On the marketing of 4E

[thecasualoblivion]

If we assume the release of the 4E rules as they have come to be, that they were released with a delayed and later revised GSL and not the OGL, discontinued support for previous editions(including the removal of PDFs) and the release of DDI as it came to be(including online Dungeon and Dragon magazines), could WotC have marketed or promoted 4E in a way that would have led to a different perception/opinion than what has come to pass?

I hear a lot of criticism of the marketing of 4E, but given the substance of 4E as it has come to pass, would it really have made a difference?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Most definitely.

Examine the way 3Ed was rolled out vs the way 4Ed was rolled out.

3Ed

1) There was a 2Ed to 3Ed conversion guide. This made the transition easier and more palatable. It gave a sense of continuity. It allowed people to continue playing PCs and campaigns they liked.

2) 2Ed was not badmouthed. It wasn't even mentioned. Only 3Ed was mentioned in the marketing. That was the only horn trumpeted.

3) While there were mechanical changes, 3Ed had substantial backwards compatibility. No core races or classes were eliminated.

4) The only thing going on when 3Ed was rolled out was that rollout. Sure, 2Ed was being replaced, but there were no other licenses or products getting the axe.

4Ed

1) No conversion guide. Admittedly, there are mechanical reasons for this, but in all honesty, there have been dozens of threads here by amateur game designers- IOW, regular players- about HRs to import 4Ed mechanics into 3.XEd and vice versa. The guys being paid to design 4Ed could have done likewise.

Instead, we were told to ditch old campaigns and start new ones.

2) There were pointed commentaries about how 4Ed did things better than 3Ed. The new game was constantly compared to the one it was replacing, which only highlighted how radical a change this would be.

3) Core classes and races were removed from the PHB. This didn't sit well for a lot of reasons.

4) The rollout of 4Ed was either contemporaneous to or subsequent to the ending of several licensing agreements with Paizo, Weis and others. IOW, things that people liked- besides 3.XEd- were disappearing, and this created a perfect storm of anti-WotC sentiment.



I could go on.

The point is, as a whole, WotC demonstrated a real "tin ear" as to what the installed base wanted...and how certain actions were being perceived.

Yes, they did market research. However, the risk with even the best market research is that the responses you get only reflect the most vocal portions of the market, not necessarily the bulk of it or the ones with the most spending power. This is the lesson that New Coke teaches us.

Certainly, the majority of their respondents gave them favorable feedback on their proposed changes. However, each survey I've seen since then has indicated that their wonderful sales reflects a higher-than normal influx of new gamers and a lower than normal changeover. If that's what they wanted, that's great. If not, its potentially a sign of bad things to come.

I can guarantee you that something as simple as a conversion guide would have added a great deal to the % of changeover among gamers.

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

There is just a lot of nerd rage in the community anytime things change*. Look at all the rage that spread like wildfire from GenCon about the previews of the new Warhammer edition. The game isn't even developed yet and legions already hate it. Same as with 4e. So many people never even gave it a chance.

Personally, the marketing of 4e got me increasingly excited to play 4e. So much so I was running multiple preview games based off all the information members of the community accumulated (people equally excited). The game had a huge release and remains very popular. All in all, I'd say the marketing was a success. You aren't going to please everyone, especially in the geekdom. There were community splits over 2e and 3e as well, and there will be over 5e and 6e. Just the nature of the beast. But I loved the access we had to the design process this time around.

*by nerd rage, I do not mean criticism of the mechanical elements of 4e, but the people who became angry at the mere mention of a new edition, the same types who are angry when Marvel Studios announces a new superhero franchise, who assume it will completely suck, hate the person picked to play the hero, even before that person is announced, etc...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't necessarily buy this. I don't think a conversion guide would have made much of a difference, because 4E the game really is that different. While people were angered by claims of 4E doing things better than 3E, I think the substance of 4E by itself would have resulted in the same conclusions by those people. The removal of core classes/races and licenses is part of the substance/business part of this I had put as a constant.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't necessarily buy this. I don't think a conversion guide would have made much of a difference, because 4E the game really is that different.

There are conversion guides for games as mechanically disparate as 2Ed and HERO 4th, HERO 5th and Tri-Stat, Palladium RPG and 2Ed...

Not to mention all of the GURPS or D20 versions of other games out there.

3.X has a lot more in common with 4Ed than any of those.

Where a lot of criticism of the marketing arose was really surprising to me.

2 things you should know about me: My MBA is in Sports & Entertainment marketing; I have no inherent dislike against RPG edition changes.

I was actually looking forward to 4Ed before I got it.

And even before I got my hands on 4Ed via my pre-order, I was constantly astounded at the (bad) quality of the marketing campaign. They violated several basic tenets of marketing.

Believe me- when you are replacing a successful product, you don't do point by point comparisons with how you're changing things in the new product. At least, not explicitly.

IOW, its one thing to say "We are doing X with this subsystem" and quite another to say "We are doing X with this subsystem which really never worked right and caused a lot of problems in the old edition." By making that comparison explicit, you evoke an entirely different mentality than when you simply point out you're changing it. You're inviting the comparison: you're saying the new system is better, when the truth is it may merely be different. Even if the change is better suited to work other changes you made, outside of that complete context, you've made a statement that begs a value judgment.

And by the time the players have a chance to see the change within the complete context of the revised game, that judgment may be set in stone.

Consider the marketing of "The Last Temptation of Christ."

The ad campaign specifically pointed out that it was a realistic depiction of how the Bible described Jesus' final days on Earth before his crucifixion. They even mentioned/leaked the nature of the titular temptation- forsaking the sacrifice in favor of a life married to Mary Magdaline.

Had they just done standard Hollywood advertising of it, there would not have been a huge backlash among conservative Christians who hadn't seen the movie.

Bible movies are HUGE for Hollywood. They LOVE a big Bible epic.

But by talking about how "realistic" and "accurate" they were, by playing up the movie's dialog being in Aramaic, etc., they invited comparison with previous Bible movies. That the final temptation was something that involves a touchy area of Christian theology- just how human was Jesus- made that comparison all the worse.

The movie did fine, to be sure, but it got a LOT of negative press. (Ultimately, it was probably a wash, but its hard to be sure.)

 

[ggroy]

Yes, they did market research. However, the risk with even the best market research is that the responses you get only reflect the most vocal portions of the market, not necessarily the bulk of it or the ones with the most spending power. This is the lesson that New Coke teaches us.

A better question is what exactly were the sample populations used in their pre-4E market research, and whether they were the appropriate populations to survey. (Such market research probably would have been done back in 2005-2006).

Certainly, the majority of their respondents gave them favorable feedback on their proposed changes. However, each survey I've seen since then has indicated that their wonderful sales reflects a higher-than normal influx of new gamers and a lower than normal changeover. If that's what they wanted, that's great. If not, its potentially a sign of bad things to come.

Do you have a link or reference to these particular surveys?

 

[Thasmodious]

2 things you should know about me: My MBA is in Sports & Entertainment marketing; I have no inherent dislike against RPG edition changes.

Funny, I was just reading a thread where people were mocking the Appeal to Authority.

Something you should know about me: claiming your opinion is special because you have a degree means nothing to me. Facts are facts, knowledge is knowledge, opinions are opinions.

 

[Azgulor]

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.

While the circumstances you cite certainly happened, so too did the aforementioned "Selling by criticism" by WotC developers. Too often in the Edition Wars, both sides choose to turn a blind eye to the mistakes made by their respective sides.

Even though 4e isn't my cup of tea, I can objectively state that it's a well-developed fantasy RPG.

Objectively speaking, the list of WotC marketing blunders for 4e is pretty damn remarkable. (I say this as someone who works in sales and must regularly deliver marketing messages to customers in customer-facing meetings, presentations, and conventions -- customers that span several "editions" of my employer's product line.) One can argue the severity of any damage inflicted by them, but it's tough to argue that the entire list cited in the original post didn't harm the WotC brand in some fashion.

The best defense cited regularly for most of these blunders was "it make the best business sense for WotC" and "they were within their right to do so". I've seen competitors and my own employer make marketing blunders - and those two reasons were true for them as well. It didn't make the moves less of a blunder.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A better question is what exactly were the sample populations used in their pre-4E market research, and whether they were the appropriate populations to survey. (Such market research probably would have been done back in 2005-2006).

I can't say what their sample was. I know they used several outlets, including subscribers to their magazines.

Do you have a link or reference to these particular surveys?

They're the quasi-scientific ones that keep popping up on the various RPG boards. Invariably, the non-adopters- those who played previous editions of the game- show up in those polls between 30-50%. Even though the polls have their flaws- there may not be enough controls on the sites to prevent multiple votes, the "volunteer" problem, etc.- they keep polling in those ranges. And those numbers are ridiculously high- typically, you'd expect those numbers to be around 15-25% max.

Something you should know about me: claiming your opinion is special because you have a degree means nothing to me. Facts are facts, knowledge is knowledge, opinions are opinions.

I brought up my education only to point out that I'm not just talking out of my hat.

Again, let me reiterate: they violated a bunch of basic marketing practices- that is objective fact- too numerous to enumerate. I did, however, provide you an example.

 

[Perram]

Wizards was taking a big risk with the transition to 4e. 3e was such a successful product that any transition was going to be rough, and 4e was going to be such a sharp change in direction that nothing could have made it a smooth ride.

And then they botched the launch.

When 4e was launching, I was behind them. I liked a lot of what I was seeing, even though I knew that not everyone would, not even the majority of my game group. But the marketing...

Killing the OGL... taking so long in releaseing the GSL that they ended up creating their own primary competition in Paizo... The original state of the GSL and its restrictions...

And then there was DDI. The very existance of DDI was enough to alienate a player base who enjoy playing table top RPGS, a genre that is thick in tradition and books and PAPER.

But it was not ready for launch.

Over a year later and they STILL do not have all of the original announced features in the product, INCLUDING the big one that they slapped over every marketing piece: The Virtual Tabletop.

And when the problems started showing? Wizards clamped their mouths shut, speaking only short bursts with obvious withholding from... somewhere above. Their forum presence was muzzled, and it became hard for me to take any official statement from them at face value any longer.

And finally... the PDF debacle. I still do not buy their press release for this decision because it honestly makes no sense at all. Piracy was around before their pdfs, and pirated pdfs are still available with nary a hick-up. I don't pretend to know the real reason behind the decision, but their stated one does not hold water on any level of examination.

I can say this at least:
If Wizards had handled their product launch better, irrelevant of the quality of the 4e game, they would have had one more customer.