Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[malraux]

First I've heard of such a thing. A source or a quote to elucidate me perhaps?

/M

I bet its the "we aren't working on a 4th edition (that is just a minis game)" quote. I'm pretty sure the quote is wrong, but the important bit is the part in the parens that was dropped by most people quoting it.

 

[Knight Otu]

I bet its the "we aren't working on a 4th edition (that is just a minis game)" quote. I'm pretty sure the quote is wrong, but the important bit is the part in the parens that was dropped by most people quoting it.

The one discussed by delericho in this thread?

 

[cangrejoide]

So it's hardly surprising that when Paizo says something about its sales numbers, people tend to believe them, but when Wizards makes a public statement, it is doubted.

The difference is WOTC is a big company and everyone cares, Paizo small and not many people care.

 

[malraux]

The one discussed by delericho in this thread?

That sounds like it. I don't have searching ability, but I recall a large number of similar threads popping up, being filled with outrage until the actual quote was found, then a bunch of apologies as the quote showed that WotC was always honest on the matter.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

That sounds like it. I don't have searching ability, but I recall a large number of similar threads popping up, being filled with outrage until the actual quote was found, then a bunch of apologies as the quote showed that WotC was always honest on the matter.

Which is why all WotC quotes all have to be parsed. The defenders of WotC hate it when that happens, but it is the only way to know if they are really saying what it might apear they are saying.

 

[Maggan]

I bet its the "we aren't working on a 4th edition (that is just a minis game)" quote. I'm pretty sure the quote is wrong, but the important bit is the part in the parens that was dropped by most people quoting it.

At first I thought that, but that was about a year before 4e was released, not "just months before announcing its imminent arrival", so I thought maybe there was something else.

It could also be the misquote from D&DXP about "we've got 3rd edition stuff coming all through 2008", but again, that was six or seven months or so before the announcement.

I guess it's another case of people adopting the stance of "I'm pissed with WotC so I'll misremember some dates and attribute things to them that justifies me being pissed".

That said, vegepygmy is probably right that it is one reason why WotC is not as trusted as other companies, whether it's true or not.

/M

 

[kristov]

No one I know trusts WOTC anymore after the utter catasrophe with the D&D Insider Character Creater/Gametable etc. launch that was suppose to happen day 1 - since all of the ads and books said so. Was pretty obvious they were lying through their teeth about that whole situation.

It is sad to see they are just going to let the lawyers run wild on their fans now - its really a bad PR move by anyone, much less one attacking such a small and dedicated fan base as RPGers.

 

[dvvega]

@kristov:

Disclaimer: I am not a WoTC fanboy, neither do I hate them. They are just another company I buy product from.

Then sadly no one you know lives in the "real world". How many times has Windows been delayed. Or features cut out and added later in a patch. How many times has a computer game been delayed, and delayed, and delayed.

WoTC may truly have intended for the software to go live day 1, however the developers they hired may have had issues which delayed everything.

There is no way on earth that you can predict and accurately hit a development date with 100% no errors on something large. Look at PCGen who have been developing and developing since 3.0. Their software is still not 100% perfect.

Microsoft, one of the, if not the, most influential companies in the world. Windows Vista was forced onto the public and they themselves have abandoned it for Windows 7. Are you going to rant and rave about them as well. Because Bill Gates has "lied" more times than WoTC supposedly has.

The reality here is that WoTC had an agreement with 3.0/3.5 to let fans use their rules sets with little restriction for their own things: websites, software, saleable product. They do not have the agreement with 4.0. Thus players who do not adhere to the agreement run the risk of being told to stop. Just because your new toy isn't the same as the last toy is no reason to hate the company.

I've said it before: they have a right to defend their copyright.
I've said it before: they were a bit heavy handed in that defence.

D

 

[Umbran]

Was pretty obvious they were lying through their teeth about that whole situation.

Dude, you need to be really, really careful about accusing people of lying. Some of those "liars" post here, and making that accusation without actual evidence of malfeasance is rude in the extreme.

In this case, there is another reasonable explanation - not being a software shop, they had little clue exactly how hard it would be to get the job done, so they promised more than they could deliver. Given that even those who are in the software business and good at it get their dates wrong, this should not be surprising.

There's about 17 miles of difference between "lying" and "were wrong". You may choose to believe the worst of them, but in general you are better served to not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

 

[Campbell]

I believe Paizo, but I think there's danger in looking at Paizo in isolation. They've become the standard bearer for a lot of folks who ended up not liking the direction WotC went in. I don't think they're really a good company to look at as a general gauge of the market for 3.5 material.

That being said, I expect Pathfinder will do brisk business, and I still have trouble understanding the sales numbers competition some fans of 3e and 4e engage in. I hope both do well. That way fans of 3e and 4e will get what they want.