WotC How new Wizards of the Coast head John Hight turned around World of Warcraft

[Ruin Explorer]

I keep pointing at sources that contradict claims that WotC has bungled all of its 5e setting updates. You keep insisting that those sources aren't valid because they don't match "opinions people have about products". I don't think I'm the one who is confused.

Yeah that's the problem, you don't think that, and it's odd that you don't. You're not apparently able to accept that weird site that makes this place look like the epicentre of the internet by comparison, and reviews that have never given any WotC product less than top marks and never contain more than the most milquetoast criticism are not good sources that "rebut" criticism.

I think rationally, it should be obvious to you that the appeal-to-authority of these extremely non-authoritative things you're referring to is more funny than anything else.

 

[Echohawk]

I think rationally, it should be obvious to you that the appeal-to-authority of these extremely non-authoritative things you're referring to is more funny than anything else.

I'm not the one relying on nebulous "opinions people have about products" to support my perspective.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I'm not the one relying on nebulous "opinions people have about products" to support my perspective.

The poster who is... discussing this with you will very likely never go beyond arguing from their own opinion. A couple of days ago, in the PHB reviews thread, they were literally telling someone who has been playing the UA material for months that their (the player's) experience was wrong and what they (the poster we're discussing) have theorized - without playing - has to be the truth. Based on past posting history, using facts to back up your arguments or asking for facts to back up their arguments is likely not to go anywhere.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yeah that's the problem, you don't think that, and it's odd that you don't. You're not apparently able to accept that weird site that makes this place look like the epicentre of the internet by comparison, and reviews that have never given any WotC product less than top marks and never contain more than the most milquetoast criticism are not good sources that "rebut" criticism.

I think rationally, it should be obvious to you that the appeal-to-authority of these extremely non-authoritative things you're referring to is more funny than anything else.

I'm not the one relying on nebulous "opinions people have about products" to support my perspective.

I have a better question for both of you, who or what are the main channels of data the wotc listen to as that is likely to be enlightening

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have a better question for both of you, who or what are the main channels of data the wotc listen to as that is likely to be enlightening

Sales and nothing else.

And we don't know a huge amount about those. There were rumours that Dragonlance sold poorly, but were people confusing that with the related boardgame? Because the boardgame definitely, 100% did sell extremely poorly, to the point where I believe WotC mentioned it, and it appeared in Ollies anyway, marked down to like $20, and really not that long after it came out.

And yeah that is a better question I must admit. No amount of "what people think", whether demonstrated by reviews or what people say on forums is going to override actual sales. Terrible products rarely do well, but mediocre ones? They can have legs for days if other conditions are right - or they can be total and complete flops, and make less money than a terrible product with some kind of obvious audience appeal.

 

[Nightfly]

Come on AD&D 3rd Edition!

You're thinking too small.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition 2nd Edition.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Sales and nothing else.

And we don't know a huge amount about those. There were rumours that Dragonlance sold poorly, but were people confusing that with the related boardgame? Because the boardgame definitely, 100% did sell extremely poorly, to the point where I believe WotC mentioned it, and it appeared in Ollies anyway, marked down to like $20, and really not that long after it came out.

And yeah that is a better question I must admit. No amount of "what people think", whether demonstrated by reviews or what people say on forums is going to override actual sales. Terrible products rarely do well, but mediocre ones? They can have legs for days if other conditions are right - or they can be total and complete flops, and make less money than a terrible product with some kind of obvious audience appeal.

sales does not account for people hating something they bought or thinking it could be better, they would need a second line just to gain context.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

sales does not account for people hating something they bought or thinking it could be better, they would need a second line just to gain context.

That's always a difficult thing to gauge. D&D has an unfortunate issue in that the vast majority of reviews for WotC products are either from utterly tame softball reviewers (who nonetheless are working hard, I'm not critiquing them, it's just what the output actually is) who won't give WotC products less than a like a 4/5 (or equivalent), and highly critical reviewers who tend not to give scores, but to produce pretty harsh critiques which often go a bit beyond what people are going to notice at the table. So WotC don't have access to a sort of useful "Metacritic" equivalent for their products.

They do clearly listen to feedback via some channels, but that's so diffuse and often contradictory that I wonder how useful it is for assessing how much people liked a product, rather than assessing specific flaws a product had.

 

[Mind of tempest]

That's always a difficult thing to gauge. D&D has an unfortunate issue in that the vast majority of reviews for WotC products are either from utterly tame softball reviewers (who nonetheless are working hard, I'm not critiquing them, it's just what the output actually is) who won't give WotC products less than a like a 4/5 (or equivalent), and highly critical reviewers who tend not to give scores, but to produce pretty harsh critiques which often go a bit beyond what people are going to notice at the table. So WotC don't have access to a sort of useful "Metacritic" equivalent for their products.

They do clearly listen to feedback via some channels, but that's so diffuse and often contradictory that I wonder how useful it is for assessing how much people liked a product, rather than assessing specific flaws a product had.

perhaps they should look into forming one if only to sell more products that people want

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Bungled according to whom?

RPGGeek ratings
2e Planescape Campaign Setting: 205 ratings, average 8.45
5e Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse: 3 ratings, average 9.33

2e: Spelljammer: AD&D Adventures in Space: 69 ratings, average 7.43
5e: Spelljammer: Adventures in Space: 8 ratings, average 6.74

2e: Ravenloft: Realm of Terror: 82 ratings, average 7.64
5e: Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft: 20 ratings, average 7.81

Look at the different difference in the amount of ratings, the 5e stuff could be all WotC employees or folks with little experience in the settings, there is literally a difference of 202 ratings between 2e and 5e Planescape, which only got 3 reviews.

That being said, Ravenloft 5e is nowhere near as bad as the other 2, it's problem is mostly tossing the core, which bothered alot if Ravenloft fans, and messes up some domains according RL fans. Some domains did kick ass however, so it's in-between the good setting books and the terrible ones.