I would say it's circumstantial. All other things being equal, making the 10 happy could be considered better, but, if the 10 already have 6 suitable games to make themselves happy with and the 3 people have none, then I would say that making the three happy is very distinctly superior. Making the 10 happy might be "better business" (assuming they all still have money left in the budget after buying the previous six games), but I don't take profit as the *only* criterion for "better".I think making 10 people happy tends to be better than making 3 people happy. At least in the context of talking about a freaking GAME.
Um, ok. I'm not sure that your hypotheticals here really have much relevance. But ok.I would say it's circumstantial. All other things being equal, making the 10 happy could be considered better, but, if the 10 already have 6 suitable games to make themselves happy with and the 3 people have none, then I would say that making the three happy is very distinctly superior. Making the 10 happy might be "better business" (assuming they all still have money left in the budget after buying the previous six games), but I don't take profit as the *only* criterion for "better".
As you said "it's circumstantial". If you want to join in imposing words I didn't say into my comments, then there is nothing I can do about it. But if you would simply stop and consider both the larger context AND the entirety of the two sentences, you would see that my position is entirely reasonable.Edit: Oh, and "better" is neither opinion nor fact - but it can be claimed as either. Saying the use of the word "better" clearly marks a statement out as "opinion" is, well, just incorrect.
Yes it does,Yes, better - for you. The way this is stated does not reflect that at all.
I don't and have never claimed it to be universal,
That something I don't get - this idea that playing 4e somehow means you are after a different experience than others who enjoy the hobby.
I'm not saying you are not welcome to respond. I'm thrilled. How else can I enjoy the arguing if no one else plays along. But you put your response in terms as if my comments had been directly to you personally. I was simply commenting on that.No one claims it is. It doesn't matter if you were talking to me or not - this is a public discussion where comment is open to all who wish to participate, which at that moment happened to include me.
To which I, obviously, agree 100%.Which, as I said, means nothing to me. Regardless of how many people line up on either side, that continues to tell me nothing of merit, certainly not how I will receive it, be it a game, or anything else for that matter.
Just that you are simply the next in a line of 4E fans that have been making comments about popularity not being important. Not that I'm putting words in your mouth. You absolutely have made no concession of 4E's popularity or anything of that nature. But the frequency that I keep seeing this mindset lately just amuses me.What statements would those be? Perhaps you could play some connect-the-dots for me? No obligation, of course, but without context it is s pretty meaningless statement. I'm bored, but I'm not THAT bnored.
Cool post, bro.<snip>
It is also interesting that even having clarified the intended point multiple times, the ability to accept that explanation is not forthcoming. Which, to me is simply further evidence that it is more of a raw nerve, knee-jerk situation than a thoughtful one.
I think you might want to read it again. It sure as hell sounded like anti-capitalist crap to me.
Well I just went back and re-read it. I stand by my original statement that there is nothing anti-capitalist in it per se, unless you insist that any criticism of the tendency within modern business to reduce everything to the bottom line and quarterly earnings statements is necessarily anti-capitalist, in which case we simply have a fundamental disagreement on terms. Unless capitalism is subject to critique, it can't be improved as a social and economic system.
I try to remember that Adam Smith insisted that capitalism was only possible in a world where people were motivated first by virtue. I fears we're far from that position today.
Yeah, "all business accounting is false accounting" is just a criticism of a tendency...
And out of curiosity, with respect to "all activity should be audited based on its effect on society and on the environment", no, nothing anti-capitalist about that. After all, folks like Marx knew how to put business (& prosperity, & economic mobility, & freedom, etc...) it its place.
And I'm pretty sure I just hit the wall on politcal limits for ENWorld, so we'll just agree to disagree.
I'm all for virtue first leading to better business principles & practices. But the statements I quoted above were talking in absolutes (see "all business" above) & positing anti-capitalist fantasy as the solution.
After a period of being intensely angry at how WotC nuclear-bombed the Forgotten Realms, reading words like this from Wyatt, and then hearing the uppity marketing messages of "4E is better in ways you can't possibly imagine, it's more fun than any previous edition... awesome, awesome, awesome!", I finally came to the conclusion that WotC was making a game that catered to their in-house tastes rather than anything that the community was begging for. The drastic gutting of the Realms? Primarily to make things easier for their in-house authors.