How about a deadline to WotC?

[Imaro]

His response actually makes sense. In relation to your argument, in which you claim that its reasonable for people to get upset if something they used to get for free now costs money, he's pointing out that the free thing people used to get is still free- there's just a new, different thing that costs money, and people are arguing that because Thing One was free, Thing Two should be free as well.

And yet my point was that people can get mad because a business leads them to believe it is headed in a certain direction or follows certain practices and then, without notice, changes said practices. Like I said earlier, it is entirely possible some people supported WotC because they believed there would be a gaming license like the OGL for 4e, and again WotC didn't do anyone any favors with all the secrecy surrounding the GSL.

 

[Cadfan]

Uhm, that is nothing even close to what I said, and I agree it is absurd.

You know what else is absurd? For a business to go in a certain direction, which many of it's fans support (regardless of whether it's the OGL or the free material given away on the website during 3e and 3.5)... Totally change that direction (while being exceptionally hush, hush and secretive about it) and expect those customers (some of which may have supported the company because it did go in this direction) to not be angry or peeved about it. Furthermore it is also absurd to then claim these people's anger is childish and basically without merit...

Does that clear up what I'm saying?

Ok, I can get behind this, at least partially.

It would be totally absurd if WOTC did not in any way anticipate that some people would react negatively to WOTC not extending the OGL to 4e.

But!

1. If there was some way to verify, I would happily bet you about a hundred bucks that at least once WOTC had some kind of meeting or correspondence or internal memo during which likely fan reaction to decisions related to the OGL and 4e were discussed.

2. The fact that it is predictable and inevitable that some people from amongst a large population will react to your decisions in a childish manner does NOT transform their childish reaction into a mature one.

 

[Cadfan]

Not arguing motivation isn't relevant at all. I was talking about this situationSo what I'm saying is that the person who is actually following a path in which his grievance is known is acting maturely ... the one who destroys his books in his own home and no one knows, isn't.

That's fine and all, but it has nothing to do with whether the grievance was mature in the first place.

As far as whether someone's feelings are justified or not is subjective and even in our judicial system often based on circumstances that transcend pure logic.

This comment is meaningless without an effort at applying it to the situation at hand.

Its like saying, during a discussion of the assassination of Abe Lincoln, "Killing another human being is sometimes justified and sometimes unjustified, and many people have very subjective views based upon the circumstance of a particular killing, and upon reasoning which sometimes transcends pure logic." I mean, ok, true statement and all that, but its going to be completely rational for everyone else in the conversation to wonder what in the world are you getting at?

 

[Imaro]

1. If there was some way to verify, I would happily bet you about a hundred bucks that at least once WOTC had some kind of meeting or correspondence or internal memo during which likely fan reaction to decisions related to the OGL and 4e were discussed.

I'm sure it was, just like the decision to cancel Dragon and Dungeon (along with the reactions when fans finally found out) ... and we all remember how well that was handled.

2. The fact that it is predictable and inevitable that some people from amongst a large population will react to your decisions in a childish manner does NOT transform their childish reaction into a mature one.

Again... subjective. Honestly who are you to decide if someone's anger is valid or not? Would someone who decided to buy the 4e core, in anticipation of a gaming license similar to the OGL or at least one where more than a couple of 3pp were willing to move to 4e be childish if they were angry they had wasted over $100? What about if their group had each bought PHB's as well... so now it's around $200+ and a bunch of useless books? Honestly I don't like WotC's settings, but I played 3e because of Scarred Lands, and 3.5 because of Iron Kingdoms, Dark Legacies, Midnight and Dawnforge. I have the 4e books and IMO, these books more than 3.x are in need of a really good campaign setting with some good fluff... I think this is one of the reasons 4e doesn't excite me and I don't find myself reading or browsing the books like I did with 3.x.

 

[Fifth Element]

I really don't think the maturity/childish discussion is terribly relevant.

What I think is relevant it rationality/irrationality (which some might equate with the above, but I've known to many mature, irrational people to agree).

Anger is not a rational reaction, especially to a business decision. Anger solves nothing, contributes nothing. Disappointment could be called a rational reaction to a decision you don't like. But there's no point getting angry. Express your disappointment by not buying the new product, by asking them to change the new product, etc. But in a rational manner so there's a chance you might be listened to. "Why don't you care about me!" is not a way to get someone to listen to you.

 

[Fifth Element]

Honestly who are you to decide if someone's anger is valid or not?

I'd say anger is never a valid response in a case like this. Why? Because anger is a very personal response to something, and WotC's business decisions are impersonal. No one in WotC said "Y'know, I really hate that Imaro guy on ENWorld. We should totally screw him over!" It had nothing to do with you.

 

[catsclaw227]

Who asked them for it, and why are gamers responsible in some way for helping WotC or any other company for something that could have been a huge waste of money?

No one has once said that you should be responsible. Most have simply said, if you don't want to play the game, don't buy it. But don't knock WOTC for doing something with their product just because it didn't go in a direction you like.

Not to pick on the man, but just one example among many and to continue with the same name....

Is it my job to help Scott Rouse in some way because he bought some lemon car and paid to much for it? Do I owe him anything for that to keep food on his table? How about anyone else at WotC?

Do they in some way perform some service that puts food on my table?

We are talking about the entertainment industry here. One false step means life or death. You want your investments secure then you better make sure people wants whatever avenue of entertainment you are wanting.

I get so sick and tired of hearing people talking about the money WotC spent to develop some new thing. It was their money to risk to lose. They will have to take it up with HASBRO should it fails, and with the shareholders.

I owe them nothing, not does any other gamer here; so why should it be made in some way to look as thought every gamer is responsible for WotC making a decision to make something like 4th that had no want or interest in.

So it is childish to think that somehow gamers should be responsible to make sure WotC did not lose those $$ on R&D and are somehow responsible.

"Daddy daddy I broke my new toy I bought and need another one."

That is what I hear anytime someone speaks of how much money WotC sank into creating 4th.

So let's just drop it. I didn't tell them to spend it, and ain't responsible to help them get it back.

They should be doing what they can to get it back the best and quickest way possible. Since the original GSL was so delayed they lost their precious $5000 early buy in. But that would have helped them get it back.

WotC is the ones screwing up as a whole company, and it is in now way the fault of gamers, but the execs at WotC. So again I say let's drop the whole "WotC spent X dollars on something so you should feel bad for them" bit.

I don't. It wasn't my money, and I laugh at people that waste money and shortly after [self censured] because they needed it for something else!

You should have compared to an analogy of WotC raising the price on the second print run of books or something rather than basing it on R&D costs that has nothing really to do with the quarter increase for the cup at 7-11. Like somehow WotC deciding to charge extra for the pictures where they were fre before or something.

This is so totally "huh?" I am not sure anyone said you should feel bad for WOTC because they spent R&D costs on developing a new edition of their game. And if the numbers are truly as they appear to be, WOTC certainly isn't crying about wasted money -- the venture looks like a financial success so far.

Dude, your rant doesn't appear to have anything to do with this conversation. Your post gives the impression that you are upset about something... So, why again are you so mad?

 

[Imaro]

I'd say anger is never a valid response in a case like this. Why? Because anger is a very personal response to something, and WotC's business decisions are impersonal. No one in WotC said "Y'know, I really hate that Imaro guy on ENWorld. We should totally screw him over!" It had nothing to do with you.

I agree with your earlier post, so I'll drop the whole childish thing. But this ... I just can't get behind. I can't say that anger is never a valid response to a "business decisions". Business decisions are based on what is best (usually most profitable) for a business. However often this can result in detrimental effects to consumers, especially when desires and profitability collide. If I believe I have been misled or deceived ... it being a "business decision" does not invalidate my anger over it.

Instead of WotC telling people, that the GSL was going to be a totally different beast than the OGL, they kept it under wraps for as long as possible (until 3 wks after the release date of the 4e core). Was this a good business decision? I would think so with how unhappy most were with it. Now if I bought the 4e books under the assumption it would be open, why shouldn't I feel anger about it, especially if it was planned knowing that it would be dissapointing to some people who bought 4e assuming (from past experiences, actions and set expectations) that 4e would have strong support from 3pp's and the GSL would be, if not the same, very similar to the OGL.

Honestly, now I'm back to wandering and waiting about the new GSL, only this time I'm holding off on DDI, and majority of the books until I find out... since I know now.

 

[Morrus]

Perhaps you should address that to the person or company who wrote this:

I dont know who wrote it, nor do I care; and I don't agree with it; and that, unless that quote is taken out of context, the author does not understand what "freedom of speech" means. If they want to come and say it here, I'll happily say so. I don't associate ethics with free RPG content.

If you have an opinion, feel free to offer it here. I'm not really interested in the opinion of some random person who is not involved in this conversation, just the opinions of those who are here and involved in the conversation.

 

[Morrus]

Hmmm...wow. Ok, so am I "childish" if the 7 Eleven I have been going to for years suddenly decides that my 1.99 Big Gulp now has an added surcharge of .25 cents for the cup... and I am not happy about that and feel it is wrong since the cups have been free up until now? Am I somehow more mature because I just accept it and pay it?

You are choosing to be offended. I certainly didn't name you or direct any opinion about you to you, nor am I consciously aware of your stance on Open Gaming or this issue.

I'd say hypothetically a person would be childish if they accused them of a moral wrongdoing and tried to insist that you were "owed" the product at the price you were used to; and that the mature reaction is simply not to purchase to goods if they don't want to pay the price asked.