A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Henry]

I think Steel Wind's post was an excellent analysis, and one that I happen to agree with, both as a player of Pathfinder AND 4th edition.

The first two issues? I think WotC could have overcome them, quite frankly. The last four? Those you CAN'T overcome, not in a hobby whose existence depends on grass roots and proselytizers to continue. Lack of a new heavily supported setting? I can't see it, though. What I CAN see, is WotC gutting their OGL support, trying to capture the majority of the market again, going it alone, and getting terrible sales as a result.

I don't consider WotC as TOTALLY ignoring their fanbase, though. People like Chris Perkins & Mike Mearls have made great pains to talk to fans, be visible, and promote through social media the past two years - they haven't been silent. However, it's mostly from the developers we hear -- not the publishers, the brand managers, etc. Hell, the TWO BRAND MANAGERS who actually did come on and try to be accessible... well, I won't say they got canned for doing so, but frankly the timing made WotC as a whole look like jerks. First, WotC acts like they got caught with their proverbial pants down when they realized just how "open" the OGL was; then, Linnae and Scott pushed for a friendlier GSL in the absence of OGL, and get almost no concessions; then, BAM, Linnae's gone, and later BAM, Scott's gone. Yeah, not really friendly to a fanbase of grognards and die-hard kitbashers that they need as their proselytizers. Anyway, I digress on an old issue.

The main cause I see is that the more the holder of D&D does to encourage trust from its fanbase, then the more that fanbase returns that respect with sales and popularity. The more they dodge their fan communities, and do things to shore up piracy and IP rights at the expense of convenience of paying customers, then the more that group of mouthpieces says, "screw you, we're going where we're appreciated."

I enjoy the system of 4E, I was a regular book buyer, monthly subscriber at my ten bucks a month -- but over the course of my support, they stopped producing anything but essentials-based stuff, they redesigned very useful web resources to be difficult to use, stopped updating material, and finally took a useful tool and turned it online-only. I canceled in November and haven't looked back. They don't offer me convenience and a reason to see them as more than a business, I don't offer money. Simple.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
There have been a couple of questionable decisions, from a business standpoint, but there have been no cases of WotC swinging its big gorilla arms around and knocking competitors or fans to the ground without due cause.

The fact that you perceive WotC's actions as those of a bully, rather than those of a business operation with the difficult decisions that come along with a business to make is, I'd argue, evidence in favor of my argument rather than evidence against it.

You seem like a cool guy, and I'd like to keep this thread civil (I don't think the two of us will have issues with that...I hope that's true of others).

"Knocking competitors to the ground?" "Knocking fans to the ground?"
Are you familair with the GSL initial release and the secondary release (really really really close to the release of the actual sytem)? Do you realize that the 3pps (who admittedly are somewhat parasitic or symbiotic with WotC...I'd argue symbiotic for myself) were pretty well screwed with WotC policies tied to 4e?



It's funny, but, as far as I can tell, WotC's PRIOR EDITION competitor (PAIZO) is doing better than any other CURRENT edition competitor. That tells me they've done a bad job with considering the need and value for a new edition, and/or tells me that a company like Paizo who actually engages with fans has better marketing than the uber $$$ company does.



But, okay, how about "knocking fans to the ground"? Where are the 4e fansites? Dead, or nonexistent, IMO because of WotC's policy of shutting people down.

Not worth creating a 4e fansite. The legality is harsh, the effort is substantial. The bully might take it away.

I've looked into 4e fansites. I wanted them to exist. They are so minimal, it's embarrasing.


I'm not using hyperbole here.

I truly believe that WotC have become a giant bully.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

They don't offer me convenience and a reason to see them as more than a business, I don't offer money. Simple.

THIS is so spot on.

People want to defend WotC as a company with the trite phrase "they're there to make money."

But what people don't understand is that when they portray themselves as money grabbers without real interest in the game then I DON'T WANNA GIVE THEM MY MONEY.


Be good to your customers, and they just might be good to you back.

Screw them, and they'll go elsewhere.


Justify abominable corporate practices as much as you like, but customers aren't as stupid as companies believe them to be.

 

[Matt James]

The popularity of 4e. The title of the thread is where I had to stop and read closely the contents within the post. Where is the data that supports the popularity (or lack thereof) regarding the edition? What assumptions are being applied to start the conversation this way? I need solid metrics. Anything otherwise is a clear cheap shot at the organization and those who choose to support the game (via buying their products).

 

[Dannager]

"Knocking competitors to the ground?" "Knocking fans to the ground?"
Are you familair with the GSL initial release and the secondary release (really really really close to the release of the actual sytem)?

Rather familiar, yes.

Do you realize that the 3pps (who admittedly are somewhat parasitic or symbiotic with WotC...I'd argue symbiotic for myself) were pretty well screwed with WotC policies tied to 4e?

I realize that 3rd party producers became limited in the number of options that they had in terms of producing products for 4th Edition. You are looking at this, however, from the perspective of a disenfranchised fan, or disenfranchised 3pp developer. Without consideration given to the reasons WotC made the choice they did, I'm sure it could appear punitive if that's the perception you're trying to achieve.

The problem is, WotC made the decision to develop the GSL as they did from a business and legal standpoint. Their decision to create the OGL and push the 3rd-party inclusiveness of the d20 system unfortunately created their most significant competitor in quite some time. WotC did a good thing with the OGL - they made their system very open, very accessible. This good thing bit them in the rear. No, the GSL isn't as delicious at the OGL from a developer's standpoint. And that's by design. There is a reason that we very rarely see blanket licenses like the OGL pop up in the interactive entertainment industry. Hell, even the GSL is a rarity by that standard.

If you see this decision as bullying, you need to give yourself a bit of perspective. If you believe that anyone in WotC wanted to see the 3pp market shrink, you're mistaken. If you believe they wanted the inevitable fan backlash that came with a more limited license policy, you're mistaken. The decision to produce and release the GSL (on both occasions) was intended to protect them. It's really quite unfair to take such a negative bent towards a company trying to protect itself from the downsides of its own goodwill.

It's funny, but, as far as I can tell, WotC's PRIOR EDITION competitor (PAIZO) is doing better than any other CURRENT edition competitor.

The idea of "current" and "prior" editions dies at the level of support. Both editions of the game are current, in the sense that both are receiving active support (though, you could argue, Paizo's edition isn't 3.5, but then Paizo wouldn't really qualify as a prior edition competitor anyway, would it?).

It really doesn't matter from a business standpoint which one has the higher number stamped on it (though, notably, Pathfinder doesn't have a number stamped on it anyway). One company created a game, and that company and another company built evolutions of that game. Both of these evolutions are currently supported.

That tells me they've done a bad job with considering the need and value for a new edition, and/or tells me that a company like Paizo who actually engages with fans has better marketing than the uber $$$ company does.

You cannot simultaneously make the argument that there was no value in a new edition while also making the argument that Paizo is engaging in solid business. Paizo's current success is predicated on the consumer adoption of what they present as a new edition. If there wasn't enough value in a new edition, you wouldn't be able to say that either company is doing well.

But, okay, how about "knocking fans to the ground"? Where are the 4e fansites? Dead, or nonexistent, IMO because of WotC's policy of shutting people down.

You're posting on a 4e fansite. This is certainly a site for other parts of the tabletop gaming community to, but you cannot make the case that this is not a very active site where fans of 4e can come to discuss their game of choice.

There are countless other 4e fansites. Plenty of blogs, plenty of forum communities, plenty of active if amateur news reporting sites. The fact of the matter is that more fansites aren't really needed because the current array is sufficient. This isn't the old internet, where everyone and their mother felt justified in running their own Geocities fansite. We only need so many distinct subcommunities.

But the real question is: if WotC's policy of shutting people down is to blame for a perceived lack of fansites, why is it that Pathfinder, despite its extremely ardent internet supporter base, has a merely comparable fansite presence? The answer is, of course, that WotC's policy of shutting people down isn't to blame, because it doesn't really exist. WotC has shut down a couple of sites because of significant infringement concerns (again, something that is totally legitimate for a business to do, and something that it would be silly to hold against them for). These instances have gotten a rather large amount of coverage among the fan community because, obviously, the people who ran the sites were fans, and fans love controversies within their hobby. Let's not pretend a policy exists where one does not, though. No one in WotC is running a company-sponsored vendetta against fans.

I'm not using hyperbole here.

And, yet, you are. You have applied radicalized language to a company, giving them the traits (and subsequent mental image) that one might normally attribute to a person.

I truly believe that WotC have become a giant bully.

I'm sure that, in your eyes, WotC is indeed a giant bully. I'm not going to delve into the psychology of why that might be the case, but it's certainly worth asking yourself if your decision to view WotC as a bully is something that necessarily follows from their actions, or if that is simply a convenient image to apply to them that gives their actions a motivation, and a sinister purpose that they do not actually possess.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Huh, that's actually one of the reasons I switched to 4e; teaching new players the 3.5 rules right out of the gate was becoming a pain. Teaching the 4e rules, on the other hand, was very straightforward.

I don't think that this is really a supportable position for one to take. If the 4e rules were indigestible at low levels, the 3.5 rules (and, by extension, Pathfinder rules) must be seen as downright unpalatable.

*Shrug* I have been teaching new players how to play 3.X (and now Pathfinder) for years. Some of the folks I have introduced were not even in their teens, so it can't be as hard as you think. And they are still playing, so.... Maybe you just aren't that good at explaining things?

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannager]

THIS is so spot on.

People want to defend WotC as a company with the trite phrase "they're there to make money."

But what people don't understand is that when they portray themselves as money grabbers without real interest in the game then I DON'T WANNA GIVE THEM MY MONEY.


Be good to your customers, and they just might be good to you back.

Screw them, and they'll go elsewhere.


Justify abominable corporate practices as much as you like, but customers aren't as stupid as companies believe them to be.

See, the words that you include here are telling.

"Money grabbers," "Screw them," "Abominable corporate practices."

They are a company who enjoy what they do, and like the things they make. They are not money grabbers, they are not screwing their customers, and they are not engaging in anything abominable. There are things the word "abominable" ought to be reserved for. A hobby game company doing something that serves as an inconvenience for your personal entertainment enjoyment is not one of these things.

No one is saying that because they're a company, it's okay that they engage in abominable practices. We're saying that because they're a company, it's okay for them to make decisions that allow them to stay in business. There are no abominable practices taking place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And just to be clear, because I've seen repeated misunderstandings of my original post: I am not saying that this is the only or biggest factor, but that it is one of many core factors, but one that has been little discussed because it is rather subtle and, as I said, has more of a "secondary" or "tertiary" impact on sales and the game's popularity.

I don't even see it as a "quaternary" or "quinary" factor. How many persons in this thread have said it was important to them? Two?

I'm not saying its not a factor at all- those two clearly feel it was- but for most non-adopters, it was issues of marketing and mechanical/fluff changes they didn't like that kept them away from day one...IOW, LONG before lack of setting support could even be considered to be a factor.

 

[Dannager]

*Shrug* I have been teaching new players how to play 3.X (and now Pathfinder) for years. Some of the folks I have introduced were not even in their teens, so it can't be as hard as you think. And they are still playing, so.... Maybe you just aren't that good at explaining things?

The Auld Grump

That's definitely a possibility. It could be that I'm terrible at explaining things.

However, if that were the case, I'd be pretty bad at explaining 4e too, and would not see an improvement unless 4e were inherently easier to explain. Unless 4e were actually easier to explain for people who are bad at explaining things. Which is sort of a plus, isn't it?

 

[TarionzCousin]

I think that everyone* would have loved 4E if they had only followed through with their original idea for the 4E setting.

* Yes, even you.