General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
That's not what I said. I said your claim about advertising was rubbish, and it is. I'm not suprised you jumped to the wrong conclusion, because if it's one thing people in these arguments can't stand, it's the idea that 4e might be just plain better than 3e. Gasp! No! We must keep that idea taboo!
What wrong conclusion?
How does one measure and quantify the "objective betterness" of 4Ed vs 3Ed?
Quote:
catastrophic's own words
I find it particularly contrived to decide there's some big faux pass involved in trying to improve the game, or daring to suggest that 4e is an improvement over 3e. Rubbish.
To which I responded that it is indeed a faux pas from a marketing perspective to suggest that "4E is an improvement over 3Ed."
Its not that making the effort is the problem- like many others, I was fine with the advent of 4Ed as an idea. I appreciated the effort- I just didn't care for the game's design in reality. I'm currently waiting to see what 5Ed looks like, and will be similarly optimistic and hopeful when 6, 7, and 8Ed revisions get announced in their time.
Its the argumentative and authoritarian tone of that assertion- 4Ed>3Ed- as a matter of fact that is the problem. 4Ed isn't better, its different. And continuing to assert 4Ed>3Ed as fact doesn't do WotC's marketing plan any good...nor this thread.
Quote:
Are you saying advertisers don't compared their product favourable to competitors?
No. Not at all. That, in fact, is one of the primary ways of differentiating your product from the product of a competitor.
Quote:
...And previous models of their own products? Don't be ridiculous, of course they do.
Yes they do, but they do so with caution and precision if they do it right.
Done poorly, not only do you damage sales of the product you're rolling out, but you risk damaging sales of entire product lines that may be related to that product.
And how this is done varies from product to product.
The American auto industry is currently criticizing their own past products in their ad campaigns...because historically speaking, they have been producing lower quality products than European and Japanese competitors. They're able to criticize themselves now because they've substantially closed the quality gap on many models, and they need to let the buying public know this. That's a selling point.
However, you won't see an insulation manufacturer talking about how their older products contained a lot of asbestos, and now they don't. The closest they'll get is saying their new stuff is asbestos-free...not that it used to contain the cancer-inducing fiber.
The tobacco companies only mention the cancer link because they have to.
Quote:
Adversiting doesn't make subjective criticisms? Subjective claims? That's what adversiting is.
Some advertising does make subjective claims. And if one company makes a bold subjective claim that is objectively testable, you can bet that the competition will trot out commercials that show evidence to the contrary. That's how the whole Coke & Pepsi "taste test" advertising campaigns got started...which resulted in the creation of New Coke.
But an amazing amount of advertising is based on quantifiable data. The 2 main ways of competing in a market are with quality or price. Most advertising on price is obviously fact based. Something is either cheaper or not.
Quality gets more difficult. Depending on each product, certain characteristics are going to be objectively quantifiable and some will be subjective- known in the field as "fluff" or "puff" language.
But even the objectively quantifiable may be measured in many ways- and which way matters differently to different consumers.
Quote:
You have created a fantasy world where advertisers work purely in terms of objective facts and that simply isn't true.
No- that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that its extremely bad advertising practice to criticize your own product on subjective grounds, not that advertisers never use subjective statements.
Snapple's current campaign subtly compares their new products to their old. "The best stuff on Earth just got better." is the tag-line.
"The best stuff on Earth" is clearly subjective. Its called "puff" or "adspeak" in the biz. But its also not a claim that can be objectively challenged...because its simply too vague. Its also their original tagline.
"just got better" isn't. Why? Because the "better" is referring to the quality of their new ingredients- fresher produce, better QC, and other objectively verifiable facts underly that claim...and they're only really explicitly emphasizing the quality of their ingredients.
It is obliquely critical of their own product, to be sure. But its done properly. They're not ticking off, point by point, how Snapple 2009 is better than Snapple 1999, and that the 1999 stuff wasn't good at all. Their ads just call out they're using superior ingredients to what they did in the past.
Quote:
Quote:
The patches for games address known issues- software conflicts, freezes, backdoors, bugs, etc.- or again add or improve the program's functionality in objective ways with increases in world size, more realistic & challenging AIs, smoother graphics and so forth...and are also rarely part of an actual advertising campaign.
Not only are many of these claims at least somewhat subjective, but they're obvious examples of where an improvement is made over a previous iteration, and these improvements are promoted.
Subjective how?
How are patches for bugs, conflicts etc. not objectively better? How is it subjective that a claiming its good that a MMORPG gets a size increase due to a patch?
Smoother graphics? That can be verified by direct comparison.
Realistic & challenging AI? You mean that its not objectively discernible that a new AIs for Commandos acts more like RW Commandos?
And no...patches are NOT promoted. Expansions are, on occasion, but not patches.
Do they get released? Yes. Do they get announced to the people who bought the software? Yes.
Do gaming or computer magazines talk about the patches? Sure.
But did WoW have Ozzy & Mr T talk on TV about the latest patch? No. Patches are like FAQ updates. The word gets out, but its not part of the advertising budget.
Admin note: this has been addressed. In the mean time, we're leaving this up as a good example of how not to post at ENW. Confrontative insults aren't a great way to get anyone to pay attention to you. ~ Piratecat
I'm not going to go back and fourth with you when your argument is absurd and clearly untrue. I see you're backpedalling a bit in your latest post, but it doesn't change the fact that your criticism of WOTC's marketing is absurd.
You're just drawing arbitary lines and creating a set of contrived rules in order to juge WOTC a failure while, for instance, denying that Pazio falls under the same criticism even though it obviously should.
*It is not a faux pass from a marketing perspective to claim the new model is better than the old model. It is certainly not considered bad form for RPGs and similar games to talk about how they've improved from edition to edition- some fans may disagree, but no matter what you may claim, the retro faction of an edition war is not the majority vote it pretends to be, and it's not going to be mollified by 'different not better'.
*Advertising relies on subjective factors at least as much as objective data, and frankly it tends to rely on non-objective data a great deal more. If you aren't aware of that, welcome to planet earth, where you need to drink coke to enjoy life and 'life' is a synonym for 'carbon'.
*Oh, and patches are increasingly promoted and certainly advertised. For instance Valve promotes it's updates to tf2, going as far as to release short animated films and using other promotional methods to raise awareness of the product, such as splash pages on a part of steam normally used only to advertise upcoming products. When DOW2 got a major overhaul of it's balance and gameplay, the developers advertised it with videos and branding and even gave it a fancy name based on the game's setting ("there is only war"). And no, you can't brush this aside by drawing yet another arbitary line between 'promotion' and 'awareness'.
Last edited by Piratecat; 8th September 2009 at 04:20 PM..
Ah .. well bards only suck if you let yourself be pulled into the Stormwind Fallacy. A suboptimal choice shouldn't deter a truly good roleplayer
Anyway, Paizo hasn't been criticized as much because they're just the smaller companay in the mix. They aren't the ones forcing the change, and Paizo was merely doing what a lot of 3PP did when working on their own OGL games -- tinkering with the basics of 3.5.
C.I.D.
__________________ Journey into the world of the Spire and the Abyss! A 4e Campaign based around airships and exploration of a recovering world.
"Guardinals - Bullet in the Head." - Mike Mearls
"What's a guardinal???" - Dave Noonan
"They're outsiders from the plane of neutral good!" - James Wyatt
"There's a plane of neutral good? Which one was that again?" - Dave Noonan
"...Bytopia? Maybe?" - James Wyatt (giving the wrong answer, which apparently none of the other guys knew was wrong)
"I'm probably going to offend a bunch of Planescape fans, but Bytopia sounds like a place where you'd go to buy a gimmicky hamburger..."
*insert laughter and jokes cracked about the plane*
What's funny is that the page for the podcast actually went back and added a printed correction for them botching what the NG plane in the Great Wheel was, and what Bytopia was.
That's...sad.
Oh, well. Those that agree with them can have what they deserve - 4E.
How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?
Simple. MANY people got to playtest beta rules for a possible bard and debate changes in a public forum where the designers participated. Some of those changes were incorporated in the final product, but the most important impact was that core customers felt heard by the process of creating the revision. Contrast this with the closed system of playtesting that you had with 4E and you have a key difference.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
While I don't know if better marketting would've made 4e more played, I think it did contribute a lot to the edition wars.
WotC told me in no unkind terms that the way I liked to play was bad, that I didn't know what fun was, that my enjoyment of certain races was bad, that my enjoyment of certain classes was bad, that settings I liked were bad, that the fluff I enjoyed was bad, and that some of the things I've done while DMing is bad.
That's not how you foster a big welcoming community.
/snip
Look, every single one of those blogs and whatnot are still online. Can someone please show me where WOTC went out of their way to either be overly critical or insulting of anyone's playstyle OR 3e? Can anyone actually back that up with quotes other than "Oh, remember that thread?"
I mean, when we had that "cloud watching" blog post, people freaked. People went ballistic. How dare they say that we don't have the full picture.
Then cooler heads went back and read the blog and asked for exactly what was so bad about the blog post.
I remember the reply - critics actually accused WOTC of going back and revising the blog post - of editing the blog post after the fact. When it was proven to be DEMONSTRABLY false, people kind of slunk away and the issue died. (It was demonstrable due to Way Back Machine and the fact that the "objectionable" part of the blog was actually quoted on En World and then nothing objectionable was found.)
Critics of WOTC were going so far overboard as to claim that it was more likely that WOTC was editing its own blogs to change their message than perhaps people were being a tad thin skinned and reading things that weren't really there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyA
To which I responded that it is indeed a faux pas from a marketing perspective to suggest that "4E is an improvement over 3Ed."
So, a better marketing strategy would have been, "Here's 4e, it might not be better than what you're playing right now but, please buy it anyway"?
Hey, I know I don't have a marketing degree, but, that doesn't sound right to me.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I think it's funny, though Bytopia is obviously the Elemental Plane of Rush Fans. To each is own, but the profusion of stuff in the Great Wheel --at the intersection the Para-elemental Planes of Salt, Smoke, and Tasty Peppers lies the Para-Elemental Demi-Plane of Paprika-- always struck me as a cosmology designed by a group of undergraduate engineering students sharing their first joint, which is to say, as lacking a certain mythic power and lyricism.
Quote:
Oh, well. Those that agree with them can have what they deserve - 4E.
The 4e Cosmology is okay as a starting point. My friend and I improved it quite a bit for our homebrew (ah, modesty...).
As for the marketing of 4e... I thought it was fine. It created an awareness of and interest in the product in me. I didn't find it insulting in the slightest. What I did find was a surprising amount of thin-skinned response on the Internet (of all places), claiming the new design/marketing team wasn't showing the proper amount of deference for all that came before. Where they supposed to suggest the new product was wholly unnecessary? That no improvements were made? That so few changes were made that it's practically the same product users already owned --hmmm, it worked for Pathfinder, so maybe... Anyhow, color me confused.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Simple. MANY people got to playtest beta rules for a possible bard and debate changes in a public forum where the designers participated. Some of those changes were incorporated in the final product, but the most important impact was that core customers felt heard by the process of creating the revision. Contrast this with the closed system of playtesting that you had with 4E and you have a key difference.
Wonder how 4E would have turned out if it had an open playtest similar to Pathfinder.
Or for that matter, would attitudes be different if WotC had said back in 2006 that the "Book of 9 Swords" was a possible design for 4E.
Last edited by ggroy; 6th September 2009 at 03:51 PM..
Where a lot of criticism of the marketing arose was really surprising to me. The designers did something pretty unprecedented in game design in blogging about, discussing, previewing, and explaining the changes and development of the edition in the months leading up to release. And this is where they took the most constant flak. Every word was analyzed, developers were attacked for perceived "trashing" of 3e (where explaining why a change was made amounted to crapping on 3e). I don't know how bad it was perceived from their end, if we won't see that level of openness with 5e. I think we might in that much of this openness has continued through DDI and all the preview articles and Design & Development articles.
I think this is the key point. Wizards were trying to communicate openly with us about their thoughts, goals and intentions. They did not add much filtering or other corporate BSing that is the hallmark of a "good" marketing campaign. Thus, there was enough honesty in their statements that readers who wanted to get offended had material, and, as Umbran mentioned, the Internet is the perfect place to amplify such perceived offense.
So for the next edition, we can expect corporate BS again, as we obviously cannot handle honesty. Yay.
I think this is the key point. Wizards were trying to communicate openly with us about their thoughts, goals and intentions. They did not add much filtering or other corporate BSing that is the hallmark of a "good" marketing campaign. Thus, there was enough honesty in their statements that readers who wanted to get offended had material, and, as Umbran mentioned, the Internet is the perfect place to amplify such perceived offense.
So for the next edition, we can expect corporate BS again, as we obviously cannot handle honesty. Yay.
Except that designers getting the word out happened with previous editions too, without the same backlash. When 2e was under development, there were updates in Dragon. I recall updates from WotC under 3e. Things accelerated under 4e, I suppose, because even more people have access to the internet since the 3e era. But the basics remained the same. Developers aired some of their ideas and gave updates on the process.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Except that designers getting the word out happened with previous editions too, without the same backlash. When 2e was under development, there were updates in Dragon. I recall updates from WotC under 3e. Things accelerated under 4e, I suppose, because even more people have access to the internet since the 3e era. But the basics remained the same. Developers aired some of their ideas and gave updates on the process.
That "Things accelerated" seems to be the biggest difference and notably significant because of where this dicussion is taking place.
I remember the reply - critics actually accused WOTC of going back and revising the blog post - of editing the blog post after the fact.
Nah, they haven't done that in years as far as I can tell. The first and only time I've seen that was when the official transcript of the 3.x Planar handbook designer chat was heavily edited versus the raw transcript to remove a number of questions and responses that didn't exactly come off as flattering.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
Simple. MANY people got to playtest beta rules for a possible bard and debate changes in a public forum where the designers participated. Some of those changes were incorporated in the final product, but the most important impact was that core customers felt heard by the process of creating the revision. Contrast this with the closed system of playtesting that you had with 4E and you have a key difference.
You know there's a three colum page full of small print playtester credits at the back of the phb, right? And that they were openly stating that they used late 3e products and feedback from them as part of the 4e design? And they used the RPGA for a great deal of playtesting? And they've been doing playtest releases of classes?
I guess WOTC's evil closed playtest system is going to be a new element in the rich mythology of 4e-hate.
Frankly I don't think you can hold the pazio playtest up as some kind of exemplar, from what I heard, the playtesters actually opposed efforts to make the fighter more powerful. And then there's the fact that they boasted about having tens of thousands of playtesters, based purely on how many people downloaded the free pdf. I mean, I'd be pretty happy if that many people downloaded a free pdf I put out, but it doesn't mean they're all playtesting it.
If somebody was looking for excuses to slag off pazio's testing process, they could find plenty. But they'renot- people are willing to give them a fair go.
Plenty of people are looking for excuses for slag off WOTC- and it's not like there aren't valid cricisms to be made again them- but all too often people reach into pure fantasy in the process.
Ah, the conundrum why Paizo can get away with marketing moves that WotC can't.
Here's the answer. It's not product marketing, it's customer relations.
Listen to any podcast featuring Erik Mona. And then (re)read Dan Noonan's old "The clouds are moving, 4E is coming, and you fans can do NOTHING about it! Wuhahahaha!"-blog entry.
You know there's a three colum page full of small print playtester credits at the back of the phb, right? And that they were openly stating that they used late 3e products and feedback from them as part of the 4e design? And they used the RPGA for a great deal of playtesting? And they've been doing playtest releases of classes?
There's some good things to be said about transparency in the play test process. It helps to show exactly how ideas get listened to, filtered, modified, and adopted and that's good for buy-in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catastrophic
Frankly I don't think you can hold the pazio playtest up as some kind of exemplar, from what I heard, the playtesters actually opposed efforts to make the fighter more powerful.
Your source is misinformed. There was a great deal of debate on how to improve the fighter, relative to the other classes, but the general consensus was to improve him.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Your source is misinformed. There was a great deal of debate on how to improve the fighter, relative to the other classes, but the general consensus was to improve him.
Er, paizo's open playtest did have a lot of detractors who felt that it wasn't a true playtest (basically, the playtest didn't focus on "stretching/breaking the rules" but basically more of a "does this seem to work in this specific context").
I'm not sure an open playtest is actually a GOOD thing anymore after seeing how Paizo got slammed for it.
(I'm still personally unclear as to why changing the number of SKILL points each class gets was considered too much of a change compared to what did get changed. This WAS openly debated on the paizo boards and one feature I don't think I ever saw disagreement about yet it pretty much wasn't implemented)
Wonder how 4E would have turned out if it had an open playtest similar to Pathfinder.
Or for that matter, would attitudes be different if WotC had said back in 2006 that the "Book of 9 Swords" was a possible design for 4E.
"What if" 4e had turned out not to be what it is? The problem, I think, is that the negativity in the selling accurately reflected the design goals. The aim was not to improve 3e, but to produce a game for people who didn't like a whole lot of what D&D had been from the start. That was bound to piss off people who did like the game for which it was billed as a replacement.
That replacement was a key factor. People can't buy what's not on offer, so if you choose to stop offering it then losing their patronage is a lump you choose to take.
I expect the Wizards had enough moxie to know that going in.
Er, paizo's open playtest did have a lot of detractors who felt that it wasn't a true playtest (basically, the playtest didn't focus on "stretching/breaking the rules" but basically more of a "does this seem to work in this specific context").
I'm not sure an open playtest is actually a GOOD thing anymore after seeing how Paizo got slammed for it.
(I'm still personally unclear as to why changing the number of SKILL points each class gets was considered too much of a change compared to what did get changed. This WAS openly debated on the paizo boards and one feature I don't think I ever saw disagreement about yet it pretty much wasn't implemented)
There were people who pushed at the boundaries and reported their results on the Paizo play test web pages. Anyone claiming none of that was going on is incorrect.
They didn't change the number of skill points (or things like BAB) for the backward compatibility. Paizo laid out design parameters that they weren't going to cross in that regard and, in at least some of the threads debating the issues, communicated that.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
