Are people still mad about . . .

[Hussar]

Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.

MAny boiled down to: "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition. It will be better for everyone this way. Trust us."

Agreed, alot of "your game must suck if you use this rule" or 'if you us rule x your games are unfun"

I found it very insulting as my games all suck and are unfun so saith the 4e dev team

One thing that I learned in my Conflict Negotiation & Mediation program is that you don't win any arguments by discounting a party's emotional response to the situation. All you do is erect barriers to rational discourse.

Some players- myself included- were insulted by the language and tone 4Ed designers took when discussing 3.5. I actually talked about that from a marketing & advertising point of view when they were doing it. It was one of the first indicators to me that I wasn't going to care for the next edition.

You may not agree with the perception certain gamers had of the rollout, but don't tell us we were wrong to be insulted.

/snip

I also really didn't like the tone of SOME of the designers when talking about 3.5. Comparisons to the older game to sell your new one. But I think that if you can't tell me what you like about something without bashing something else then you've got an issue.

Like this

Ok, so, just to sum up, we've got one three line quote from a book and a video that actually wasn't made by a developer at WOTC, but by Gamer0, who, IIRC, got canned before the launch of 4e, specifically for posting crap like what was linked.

And that becomes the "Long list of wrongbadfun" stuff?

See, Shemeska, while I might disagree, at least has a pretty valid point. They did specifically piddle on something that's very near and dear to him. Fair enough. I can see being annoyed with that.

But, I the way I look at it, I see two possible alternatives.

One: People in a highly charged atmosphere, after reading several changes to the game they probably didn't like, become hyper-sensitive to every single thing that WOTC said and took everything personally.

or

Two: The people at WOTC, who spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars every year on a marketing department, collectively decide to piddle all over the fan base in the hopes of driving sales.

I remember times people actually claiming that the Dev's had gone back to rewrite their blog posts after the fact to make them less antagonistic. Never mind the fact that you can WayBack a website to see if any changes were made, AND NONE HAD BEEN MADE. Evidence? Piffle. The people were INSULTED! How dare they make any criticisms?

So, yeah, that's something that still bugs me. People talk about how insulting the posts were, how the Dev's were trash talking all over the place, but, when you start to actually drill down and take an honest look, suddenly, most of the material is pretty banal and moderate.

Like I said, which is more likely? That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I remember times people actually claiming that the Dev's had gone back to rewrite their blog posts after the fact to make them less antagonistic. Never mind the fact that you can WayBack a website to see if any changes were made, AND NONE HAD BEEN MADE. Evidence? Piffle. The people were INSULTED! How dare they make any criticisms?

Unless you are talking about someone else, in a thread I am unaware of, that was me. Mischaracterized, as usual, but me. About the Noonan "Cloudwatching" post.

And, as I said then, and as I said since, I was wrong -- I completely overreacted to that post. I mischaracterized it, much as you are mischaracterizing me.

This is probably a function of "reader bias", in both our cases.



RC

 

[billd91]

Like I said, which is more likely? That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?

Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Ok, so, just to sum up, we've got one three line quote from a book and a video that actually wasn't made by a developer at WOTC, but by Gamer0, who, IIRC, got canned before the launch of 4e, specifically for posting crap like what was linked.

And that becomes the "Long list of wrongbadfun" stuff?

I linked that video as an example of the type of shots that WOTC was taking at their older editions not necessarily an example of what the designers were saying at the time. I should have been more specific. Also I don't know who Gamer0 is / was in WOTC but can you post a link verifying that was the reason he was fired? Thanks.

I'll try to find some of the developer blogs but I have no idea where to start since that stuff was originally part of Gleemax.

 

[Piratecat]

I may be able to shed some light on this; we discussed it briefly when I spoke to Bill Slaviscek and WotC's president Greg Leeds last summer. From my notes:

I asked about the community's perception that D&D players were eroding into other games. What was their retention strategy for keeping players?

They answered that they had a multi-layered approach to retaining old players. They believe that 4e is the best game for the majority of people, but certainly not everyone. Their obligation to the people who play is to make the best game for as many people as possible. As a result, they're going to continue to invest in that rules set. They don’t want to exclude anyone. Greg was disappointed that some players feel abandoned, they're trying to avoid that and bring the 3rd-2nd-1st ed players back under the tent. Maybe those people will convert to 4e, maybe not. But it's important that they keep playing D&D or RPGs of any type.

Both Bill and Greg agreed that they inadvertently became too exclusionary when marketing 4e. That wasn’t their intent. They love the old game, and they love the new game.​

I firmly believe that, by the way. I have a pretty good bullsh*t meter and the design team are people who just plain love D&D. I think if they could go back and edit their commentary they would, though; whether true or not, the perception that the marketing was dismissing 3.5 really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

 

[billd91]

I may be able to shed some light on this; we discussed it briefly when I spoke to Bill Slaviscek and WotC's president Greg Leeds last summer. From my notes:

Both Bill and Greg agreed that they inadvertently became too exclusionary when marketing 4e. That wasn’t their intent. They love the old game, and they love the new game.​

I firmly believe that, by the way. I have a pretty good bullsh*t meter and the design team are people who just plain love D&D. I think if they could go back and edit their commentary they would, though; whether true or not, the perception that the marketing was dismissing 3.5 really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

I can totally accept that kind of sentiment and appreciate it. Though it still won't get WotC off the hook for other decisions like their rationale for pulling PDF sales or get me to play 4e, I'm sure getting the word out on that would smooth some ruffled feathers.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yeah and they are totally reliable. How's that gametable going? Still working on it huh? That's good to hear. How about that GSL? Still supporting 3ps? What? PDFs created piracy? Oh gee golly me, what shall we do.

A split consumer base = large numbers of dissatisfied customers. Either their market research was wrong, or they didn't do any.
And please, don't make the mistake of assuming your opinion ever mattered in the first place. 4e was in production long before they ever declared it existed. Nothing about any of the so-called playtests they did has lead me to believe those were anything but ways of increasing 4e's exposure before release.

You seem to think of WotC as this singular entity mashing its way through grognards like Godzilla. WotC is a group of actual people. Some of them touted the Gametable while others took that away. Some of them may have wanted the GSL to be as open as the OGL, others shut it down. Some of them may have understood pdf piracy while the Hasbro lawyers forced them to shut it down. What you see as large numbers may be acceptable losses to them to gain new players. The matter of whether their market research was wrong is a matter of opinion, not a fact as you try to state it. Of course 4E was in production before they revealed it, this is not mutually exclusive of the developers incorporating player feedback. You choose to view their actions as a slap in your face, while it is instead the decisions of a group of people that just happened to not go in a direction you like. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but as PCat posted the people at WotC meant no direct offense to you personally.

These guys are game designers. They speak about the design of their game. What it focuses on. What they were looking out for. What's important for the development of the game mechanics.

It isn't a value statement that people using it for something else are doing it wrong.

I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.

This. I also add that I still think it was a mistake to let the developers start talking in the first place.

But, I the way I look at it, I see two possible alternatives.

One: People in a highly charged atmosphere, after reading several changes to the game they probably didn't like, become hyper-sensitive to every single thing that WOTC said and took everything personally.

or

Two: The people at WOTC, who spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars every year on a marketing department, collectively decide to piddle all over the fan base in the hopes of driving sales.

Exactly.

Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.

Focusing on a new segment =/= insulting the old segment. [Edit: retracting unfair comment.] I likened it in the past to going to a band's fansite and flaming everyone there for liking said band. If you don't like it, fine. But it shouldn't be an affront to you that it exists.

 

[Scribble]

Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.

Well there's also the idea that while the previous branding was perfect for 10 years ago, it was loosing it's effectiveness in today's market (and the future market) so things had to change. (Despite the fact that it might cause a bit of a commotion as those still attached solidly to the old branding tactics felt left behind.)

Current clients are very important yes, but at the same time, if your current clients are slowly atrophying, and you're not bringing in enough new clients with your current product... What do you do?

 

[billd91]

Focusing on a new segment =/= insulting the old segment. People did seem to hunt for things to be offended by just because they didn't like the direction the game was going. I likened it in the past to going to a band's fansite and flaming everyone there for liking said band. If you don't like it, fine. But it shouldn't be an affront to you that it exists.

Yeah, that may be your take on it, but it's not mine. You and Hussar seem to be doing the very same thing that Dannyalcatraz is talking about, discounting other people's emotional reactions to the situation. Or maybe it's worse because you're ascribing other motives or sentiments despite what we've been saying. Is there a reason you won't take what we're saying at face value?

And I don't see anybody here saying that focusing on a new segment is the same as insulting the old segment. Merely focusing on the new direction probably would have been perceived as less insulting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I also add that I still think it was a mistake to let the developers start talking in the first place.

Meh. I like to hear the developers and designer thoughts. They can use sensitive, target-audience-appropriate marketing language in their advertisements. I'd prefer something substantive.