Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grandpa" data-source="post: 5751219" data-attributes="member: 560">Thanks for the thoughtful reply!Not a jerk. Like I said, I'm not as familiar with the ins and outs of things, so I don't mind learning how the idea is awful.I agree, but what I'm suggesting is not that they are beta testers, but that a fifth edition, for example, went through all the normal testing and was then released online instead of hitting print, along with the same previews and marketing leading up to release.Totally. I think in the perhaps-stupid fantasy is that those interested in a "finished" new edition online would be interested in it enough to subscribe, and that that increase in subscriptions would make up the cost. I may be waaay off.I think this has been true of every edition release, and that would be the point. By putting the release online and letting the community put a lot of time testing it, its eventual public release would benefit. Again, totally okay with a smackdown over how stupid this thought is.I personally agree, which is why I put my "compatibality" in quotes. My reason for mentioning it has to with public perception and the difficulty I perceive Wizards still has because of how 3.5 affected things. I wondered how they might get more breathing room for things like Essentials.Yeah, I just liked the idea that if you got 100 playtesters to play the game before releasing it to a community of thousands (?), before releasing it to the public at large, it would be even better. Ah, perhaps so. I think I mentally parse the super-fans that would pursue an online version of the game from the more casual folks that never hear about it, and think the super-fans would just build some word-of-mouth that the eventual public release would benefit from, but you may be more correct that it would just make the game feel perpetually split, which does sound bad.Which sounds okay to me. You'd just get an even more solid version of the game than most typical releases. I can see the second point about lazy design as a real potential problem, which is why I mentioned it in the negatives. Maybe even with all of the testing credits and artwork and options to purchase the book through an online publisher, you still couldn't shake that "beta tester" feeling, and perhaps is the silver bullet to my werewolf idea.I was vague. I perceive the reason for the deep criticism of D&D, even beyond it being widely-known, is that a lot of folks see it as a gateway drug for new RPGs, and are sensitive to how that transforms players that are familiar with the icon and not the industry overall. Perhaps my suggestion would only exacerbate those concerns.I may have incorrectly identified the problem that as long as physical copies of a book exist that need to turn a profit, and if putting out a new book with deeper adjustments made previous material incompatible (re: 3.5) then not having a physical copy and having flexible online material could limit that problem. Then again, people can become attached to versions and like the option of ignoring errata, and so for someone like yourself, that already hates it, an online edition could make it worse.I agree with this too, I just imagine that even if an edition were released online first, individuals would want a nice physical copy even at a greater price, and publishers like Lulu (I'm sure there are other / better examples) can provide quality at that higher-price point. Again, if this sounds nasty, waiting for the tested "public" release would be an option.The branding may be a horrible idea. I thought perhaps for those likely to have, know about, or learn about an Insider account, the "Advanced" might bring back positive memories. Perhaps I put on my marketing hat and put on an correspondingly goofy marketing suggestion.Again, I didn't mean to suggest beta-test. I mean a digital release with the production values (art, testing) we are used to before the actual full-scale public release with community testing and necessary (?) deeper changes.And just to be clear, I see the release of the PHB, etc., just after the community has already enjoyed it for a bit and helped sharpen the product.I totally appreciate the commentary. I feel like I'm just clearing up my poor presentation but still totally okay if it really is a trashy idea. I edited the original post to help and hope that's okay. I'm enjoying the thought-provocation, at least.</blockquote>

Verification