Gamers vs Companies

[Zaukrie]

The topic of whether or not WotC is evil or whatever, made me think of the following:

WotC is being villified for being greedy, stupid, acting in their own interest (even if wrong in their decision) and against customers.

Yet, every day, gamers buy products from Amazon or others, and don't support FLGS.

Why is it ok for gamers to be greedy, and try to get the best price at the expense of some businesses, but not ok for WotC to be greedy, and try to make the most profit?

I'm hopeful this can be an actual discussion, and not flamewar.....

 

[Rechan]

Years of being conditioned to "kill it and take its stuff" and account for every gold piece?

 

[Zaukrie]

hahahah, that's a great answer.

 

[Morrus]

Yet, every day, gamers buy products from Amazon or others, and don't support FLGS.

Eh, in my experience a lot of FLGS tend to fall bit bit short on the "F" front (and, on a more practical front, aren't very "L", either).

 

[Zaukrie]

True, I think anyone that isn't within 30 minutes of an LGS doesn't have an LGS. As for the F, we've been pretty lucky in MN (though I never thought the guys at the now gone Phoenix were all that F, frankly).

I guess the question is, why is it ok for customers to be greedy, but not companies?

 

[RangerWickett]

I haven't been following this terribly closely, but for me any less-than-happy-thoughts I'm thinking about WotC are due only to me wondering how they didn't realize gamers would have this backlash. WotC can do whatever they want with their products for all I care, but in my limited understanding, it looks to me like they're making a bad business decision.

I'm not upset by it. I just don't get why they're doing it.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Define "greedy".

If RPG's are a luxury hobby then people who play role-playing games should automatically pay more than they need to if they want the materials?

And if they don't they are being greedy? Is that what youre trying to say?

Listen, I used to spend MONEY at my LGS. All through 3 and 3.5 D&D I used to drop cash at my LGS. But then I realized something, I could get most ofthe same books from Amazon for considerably cheaper, free shipping and no tax. That provided me with the incentive most of the time to instead of buying one book I'd buy TWO.

At that time I never ran games at my LGS so they were offering me NOTHING beyond the ability to buy the book and I'm sorry as a consumer that alone is not enough to get me to support your store. Now that 4E is out I havent been buying ANY RPG materials from my LGS, but I do try to buy other things there. Hobby tools and the occasional board game as well as a magazine or two.

But the fact of the matter is when Amazon ran low on stock of WOTC's Complete Prancy Ponce or whatever they'd reorder from WOTC and WOTC STILL GETS PAID. No matter who I buy from.

So call me greedy if you want. I still supported the hobby I have an ENTIRE bookshelf of paid for RPG's to prove it. And that doesnt include all of the 3x and prior editon stuff I donated to a library a few years ago.

 

[Estlor]

Why should gamers be required to support FLGS? I've never really understood the widespread notion that, because my hobby is playing TRPGs that I'm obligated to find a gaming store and exclusively purchase products from them. Because they have the same interests as I do? Let me tell you, I've met enough people that played the same game or listened to the same band religiously that I thought were total jerkwads. Just because they like D&D or whatever doesn't mean I owe them any preferential treatment.

I'm an intelligent consumer. That means I know where I can get things and how much they cost. When it comes to buying printed dead trees, I'm looking for the best value. I've never known a FLGS to try and compete with Amazon.com or Buy.com or Overstock.com on value. Wow, you've got D&D books on your shelf and you've read them. Woo. Know who else has read those books? People at ENWorld. Oh, and the people I game with.

I don't know. I'm not overly offended by it, but it's unfair to call me "greedy" because I'm price-sensitive. It's not my fault Amazon or Buy wants to give me a cheaper alternative to paying cover price. Don't villify me because I decide to take it.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm not saying anything, I'm responding to the posts in other threads saying that WotC trying to make more money is greedy, while many of those same people try to "make" more money by spending less. I'm trying to reconcile why one is considered greedy (WotC) and the other is considered just plain smart consumerism.

I'm not personally judging either, just asking people why they think (for those that do) it is ok for customers to act "greedy", but not companies.

**now I will "judge"
Personally, I think WotC and the customers are both right to maximize their income/profit (or not, for some customers. for some customers, they get value out of supporting an LGS that outweighs the extra dollar cost of buying from them. I'm generally one of those, but I'm not offended by others that are not).

I don't get the vitriol aimed at a company (whose sole purpose is to make money - that's why companies exist in our society, like it or not. If executives of publicly held companies don't act in the interest *to the best of their ability* of shareholders, they are breaking the law), nor do I get the judging as wrong those that shope one way or the other.

 

[cildarith]

So you are essentially equating frugality and greed? That's a new one!