D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Kurotowa]

No, I think you're wrong.

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Perhaps you might stop harping on about it, now that you've made your point? No one else seems very convinced, and you're not introducing any new arguments.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Perhaps you might stop harping on about it, now that you've made your point? No one else seems very convinced, and you're not introducing any new arguments.

If people see fit to respond to me about their points, I see no reason not to reply in kind. Likewise, I think that who this discussion may or may not convince isn't limited to the people who reply (as a general rule, there are a lot more lurkers in any given thread than posters), and I'll note that no one else is introducing any new arguments either.

If you don't find this particularly compelling, perhaps the best thing to do is not chime in, rather than telling other people that they should stop posting. Be the change you want to see, and all that.

 

[mamba]

Releasing a flood of products to pump customers for money is a gross practice, IMO.

As I said, it hinges on the assumption that a customer should want to buy all products / be a collector.

If WotC e.g. released 3 books for FR, 3 for Eberron, 3 for DL, etc. in a year, for a total of 20 or so, you could also say they offer their customers choice rather than seeing it as squeezing them for money.

There is no way I would buy all those books, I do not buy all books now, but this would definitely get me to buy more and make me feel like WotC is interested in releasing stuff I am interested in, rather than hanging me out to dry, so I buy everything they have out of desperation / lack of other new material. Just different perspectives.

I agree it results in a lower ROI, but that is not really the same thing as being pro-consumer, it might actually be the opposite (a sign of overcharging)

 

[MichaelSomething]

No, I think you're wrong.

Good thing there are plenty of companies out there willing to fill in the void left by WOTC

Like Enworld! The people behind the world's greatest forum for the world's greatest TTRPG also has great products for that person looking to expand their TTRPG library! For a mere couple dollars a month you can subscribe to En5ider and have regular deliveries of high quality TTRPG content sent right to your inbox! Click on the EnPublishing on your browser and get started today!

 

[mamba]

So you think it's better to continually increase how much money they expect to bring in every year? That's an...interesting strategy.

show me any company that does not do that... assuming you made more money last year than the one before that, so they do not have to rework that approach

 

[mamba]

That's not really how burden of proof works; you don't prove that something is not a factor, you prove that it is.

no, it works both ways. If you make a positive claim (the release schedule has no impact is one...), then you have a burden of proof. If all you did was say 'I am not convinced the release schedule has an impact', then you need no proof

 

[Parmandur]

As I said, it hinges on the assumption that a customer should want to buy all products / be a collector.

If WotC e.g. released 3 books for FR, 3 for Eberron, 3 for DL, etc. in a year, for a total of 20 or so, you could also say they offer their customers choice rather than seeing it as squeezing them for money.

There is no way I would buy all those books, I do not buy all books now, but this would definitely get me to buy more and make me feel like WotC is interested in releasing stuff I am interested in, rather than hanging me out to dry, so I buy everything they have out of desperation / lack of other new material. Just different perspectives.

I agree it results in a lower ROI, but that is not really the same thing as being pro-consumer, it might actually be the opposite (a sign of overcharging)

Yeah, I would be pretty disgusted by that. For real, I would stop buying anything.

 

[Alzrius]

show me any company that does not do that... assuming you made more money last year than the one before that, so they do not have to rework that approach

I thought it was clear that there's a difference between adjusting for things like inflation and cost of living versus saying "we wanted you to make $100M a few years ago, but now that you are, it's going to have to be $500M."

no, it works both ways. If you make a positive claim (the release schedule has no impact is one...), then you have a burden of proof. If all you did was say 'I am not convinced the release schedule has an impact', then you need no proof

Again, that was in reply to someone saying "you haven't shown that it wasn't a factor." That's not how burden of proof works; you don't definitively showcase that something didn't matter; you show what did.

 

[mamba]

I thought it was clear that there's a difference between adjusting for things like inflation and cost of living versus saying "we wanted you to make $100M a few years ago, but now that you are, it's going to have to be $500M."

yes, and most companies are not just trying to stay even with inflation, not aware of any that do, actually

 

[Older Beholder]

Getting back to the original posts by Matt, it really seems like he's being critical of WotC as a way to promote his own current/future competing products. Which feels borderline unethical to me.