D&D 3.x 3.5 is the REAL reason everyone is angry

[Nifft]

Everyone is angry?

Apparently no-one, -- N

 

[Friadoc]

After reading the announcements it seems very clear that with 4E and the DI so intimately intertwined with one another that unless you can afford to pay the monthly subscriptionsd and the 1 shot article purchases, that you will only have part of a complete system.

To be able to play D&D 4E, you will require not only the books, but a computer and a paid monthly subscription as well. This is their "vision" for a table top RPG? Sounds like a business model for an MMORPG to me. Oh right ... it is.

I think you're reading too much into the statements about the activation codes in the book opening on-line content for you.

While it's obvious they are moving towards the digital tabletop concept, thusly allowing people to access character and Dm content (such as class, items, adventures) by entering in the activation code from a book, I don't think you're going to lose functionality of the game if you play it off the grid.

You'll still get errata and what not, but I think a lot of the digital perks and what not need to be in place for those who use the DI.

I've gotta admit, I really like the idea of a fully functional digital tabletop, in fact my group would probably use a lot of it's functionality while AT a tabletop, just because it'd be useful to us.

Then again, all of us work in information systems and technology field in some way, shape, or form.

 

[F4NBOY]

However, how could they make statements like "we will make all major D&D announcements at the D&D Xperience," "4th edition is a long way off" and "we are not working on 4th edition" and not think they would be misleading?

Has anyone clearly asked them about it? Did they give any explanation on why things changed?

 

[catsclaw227]

We could certainly argue the semantics of "lie" but it really wouldn't change either of our point of view.

However, how could they make statements like "we will make all major D&D announcements at the D&D Xperience," "4th edition is a long way off" and "we are not working on 4th edition" and not think they would be misleading?

I understand what you are saying, but in some sense "a long way off" is so subjective that it's hardly applicable. In the world of software design, for example 18 months is a long time out to annouce a revision.

And the decision to change where they make announcements may have somethingt to do with timing the release of 4e, and not so much a doctrine.

I think they misled people about 4th edition by saying "we are not working on 4th edition" to prevent a disastrous plummet in sales that would COULD have killed the brand for WOTC. Which in turn would not be good for us gamers.

 

[F4NBOY]

And also they realized an announcement of this magnitude should be made at GenCon. Don't you think?
I think.

 

[Friadoc]

We could certainly argue the semantics of "lie" but it really wouldn't change either of our point of view.

However, how could they make statements like "we will make all major D&D announcements at the D&D Xperience," "4th edition is a long way off" and "we are not working on 4th edition" and not think they would be misleading?

I never said they were not misleading, I said that they didn't lie, which is more a point of motivation than it is of semantics.

Maybe they knew a leak was going to happen before the D&D Xperience and they change their minds, or else they needed to move up the release date so, thusly they moved up the announcement.

Seriously, if some people are ticked off now, how would they have felt if the announcement didn't occur until Jan. '08, with the first book coming out four months later.

Big boom there.

As for the long way off, a year is a long enough amount of time that it is more of a point of perspective.

Plus, I've already stated my opinion on the "working on 4e" thing.

Companies are allowed to obfuscate their product releases, announcements, and timing and nothing about product development, so long as it is within legal and safety guidelines, is public knowledge.

Companies are allowed trade secrets, private development, and what not, in fact the earlier release of said developments, without the company in questions approval, can fall under industrial espionage.

All companies do it, heck White Wolf took a good amount of time letting people know how drastic the changes from WoD 1.0 to 2.0 were going to be, right up until they announced it and then started the previous.

Even book releases were a big change, with you having to own the main WoD book in order to play the other games.

While it's obvious you feel mislead, I seriously doubt that WotC had any malevolent intent in their misleading people, I think it just falls under a company's right to release information on future products in their own time.

 

[Glyfair]

I think they misled people about 4th edition by saying "we are not working on 4th edition" to prevent a disastrous plummet in sales that would COULD have killed the brand for WOTC. Which in turn would not be good for us gamers.

Better to not say anything or say something that was accurate and noncommittal (such as Monte's comment "we started working on 4E the day 3E was released." )

 

[IanB]

I really don't think this discussion should be taking place without the *actual* WotC quotes cited, in their entirety. I can't help but feel like there's a good chance some things are being misinterpreted or misrepresented but I can't say without the original statements at hand.

 

[The_Gneech]

3.5 didn't piss me off ... I liked it. It fixed a lot of the things I wasn't happy with about 3.0.

4e wouldn't piss me off, in fact I would like it, if it had a properly-written, offline version of E-Tools (NOT a subscription service) and support in Dragon and Dungeon PRINT magazines.

Note that none of these are the case.

-The Gneech

 

[Glyfair]

And also they realized an announcement of this magnitude should be made at GenCon. Don't you think?
I think.

Then a policy of "all major D&D announcements will be made at the D&D Xperience" seems pretty ill advised.