D&D 5th Edition Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated] - Page 26





+ Log in or register to post
Page 26 of 52 FirstFirst ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 511
  1. #251
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Gatineau, Quebec
    Posts
    1,248
    Wizards of the Coast

    Ignore mudbunny
    Quote Originally Posted by ren1999 View Post
    This is pretty disappointing.

    It was my hope that 5th Edition would have more people who actually play Dungeons & Dragons not just consider it a boring job creating a game for someone else. Players and Dungeon Masters can tell. We can tell that Monte actually likes the game itself and understands the game.
    Comments like this always amuse the heck out of me.

    Despite what "the internet" thinks I can guarantee that every single one of the designers and developers at WotC love the game and do not consider it "a boring job."

 

  • #252
    Those who are trying to come up with timelines to "prove" WotC caused 4e's sales decline are missing the boat. WotC was proud of 4e, genuinely believed it would hold the vast bulk of the gaming community together, and planned to give 4e a standard 7-10 year run before introducing a new edition. WotC invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D, advertising, etc for 4e. The fact that they pulled the plug on it years early, nullifying much of the huge investment they made, *is* the smoking gun that lets us know 4e sales were falling through the floor.

    Hitting the panic button isn't done lightly at a company like WotC, which almost everyone acknowledges is an incredibly slow-moving entity most of the time. Nor is publicly admitting mistakes WotC's forte. But the one thing WotC does have is the best marketplace data in the industry, and you can bet they act based on that data to maximize $$$ for themselves. There is absolutely no way they would throw away their 4e investment unless their data told them with absolute clarity that they'd do even worse if they kept to the status quo, with a possible future in which D&D actually finds itself displaced as the default option around the gaming table.

    The alternative theory that 4e was doing well sales-wise until WotC ham-fistedly sabotaged it just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent with how WotC has previous operated, but more importantly, it's something that would cost them a lot of money and compel them to admit past mistakes -- things they would never do unless forced. Much as I hate to say these words, WotC isn't the villain here, twirling its moustache after having tied 4e to the train tracks. They're simply hoping to regain D&D's once-dominant position around the gaming table, and that should be a goal with which all of us can sympathize, in my view at least.

  • #253
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    Janaxstrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Quad Cities
    Posts
    446

    Ignore Janaxstrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    I would point out that R. A. Salvatore has probably brought in more money to D&D than all the tabletop books combined. Certainly if you combined Salvatory, Weiss and Hickman and possibly a couple of others, you would find that the tabletop RPG end of things has never been the big breadwinner.
    Another person on record of hating the 4e transition with the spellplague and such

  • #254
    If a 7-10 year run is the "standard", a standard which only actually applies to two editions (1e and 2e) btw, how is starting a new edition at 5 years a "smoking gun"? You're only talking two years shorter for a new edition.

    And, at a guess, I'd say your hundreds of thousands of dollars is off by a zero. It's millions of dollars to release a new edition. Heck, your payroll alone would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range and that doesn't count anything else.

    But, just because they've rolled out a new edition to coincide with the 40 year anniversary of the game isn't exactly a huge leap here.
    The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus

  • #255
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Gatineau, Quebec
    Posts
    1,248
    Wizards of the Coast

    Ignore mudbunny
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    But, just because they've rolled out a new edition to coincide with the 40 year anniversary of the game isn't exactly a huge leap here.
    I have been telling WotC for about a year ow that they need to d something for the 40th anniversary of D&D.

  • #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nyronus View Post
    and I watched him be completely dishonest on at least one occasion when it came to the debate over game design.
    @Nyronus Would you be willing to provide a link to the occasion?

  • #257
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    13garth13's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    203

    Ignore 13garth13
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    If a 7-10 year run is the "standard", a standard which only actually applies to two editions (1e and 2e) btw, how is starting a new edition at 5 years a "smoking gun"? You're only talking two years shorter for a new edition.

    And, at a guess, I'd say your hundreds of thousands of dollars is off by a zero. It's millions of dollars to release a new edition. Heck, your payroll alone would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range and that doesn't count anything else.

    But, just because they've rolled out a new edition to coincide with the 40 year anniversary of the game isn't exactly a huge leap here.
    Dude, I'm not picking on you at all, but I get the feeling that many of those who wish to downplay the idea that 4E didn't do well did not read Scott Rouse's comments in another thread, months ago....

    Yes I did say that and at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.

    There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers? 4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

    Edit for the sake of clarity that I am talking about the game as it stands now:

    Quote:
    My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business). The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now.

    And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success. To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.


    Now Scott goes to great pains to clarify his statements so that no-one gets the idea that he dislikes 4E or the game-play experience he provides, and I certainly believe him wholeheartedly. So, when someone says, "4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away." and they don't really mean gameplay or how much fun they personally find it, it stands to reason that an ex-brand manager just might mean that it really was not successful in the market place and/or drove a whole lot of people towards the competition, to the extent that Pathfinder currently outsells D&D at games stores (at least according to ICV2 data for Q2,3,4, 20011...take that for what it's worth, right? ).

    Not only that, but he does come out and say that they really did originally plan for an 8-10 year lifespan for 4E.......

    Anyhoo, I think that that particular quote by The Rouse is required reading by both sides in the edition war.....

    Cheers,
    Colin
    Last edited by 13garth13; Friday, 27th April, 2012 at 03:49 AM. Reason: Damn....blue was really rough on the eyes....

  • #258
    Quote Originally Posted by 13garth13 View Post
    Dude, I'm not picking on you at all, but I get the feeling that many of those who wish to downplay the idea that 4E didn't do well did not read Scott Rouse's comments in another thread, months ago....

    Yes I did say that and at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.

    There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers? 4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

    Edit for the sake of clarity that I am talking about the game as it stands now:

    Quote:
    My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business). The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now.

    And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success. To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.


    Now Scott goes to great pains to clarify his statements so that no-one gets the idea that he dislikes 4E or the game-play experience he provides, and I certainly believe him wholeheartedly. So, when someone says, "4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away." and they don't really mean gameplay or how much fun they personally find it, it stands to reason that an ex-brand manager just might mean that it really was not successful in the market place and/or drove a whole lot of people towards the competition, to the extent that Pathfinder currently outsells D&D at games stores (at least according to ICV2 data for Q2,3,4, 20011...take that for what it's worth, right? ).

    Not only that, but he does come out and say that they really did originally plan for an 8-10 year lifespan for 4E.......

    Anyhoo, I think that that particular quote by The Rouse is required reading by both sides in the edition war.....

    Cheers,
    Colin
    All of which completely misses the point. The point isn't that 4e was some sort of cancer that needs to be removed from D&D, or that the above is justification for ending 4E or perhaps removing as much of 4E from 5E as possible. The point is that whatever happened with 4E it still is too big a part of the larger D&D for 5E to ignore. 5E cannot reset D&D and pretend 4E never happened and achieve its own stated goal of reunification and without the 4E community it won't achieve the sales it wants.
    Last edited by thecasualoblivion; Friday, 27th April, 2012 at 04:15 AM.

  • #259
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    13garth13's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    203

    Ignore 13garth13
    Quote Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion View Post
    All of which completely misses the point. The point isn't that 4e was some sort of cancer that needs to be removed from D&D, or that the above is justification for ending 4E or perhaps removing as much of 4E from 5E as possible. The point is that whatever happened with 4E it still is too big a part of the larger D&D for 5E to ignore. 5E cannot reset D&D and pretend 4E never happened and achieve its own stated goal of reunification and without the 4E community it won't achieve the sales it wants.
    Actually, it doesn't miss the point at all, in fact I didn't even address the point you happen to be going on about (and you're right of course, WOTC cannot afford to completely alienate the 4E fanbase, no matter how much it behooves them to at least publicly downplay certain 4E elements for strategic/market reasons), because that wasn't the idea I was taking issue with. But while we're on the topic, let's not lie to ourselves; an edition which has created such strong feelings in the fan-base shouldn't necessarily be considered the go-to edition for mining for game-play elements.

    Look, I love (LOVE!) anchovies, but I'm not daft enough to think that everyone else should therefore want some of those salty little treats on their 'za just because I think they're the cat's meow. 4E for better or worse is like anchovies; there's really nothing wrong with them at all, and for people like me, they are particularly yummy, but if I'm making a pizza to appeal to the greatest number of people, I'd really want to think hard about how many slices they appear on, yeah? Clearly anchovies are popular enough that pizza joints offer them as a traditional add-on, but that doesn't invalidate the notion that a substantial proportion of the population doesn't want them any where NEAR their pie. Now, frankly, I think that attitude is a bit much, but personal tastes are personal tastes, and if enough people feel so strongly about those little fishies, then their inclusion in a pizza for everyone should be done tactfully and in a fashion that doesn't scream, "Remember those toppings that you absolutely loathed that drove you to eat calzones rather than pizza? Well, they're back and a BIG part of what we have in mind for supper tonight".

    My prior post was addressed towards posters such as Hussar above (sorry dude, I'm really not picking on ya, yours is just the most recent post of its kind that I've seen over the last few months) who somehow want to act as if the early roll-out of 5E is not a big deal in regards to what it says about 4E's success in the market. Heck, some don't even want to say that it is an early roll-out.....

    So, to sum up, yes 4E fans need to be sought as a part of 5E's target audience, but in terms of the (in many ways completely separate issue) notion as to whether or not 4E was a success in the marketplace and whether we can even glean some indication of this from the early release of the latest edition...well, I think that that issue should be considered done and done.

    Cheers,
    Colin
    Last edited by 13garth13; Friday, 27th April, 2012 at 05:01 AM. Reason: I sounded snarky/condescending

  • #260
    The strength and problem with the Anchovies analogy is that the idea of 5th edition being modular is a lot like having a broad selection of toppings to choose from at a pizza joint. You want to retain the most customers, so you offer the most topping options to try and please as many potential customers as possible.

    The issue is, bowing too far to the folks calling for the removal or exclusion of 4e elements from the next edition of D&D would be like refusing to even offer anchovies at your pizza parlour because some people don't like them. I think we can all agree that that doesn't make sense; how does offering anchovies as an option hurt the people that don't want to eat them on their 'zza?

    Answer: it doesn't.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 26 of 52 FirstFirst ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Monte Cook working on 5E?
      By Galeros in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 95
      Last Post: Wednesday, 2nd October, 2013, 09:48 PM
    2. Is Monte Cook working on D&D 5th Edition?
      By Morrus in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 57
      Last Post: Wednesday, 2nd October, 2013, 04:59 PM
    3. Replies: 510
      Last Post: Thursday, 9th August, 2012, 04:24 PM
    4. Margaret Weis says Monte Cook is working on 5E
      By Alzrius in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 6
      Last Post: Saturday, 15th October, 2011, 01:38 AM
    5. Monte Cook is working on D&D again!
      By Sonny in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Tuesday, 20th September, 2011, 05:24 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •