Are you doing your part to destroy the industry?

[philreed]

I don't think the two scenarios are really very comparable at all.

I agree. A much smaller number of publishers were affected (than the 3.0 - 3.5 change) by the change and Green Ronin was very easy to work with during the months leading to the release of M&M 2e.

 

[Glyfair]

The time period between First and Second edition Mutants & Masterminds was about three years, which is very standard for this industry.

Wasn't that about the standard for 3.5?

Fans and players of first edition M&M exposed what we felt to be design flaws that we felt we could improve upon. looking to the long temr, it would be foolish to continue to support and entrench those flaws when we had the opportunity to correct them and produce an even better game going forward.

I don't disagree with this. Indeed, I pointed out the irony of the situation. I specifically didn't call Green Ronin hypocritical, because I don't necessarily believe that they were.

I admit, I misunderstood Chris' objections. That could be because of the narrowness of the discussion where I read them (or someone else discussing them). The discussion in question dealt with why we see so many OGL products compared to d20 products.

 

[Turjan]

I'm just one single buyer in this specific market, and I don't think I'm in any way representative of other buyers' habits. But as this thread asks for my own personal part in "destroying the industry", I'll give an answer .

The first point is that, after the release of D&D 3.5, my buying per time period went down to roughly one third of what I bought in the 3.0 days. I bought the 3.5 core books as replacement set with errata, but what I got was a new version (especially in the spells section). Suddenly, all d20 books wore a "Best before [put in date 3 years ahead or less]" tag for me. Of course, I know they don't turn bad, but they need conversion = work. It's a psychological thing. I didn't buy anything at all for somewhat more than half a year after that, and when I started buying again, it was only stuff that was decently discounted. The abovementioned ratio of one third is true for my WotC purchases. 3rd party companies differ vastly.

The second point is that I don't need that much stuff anymore. Perhaps, "need" is the wrong word, because I didn't really need most of the books before, either. But it's pretty obvious for me now that I will never be able to use all the stuff I already have*. This means that new material has to be more intriguing than during 3.0 times, when everything was new, and this in times when good new niches get rarer and rarer.

On the other hand, I buy slightly more stuff for other games than D&D/d20, but never complete lines. It's definitely not enough to compensate for my general buying decrease.


*I suppose this point differs for people with vast libraries from 2E times and before. I can imagine that they often did not buy that much in the first place when 3.0 came out.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I still buy about as much as I used to, though that's never been a huge amount; however, the last WOTC product I bought was "Complete Warrior." I haven't seen anything from them yet that even perked my interest a little bit. I buy C&C stuff, Necro stuff (including the Wilderlands), S&S stuff (though they don't do much D20 anymore), the occassional Kalamar or Hackmaster product, a pdf now and then, but I barely glance at WOTC products anymore. It just seems lame by comparison to some of the other products out there. And I have yet to buy the 3.5 core books. They are Completely useless in my opinion.

 

[jezter6]

I know I haven't worked there for well over a year but I was just in the office on Friday and didn't notice a decrease in staff. Are you talking about the layoffs from over four years ago?

EDIT: And judging a book's value by price/page is a worthless measure, in my opinion.

Yay! I get to get into this little debate again!!!

And why is it a worthless measure? Is value for the dollar not a valid measurement anymore? Somehow it's now if the book changes my level of happiness for the dollar? It wouldn't be valid if publishers were pricing products the same, but now there's a huge difference in costs of products. Why shouldnt I, as a consumer, shop around for a value? Why shouldn't I look for a 64 page book with say..6 classes some feats and some fluff for $8 instead of buying 4 individual class books for $8 and not getting any of the extras?

I say it's a highly worthwile measurement because I'm getting more for my money by going with another product. I may not use all of it, but at least I have it if I want it. As opposed to buying 4 classes and not using 2 of them, I can by 6 classes and not use 4 of them..someday those others may just come in handy.

 

[philreed]

Why shouldn't I look for a 64 page book with say..6 classes some feats and some fluff for $8 instead of buying 4 individual class books for $8 and not getting any of the extras?

This one? Again.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. But what happens if you only wanted four of those six classes? It's time for me to grab the old reliable . . .

Miniatures Handbook. 192-pages, $29.95 = $0.16/page. Wow, that's a good deal!

Wait a minute. I only use 72 of the pages. 72-pages, $29.95 = $0.42/page. Hmmm. Not so good a deal.

I don't think cost/page can ever be a valuable measure since most of us don't use every page out of a product.

 

[Turjan]

I say it's a highly worthwile measurement because I'm getting more for my money by going with another product. I may not use all of it, but at least I have it if I want it. As opposed to buying 4 classes and not using 2 of them, I can by 6 classes and not use 4 of them..someday those others may just come in handy.

I suppose my position is somewhat between Phil's and yours. I agree with Phil that mass doesn't equal class. There are many factors that determine the inherent value of a book for me. Superb production values and low prices per page don't give me anything if the contents is rubbish (or simply doesn't interest me). Simple price per page comparisons don't really tell anything in this regard.

On the other hand, I don't buy books that seem 'overpriced' to me. A high price per page ratio is definitely something that makes it less probable that I actually buy the book in question.

 

[jaerdaph]

I don't think cost/page can ever be a valuable measure since most of us don't use every page out of a product.

I prefer the bang for your buck argument: I can spend $40 and see four movies in Manhattan and get aproximately 8 hours of entertainment (hopefully, this year's movies have been a bit meh, but that's another topic )

I can spend $40 dollars on game material and get dozens of more hours of use and entertainment.

 

[jezter6]

This one? Again.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. But what happens if you only wanted four of those six classes? .

In both cases you've paid $8 for the same amount of usable material. Possibly a value for you if you give zero value to the additional material you paid for but are not using.

But as we know, games change, what happens when those other 2 classes could be of use to you? Now you'd be up to $12 buying on the individual plan, still at $8 if you'd have just bought the whole book. Even then, you still have the other 40some pages of material that you're not using now, but may use later...or even just use as inspiration.

 

[jezter6]

I prefer the bang for your buck argument: I can spend $40 and see four movies in Manhattan and get aproximately 8 hours of entertainment (hopefully, this year's movies have been a bit meh, but that's another topic )

I can spend $40 dollars on game material and get dozens of more hours of use and entertainment.

You're confusing apples and oranges. You're talking about a movie you can't take home, and a game rule you take home and play for years.

I'm talking 2 of the EXACT same. 4 d20 classes vs 4 d20 classes.