Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5457910" data-attributes="member: 957">I find no fault in this statement.No.&nbsp; It is more like you make statements that are not true and then try to change them when you get called on it.Were they supported at all?From 1E to 2E there was not that big a difference, so the move isn't that meaningful.&nbsp; Yes, there was a negligible exception.&nbsp; But overall the move was so simple that it doesn't really show anything relevant to later changes.From 2E to 3E the change was massively in favor of 3E.&nbsp; Yes, there were hold-outs.&nbsp; But the D20 boom happened for a reason.&nbsp; So trying to say that people moved on because they had little choice does not stand up to inspection.&nbsp; By and large people jumped at 3E eagerly.&nbsp; So, again, lack of support for 2E doesn't really show a strong meaningful conclusion.For 4E, a lot of people were VERY hesitant.&nbsp; And Paizo RESPONDED to that.You have not shown your theory really had any meaningful role in prior transitions.&nbsp; You have simply shown that A and B existed and then you wave your hands and declare that since they both existed A caused B.&nbsp; And then you declare that proof of 4E's problems.&nbsp; It ends up being a wet streets cause rain kind of argument in the case of Pathfinder.&nbsp; The clear market reality that a ton of people were not interested in 4E was one (of several) key piece in the fact that Pathfinder exists now.&nbsp; Did Pathfinder then compound the problem?&nbsp; Probably.&nbsp; But the serious damage as already done.Ok, that is your opinion.&nbsp; Your opinion flies in the face of the fact that a huge chunk of people for whom 4e is not popular, it is because they dislike it.&nbsp; And to be clear, &quot;dislike&quot; is your word.&nbsp; I guess I dislike 4E.&nbsp; There are certainly some things in it that I have real issues with.&nbsp; If I had never heard of RPGs before I'd probably think 4E was the most awesome game ever when I first saw it.&nbsp; And then I'd find better games and move on.&nbsp; &quot;Dislike&quot;, in the case, is very relative.I don't doubt for one second that people play in second choice games because there friends don't play their first choice.&nbsp; But step back and use some logic on that.&nbsp; Let's assume that 90% of the people like game A and 10% like Game B.&nbsp; How often are you going to find game A fans with all their friends being game B fans?&nbsp; How often are you going to find the reverse.&nbsp; To some statistical level it will cut both ways.&nbsp; But if one game is more popular than another, that game will leverage that popularity and game even more of your &quot;second choice&quot; examples.&nbsp; The math does not work for the more popular game to lose fan base this way.In the end 4E's one big issue is: a lot of people who liked prior editions, don't care for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5457910, member: 957"] I find no fault in this statement. No. It is more like you make statements that are not true and then try to change them when you get called on it. Were they supported at all? From 1E to 2E there was not that big a difference, so the move isn't that meaningful. Yes, there was a negligible exception. But overall the move was so simple that it doesn't really show anything relevant to later changes. From 2E to 3E the change was massively in favor of 3E. Yes, there were hold-outs. But the D20 boom happened for a reason. So trying to say that people moved on because they had little choice does not stand up to inspection. By and large people jumped at 3E eagerly. So, again, lack of support for 2E doesn't really show a strong meaningful conclusion. For 4E, a lot of people were VERY hesitant. And Paizo RESPONDED to that. You have not shown your theory really had any meaningful role in prior transitions. You have simply shown that A and B existed and then you wave your hands and declare that since they both existed A caused B. And then you declare that proof of 4E's problems. It ends up being a wet streets cause rain kind of argument in the case of Pathfinder. The clear market reality that a ton of people were not interested in 4E was one (of several) key piece in the fact that Pathfinder exists now. Did Pathfinder then compound the problem? Probably. But the serious damage as already done. Ok, that is your opinion. Your opinion flies in the face of the fact that a huge chunk of people for whom 4e is not popular, it is because they dislike it. And to be clear, "dislike" is your word. I guess I dislike 4E. There are certainly some things in it that I have real issues with. If I had never heard of RPGs before I'd probably think 4E was the most awesome game ever when I first saw it. And then I'd find better games and move on. "Dislike", in the case, is very relative. I don't doubt for one second that people play in second choice games because there friends don't play their first choice. But step back and use some logic on that. Let's assume that 90% of the people like game A and 10% like Game B. How often are you going to find game A fans with all their friends being game B fans? How often are you going to find the reverse. To some statistical level it will cut both ways. But if one game is more popular than another, that game will leverage that popularity and game even more of your "second choice" examples. The math does not work for the more popular game to lose fan base this way. In the end 4E's one big issue is: a lot of people who liked prior editions, don't care for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification