Changeover Poll

[Scribble]

That is why some people want it sold. With a publicly traded company like Hasbro making money for shareholders is required. If it was sold to a private company there is no requirement to make as much as possible. If the owner of a private company is happy just breaking even then that is fine.

I have a couple of issues with this thought process:

1. It seems to assume that WoTC has the power to force people to buy things. They're a company that produces luxury items. They have to produce soemthing people want to buy before the people will buy it. "requirement to make money" or not.

2. It seems to assume assumes the owner just breaking even somehow implies he's making a better game. What if:

A: He's just not able to produce enough of what the players want to do more then break even.

B: He's breaking even because for the most part his products suck.

 

[El Mahdi]

...

A: He's just not able to produce enough of what the players want to do more then break even.

B: He's breaking even because for the most part his products suck.

Sounds like Palladium!

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I have a couple of issues with this thought process:

1. It seems to assume that WoTC has the power to force people to buy things. They're a company that produces luxury items. They have to produce soemthing people want to buy before the people will buy it. "requirement to make money" or not.

Their purpose is to make money. Making things that will make the most money is the point. There are all sorts of ways to do this from making things that people want to marketing things so that people think they want them even if they don't. The end result though is still to make as much as possible. If WotC thought they could make more money by only making 5 physical books and sell them for $5 million each they would regardless of whether more than 5 people wanted the books. A private company can make the choice to take the less profitable rout if they want to.

2. It seems to assume assumes the owner just breaking even somehow implies he's making a better game.

No it doesn't assume that. It just gives the owner more choices about what direction he wants to take. The new owner can make the choice based on his own opinions of what he thinks is a better game rather than what will make the most money. WotC may have made the best game, but their choices are required to go the route that makes the most money whether or not it is the better game.

What if:
A: He's just not able to produce enough of what the players want to do more then break even.

Sure its possible, but private doesn't neccesarily mean small or undercapitalized. Private companies can be worth millions or even billions.

B: He's breaking even because for the most part his products suck.

Well so be it. But having sucky products doesn't mean that they are produced by a private company. Public companies can make sucky products too.

or

C: He makes a a product he likes better even though he knows he may not make as much (or any) money. If you agree with him great, if you don't then that is fine too.

 

[bouncyhead]

Maybe maybe not. I can't answer that one with any kind of valid acuracy.

I still stand behind my idea that if the GSL had been more attractive or lenient or accepted by 3rd party people, the too radical of a change might not have been as large.

I also think that with 3rd party support, would come more avenues of interesting ideas, which would bring more changeover despite the fact that the change was radical.

Perhaps we should run a 'why didn't you switch/why did you switch back? poll'. I appreciate that all this is anecdotal but for my tuppence worth, my decision to switch back to 3.5 was based on the 'feel' thing. If I had to justify this with crunch it would be that I don't like powers, the consequent re-working of spell-casting, the increased significance of the encounter, the 'rationalisation' of classes. No amount of houseruling or 3pp crunch would fix or replace these without the game not being 4e at all.

 

[Mark Hope]

Perhaps we should run a 'why didn't you switch/why did you switch back? poll'. I appreciate that all this is anecdotal but for my tuppence worth, my decision to switch back to 3.5 was based on the 'feel' thing. If I had to justify this with crunch it would be that I don't like powers, the consequent re-working of spell-casting, the increased significance of the encounter, the 'rationalisation' of classes. No amount of houseruling or 3pp crunch would fix or replace these without the game not being 4e at all.

That might be interesting if you could find a way to consolidate it into a poll with a manageable number of options that represent the various reasons why someone might not have switched or might have switched back. It would also be impressive if such a thread could remain flame-free .

I know that in my case, not switching to 4e had almost nothing to do with 4e at all. I haven't even read the books. I'm just happy with what I have. For me, the question was not "why didn't you switch?" but more "why should I?" Any poll would need to be able to cover all the bases. You could keep the categories broad, I suppose, rather than have a dozen specific one, but good wording would be a must.

 

[bouncyhead]

That might be interesting if you could find a way to consolidate it into a poll with a manageable number of options that represent the various reasons why someone might not have switched or might have switched back. It would also be impressive if such a thread could remain flame-free .

You said it. Could be a bloodbath We would probably need a pre-poll poll just to agree on the options.

I know that in my case, not switching to 4e had almost nothing to do with 4e at all. I haven't even read the books. I'm just happy with what I have. For me, the question was not "why didn't you switch?" but more "why should I?" Any poll would need to be able to cover all the bases. You could keep the categories broad, I suppose, rather than have a dozen specific one, but good wording would be a must.

I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we switched without a moment's thought. It took a while before we realized how fundamentally the new mechanics had altered the feel, and a while longer before we switched back.

 

[Mark Hope]

I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we switched without a moment's thought. It took a while before we realized how fundamentally the new mechanics had altered the feel, and a while longer before we switched back.

Well, I did look at the previews that were coming out (mainly through Enworld's news page) and took the approach "OK, you have a new edition coming out - sell it to me!" To date, that hasn't happened. That likely has as much to do with my personal preferences as it has to do with the nature of 4e, of course.

So long as we're all getting good gaming, though, it doesn't really matter what edition we're playing. To be honest, I quite like the fact that the gaming community is split. It reminds me of the days when I started gaming, when there were dozens of games within any given genre, all competing, joslting and cross-pollinating with one anothe. The more the merrier, I say.

 

[bouncyhead]

So long as we're all getting good gaming, though, it doesn't really matter what edition we're playing. To be honest, I quite like the fact that the gaming community is split. It reminds me of the days when I started gaming, when there were dozens of games within any given genre, all competing, joslting and cross-pollinating with one anothe. The more the merrier, I say.

Spot on.

 

[Tuft]

I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition. There was a race within my group to get the books first and we switched without a moment's thought. It took a while before we realized how fundamentally the new mechanics had altered the feel, and a while longer before we switched back.

I think the "bought the books, did read them, did not like what I read, did not start playing" people chose option seven.

"Tried" implies actual, more than one session play, IMHO.

 

[Sammael]

A lot of people bought the gift set dirt cheap from Amazon. I am convinced that Amazon was selling those at a loss, particularly to international customers (due to low shipping costs).