Are we fair to WotC?

[Ahnehnois]

Together with all the sea life people were so fond off.
Thats the problem 4E had. In order to fix some flaws they destroyed the whole system and rebuild it. But a lot of people liked the old system and rather wanted it improved instead of having everything not perfect removed. And thus they turned the back on 4E.

I wasn't (just) marketing which made many 3E people dislike 4E, it was that 4E removed a lot of what they liked from the game thus making it a huge downgrade for them.

It wasn't just that either. Merit does play into it, and everything that WotC has done since it acquired D&D has been judged by how good people think it is.

If their products worked for me, I wouldn't care how different they were, or how they were marketed. Again, that's fair.

 

[Derren]

If their products worked for me, I wouldn't care how different they were, or how they were marketed. Again, that's fair.

Exactly. Maybe I didn't word my previous post correctly.
Some people certainly left because 4E wasn't D&D enough. Was that fair? Probably not, but that is business. But many people looked at 4E and decided that they removed too many things they liked and added too many things they disliked. So they looked out for a other product they liked more and often found it in Pathfinder.
That is capitalism at its finest and as fair as it can get.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION]
Okay, I get it.

 

[Hussar]

For me, the "unfair" label isn't really an emotional response thing. After all, it's perfectly fair to have an emotional response to something you are passionate about. That's totally understandable.

What gets me is the amount of misinformation or outright deliberate obfuscation that goes on. Take the whole "cloud watching" thing as a perfect example since someone else brought it up. The reaction to that post was very vitriolic. And, completely unfounded. Someone said that the article said something it didn't and a bunch of others jumped on. It was actually SHOWN that the article didn't say what people claimed and then people started claiming that WOTC had gone back and edited the blog post to remove the offensive part. That AGAIN was shown to be false using the Wayback machine. Yet, here we are, six years later, and people still bring it up as an example of something to be offended by.

Or take this quote from the first page of the thread:

Personally, I remember WotC producing a good quality game, an open license, ample free material, ample non-free material, and having decent customer service. All of this was the norm during the early 3e era. And then they started deteriorating. Obviously their product quality and business practices took a huge dive with the 4e release, but they've been in decline for a while.

My expectation for WotC is only based on what they've actually done. I expect them to produce an open game sold in stores at reasonable prices, using the existing pre-4e game as a base, but doing the same kind of market research they did to create 3e in the first place, and building a better game from lessons learned. Anything less than that would be a disappointment in my eyes.

There may be behind-the scenes forces making it difficult for them to reduplicate their best days, but I don't think it's unfair to expect them to do what we know they can.

Umm, what? There's still a crap ton of free 4e material on the boards. And, for the price of two books a year you get the entire 4e library. ALL of it. Several thousand dollars worth of material for 100 bucks a year. How is that not producing a game for reasonable prices. Like I said above, a lot of very skewed bits of information get put forward as facts without a lot of basis.

/edit to add - oh, and that deteriorating quality? You might want to pick up a first run 3e PHB before criticizing 4e. You can knock 4e and later era 3.5 for a lot of things, but deteriorating quality? Not really.

What basis is there for saying WOTC's customer service is poorer now than before? I mean, in our last D&D game, the Character builder was down. We contacted WOTC and the CB was up again within an hour or so. Seems pretty decent to me. What more customer service are you looking for?

On and on. Hey, rant all you like about how you hate the company. That's fine. But, for some reason, it's perfectly okay to criticize WOTC based on hearsay and outright misinformation. But, if you criticize 3e or anything other than 4e and current WOTC, you better have all your ducks in a row.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So they looked out for a other product they liked more and often found it in Pathfinder.
That is capitalism at its finest and as fair as it can get.

Absolutely. WotC took a risk on a big sea change and while it might have worked for a period of time, it wasn't sustainable over the long haul. But kudos for them for attempting the big sea change in the first place.

People forget the hue and cry that went up over the release of 3.5 three years after 3.0. WotC realized (probably quite correctly) that if they attempted to release a 4.0 that was basically along the lines of what Pathfinder was... a revamped 3.5... they would have been crucified. Even if their 4.0 ended up being a technically better product. That wouldn't have mattered. Sure, looking back on it now, a bunch of us would probably try and claim "Oh no! I would have LOVED a 3.75 or 4.0"... but most who would say that are full of crap. After spending $200+ on full sets of 3.0 and 3.5 books... those 4.0 books released by WotC five years later would have been shat upon as nothing but a money grab. And don't let anyone try and tell you different.

So they made 4E different enough to make sure no one would ever try and claim they were just making another edited money grab... plus they tried their best to incorporate their miniatures and Dungeon Tiles line into the game hardline (which was not the worst idea in the world, although in hindsight had they not made the game so dependent on them, they probably wouldn't have had as much blowback from a certain percentage of players.)

In the end... WotC tried to bet big on a game that would bring many new or returning players back to D&D. Which they did in spades. It was just the established playerbase that were not as willing to follow the game in its new direction. But they never would have realized that had they not tried. And now that they have seen the results... they are trying a course correction with 5E that will run between the games in hopes that both sides will give a little ground.

We'll still have our edition die-hards who'll bitch because 5E won't be an exact recreation of their edition of choice (although why they even care about any edition other than the one they have a hard on for is beyond me)... but for everyone else... it might end up being a very solid and adaptable playset.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Umm, what? There's still a crap ton of free 4e material on the boards. And, for the price of two books a year you get the entire 4e library. ALL of it. Several thousand dollars worth of material for 100 bucks a year. How is that not producing a game for reasonable prices.

Used to be, the base game is free, and the addons cost money. I doubt I ever spent $100 a year on new game books; there just weren't that many. In any case, a subscription-based online service is not the same thing as owning a book.

Moreover, as I pointed out, the books have less substantive content per page, more fluff, and a smaller amount of mechanical substance spread out over an enormous number of fiddly abilities. Complete Mage has a lot fewer meaningful mechanical ideas than did Complete Arcane, regardless of their quality. Same trend has continued big time. Even access to a ton of online content is only as substantial as that content is.

/edit to add - oh, and that deteriorating quality? You might want to pick up a first run 3e PHB before criticizing 4e.

Still have mine. Kept using it years after the 3.5 ones came out. It's got its flaws, but it's really quite good.

That fifteen year old book has more for me than all the 4e PHBs put together, or the entire 5e playtest, and it cost me 20 bucks and is on the SRD if I want it searchable.

Also, feel free to check out the Amazon sections for those books (3.0 and 4e), where the 3.0 PHB is still accumulating positive reviews in 2013 and is pulling close to 5 stars, while the 4e version has more one-star reviews than five. You are welcome to hold your own opinions, of course.

But, for some reason, it's perfectly okay to criticize WOTC based on hearsay and outright misinformation. But, if you criticize 3e or anything other than 4e and current WOTC, you better have all your ducks in a row.

Feel free to keep looking.

 

[Raith5]

Absolutely. WotC took a risk on a big sea change and while it might have worked for a period of time, it wasn't sustainable over the long haul. But kudos for them for attempting the big sea change in the first place.

People forget the hue and cry that went up over the release of 3.5 three years after 3.0. WotC realized (probably quite correctly) that if they attempted to release a 4.0 that was basically along the lines of what Pathfinder was... a revamped 3.5... they would have been crucified. Even if their 4.0 ended up being a technically better product. That wouldn't have mattered. Sure, looking back on it now, a bunch of us would probably try and claim "Oh no! I would have LOVED a 3.75 or 4.0"... but most who would say that are full of crap. After spending $200+ on full sets of 3.0 and 3.5 books... those 4.0 books released by WotC five years later would have been shat upon as nothing but a money grab. And don't let anyone try and tell you different.

So they made 4E different enough to make sure no one would ever try and claim they were just making another edited money grab... plus they tried their best to incorporate their miniatures and Dungeon Tiles line into the game hardline (which was not the worst idea in the world, although in hindsight had they not made the game so dependent on them, they probably wouldn't have had as much blowback from a certain percentage of players.)

In the end... WotC tried to bet big on a game that would bring many new or returning players back to D&D. Which they did in spades. It was just the established playerbase that were not as willing to follow the game in its new direction.

Good observations. I really have grown to like the very different direction of 4th ed and the way it plays - despite initial reservations. I came into 4th edition after been burned out DMing 3rd ed so I was looking for something different than 3rd. But it still seems like some of the ideas of 4th ed were not 100% polished when the game was released.

 

[Obryn]

But it still seems like some of the ideas of 4th ed were not 100% polished when the game was released.

That's an understatement! Fortunately, the 4e of today is a much better game than the 4e of 2008. On release, the designers weren't sure what kind of game they were making our how all this stuff worked, and the game suffered for it. Perhaps critically. Between the terrible monster design, V-shaped classes, inscrutable skill challenge rules, bad math, and the HPE module trainwreck... Well, I'm just glad I saw the system's promise and stuck with it.

-O

 

[Hussar]

Ahn - you have a first printing 3e PHB? With the thirty or forty pages of errata for it? Take a look at which printing you have, because there are significant differences between first and second printings.

But,

Used to be, the base game is free, and the addons cost money. I doubt I ever spent $100 a year on new game books; there just weren't that many. In any case, a subscription-based online service is not the same thing as owning a book.

See, right there, that's the issue. Why would WOTC want you for a customer? I'm not being mean here or trying to pick a fight, but, if you are not buying books, and not willing to pay for product, what's the point in catering to you? A hundred bucks a year, is what, three 3.5 books a year? Give or take?

How are you a customer?

See, I'm in the same boat as you. I don't buy very much anymore. But, the difference is, I don't expect the game to be given to me for free so that I can continue to play without supporting the company that produces the hobby. By the same token, I can look at something like the DDI and realize that that's a huge value for the money. If nothing else, four years of Dungeon and Dragon magazines would still be cheaper than if I actually bought them. I know, because I did buy them when they were in print.

So, if you refuse to pay for the product, at any price, why would any company listen to your input?

 

[mlund]

I still maintain that the biggest mistake they made was changing the fluff along with the crunch. The 2e fluff was still usable in 3E, making the transition from 2E to 3E easier. So, in addition to deleting so much of what people liked about 3E flavor wise (you mentioned Wyatt's idiodic claim), 4E also discarded too much of the traditional setting(s) that made D&D what it was to many people. To me, the game essentially was completely new with only the name D&D remaining. (Obviously not everyone agrees with this, but apparently enough people did to cause 4E's failure.)

I share the opinion that keeping a bunch of the fluff would've helped ease the continuity breach brought on by the necessary discontinuity in the crunch.

I disagree with the notion that "enough people did to cause 4E's failure." Failure depends on your goals. The revenue goals Hasbro put on the D&D brand were failed, certainly. There wasn't enough money in the RPG market to meet them, period. By those standards every RPG brand in the market is a miserable failure. I think that speaks to corporate thinking in terms of what they are trying to squeeze out of this brand and how compatible that is with a traditional D&D model of trying to turn a profit selling the same people splat-books until they burn out and tune out.

If we're talking about how long the edition lasted, I guess 3.0 was a failure. It had to be replaced in 3 years and revising the edition to fix its problems nearly resulted in an unseemly end involving pitchforks and torches. 3.5 went 5 years before 4E. 4E runs 5 years before the release of D&DNext. :shrug:

I think, far more than that, the biggest mistake was not releasing under something similar to the OGL. Then third parties could have produced conversion material for the older fluff (as well as add-ons based on broken system concepts for those wedded to them).

I don't think that's a mistake from the company's perspective. In fact, it highlights the fact that the biggest mistake they ever made in regards to their business model was the OGL itself.

The business model we've seen since the TSR days that holds true to today is a simple cycle:
1.) Sell PHB / DMG / MM
2.) Sell splat books
3.) Stop producing new content for that Edition
4.) Repeat steps 1-3 with a new edition that's not fully backwards compatible so people buy your new line to use new content

The OGL broke that cycle horribly. The owner of the brand couldn't end-of-life the market's support of for-profit OGL content. That meant for the first time ever D&D's owners couldn't use the "exclusive new content" carrot to prod people into moving on to the new edition.

No OGL means no Pathfinder, no 3.75, no new commercial splats or adventures for 3.X products. The lines reaches end-of-life.

Instead Wizards/Hasbro stuck a knife in that business model as it relates to 3.X IP with their OGL. OGL competes with their new product lines for market share and doesn't put any money in their pockets - no license fees, no royalties, nothing. It's like building a restaurant, running it for 8 years successfully, then building a new restaurant across the street and leaving the old one just standing their for anyone to take, complete with all the old furnishings, recipes, and equipment. Sure, they have to change the sign over the door but they don't even need to change the drapes or even pay for their own building. They get what you paid to build! Yeah, that's not exactly a recipe for success.

Absolutely. WotC took a risk on a big sea change and while it might have worked for a period of time, it wasn't sustainable over the long haul. But kudos for them for attempting the big sea change in the first place.

It seems like the OGL situation made that sea-change mandatory. Anything too similar could basically be copied over with cosmetic tweaks for minimal cost by any competitor. It isn't like complex open-source software where you're trying to create a revenue stream by providing enterprise-level support and customization others can't. The D&D model was always closed-source software that hits end-of-life.

3.5 wasn't sustainable over the long haul. It went 5 years and the revenues started to sag enough that they had to bail out. You can only print so many splat-books.

People forget the hue and cry that went up over the release of 3.5 three years after 3.0. WotC realized (probably quite correctly) that if they attempted to release a 4.0 that was basically along the lines of what Pathfinder was... a revamped 3.5... they would have been crucified. Even if their 4.0 ended up being a technically better product. That wouldn't have mattered. Sure, looking back on it now, a bunch of us would probably try and claim "Oh no! I would have LOVED a 3.75 or 4.0"... but most who would say that are full of crap. After spending $200+ on full sets of 3.0 and 3.5 books... those 4.0 books released by WotC five years later would have been shat upon as nothing but a money grab. And don't let anyone try and tell you different.

Precisely.

On top of which, the actual revenues generated by Pathfinder aren't anywhere near adequate to meet the revenue goals Hasbro set for the D&D brand.

In the end... WotC tried to bet big on a game that would bring many new or returning players back to D&D. Which they did in spades. It was just the established playerbase that were not as willing to follow the game in its new direction. But they never would have realized that had they not tried. And now that they have seen the results... they are trying a course correction with 5E that will run between the games in hopes that both sides will give a little ground.

The problem they are really faced with is that the established player base wasn't worth enough money to keep the brand alive. It was a choice between doing something new that could potentially obsolete the OGL content and get that monkey off their backs or let the Dungeons and Dragons brand get put on the Hasbro back-catalog gathering dust for years-on-end while everyone went looking for new jobs.

Until Hasbro changes their expectations, sells the brand, or allows Wizards to adopt another revenue-model for the D&D Brand (game sales can be low-revenue if ancillary sales like novels, toys, movies, boardgames, etc. are driven up by the main game) the problems will linger.

- Marty Lund