you.

2. It would be childish to burn your 4e books in protest because you correctly believe based on evidence and investigation that 4e was written entirely by children that Scott Rouse kidnapped and chained to typewriters in his basement.

Obviously that doesn't make any sense. Motives are incredibly important. Perhaps its not what you really meant to say.

Not arguing motivation isn't relevant at all. I was talking about this situation, not a hypothetical "other" situation when I gave my example. If you feel that WotC has done you wrong by an action they've taken, is it or isn't it a mature response to post on a message board their representatives read, write a letter to the company, etc. However, burning your books will bring nothing to their attention or make your feelings known. So what I'm saying is that the person who is actually following a path in which his grievance is known is acting maturely ... the one who destroys his books in his own home and no one knows, isn't.

As far as whether someone's feelings are justified or not is subjective and even in our judicial system often based on circumstances that transcend pure logic.