Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gargauth" data-source="post: 3705220" data-attributes="member: 54127"><p>If I played those games and needed to buy new sets of core books to play the game, I'd have a problem with it. Furthermore, it is somewhat excusable for smaller gaming companies to do this as a means of survival, but Wizards isn't a small gaming company. They spent two years churning out splatbooks for classes and such that they knew would be obsolete within months. If Monte Cook, who wrote the DMG, didn't agree with 3.5, in other words, if the game's original designers didn't suggest it, then who did? Sure some of the changes were fine, such as the Ranger and spell durations, but they weren't needed... and that is a huge distinction for me. My Bill Gates comment is only half in jest... the best publishers, like Necromancer, make no bones about the fact that they really don't turn a profit and I don't think thats a coincidence. As long as people at WOTC who likely don't even play the game are making decisions based purely off of market data, the game will get worse and worse. Please don't feel the need to inform me that &quot;of course profit drives the game&quot; because I am aware of that. I just don't see it as healthy to the quality of the game. What is even sadder is that, for all my moaning, I'll end up buying the damn thing... if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be printing it. No for all the raging right now, 4E will do just fine... WOTC knows their base more than we know ourselves I'll wager.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Gargauth, post: 3705220, member: 54127"] If I played those games and needed to buy new sets of core books to play the game, I'd have a problem with it. Furthermore, it is somewhat excusable for smaller gaming companies to do this as a means of survival, but Wizards isn't a small gaming company. They spent two years churning out splatbooks for classes and such that they knew would be obsolete within months. If Monte Cook, who wrote the DMG, didn't agree with 3.5, in other words, if the game's original designers didn't suggest it, then who did? Sure some of the changes were fine, such as the Ranger and spell durations, but they weren't needed... and that is a huge distinction for me. My Bill Gates comment is only half in jest... the best publishers, like Necromancer, make no bones about the fact that they really don't turn a profit and I don't think thats a coincidence. As long as people at WOTC who likely don't even play the game are making decisions based purely off of market data, the game will get worse and worse. Please don't feel the need to inform me that "of course profit drives the game" because I am aware of that. I just don't see it as healthy to the quality of the game. What is even sadder is that, for all my moaning, I'll end up buying the damn thing... if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be printing it. No for all the raging right now, 4E will do just fine... WOTC knows their base more than we know ourselves I'll wager. [/QUOTE]

Verification