Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6229355" data-attributes="member: 7006">I don't disagree with you here at all.  All my points are just only to question other's people logic that because one guy said "4E was to last 10 years", and they instead are making 5E after five... that thus the game "failed" as so many people seem to claim.We don't know what WotC's internal metrics were, we don't know how long they actually thought they would ride the 4E train, we don't know how much money they actually made off of 4E.  All of it is speculation.  But I'm just following the natural course of events.  3E went three years, then there was a new set of core books.  3.5 went five years then there was a new set of core books.  4E will go six years then there will be a new set of core books.  And in fact... you throw in Pathfinder, and it means 3.5 went six years before TWO sets of new core books.How can anyone turn around and say thus that 4E "failed" when apparently 3E and 3.5 never did (despite having shorter turnaround times before the next core books came out)... nor suggest that putting out a new set of core books after a few years is a bad idea when this will be the third time they will have done it?  If it didn't work and didn't make money, don't you think they would have stopped doing it by now?  But apparently, some people here must genuinely think the people who work at WotC are idiots] who know nothing of how to run a business.  Well, I'm sorry to everyone out there, but I tend to trust in the actual company who is running said business, kept their lights on, and produced a metric ton of interesting and fun game product in that time, than I am to believe the remarks of a bunch of people on the internet who think they actually know what's going on (and not just talking out their rears because they've been disappointed in the company before.)If people want to believe they know better, that's their right.  But that doesn't mean the rest of us won't point out when they think their reasons are baloney.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification