Changeover Poll

[Scribble]

Their purpose is to make money. Making things that will make the most money is the point. There are all sorts of ways to do this from making things that people want to marketing things so that people think they want them even if they don't. The end result though is still to make as much as possible. If WotC thought they could make more money by only making 5 physical books and sell them for $5 million each they would regardless of whether more than 5 people wanted the books. A private company can make the choice to take the less profitable rout if they want to.

See I guess we just have differing views of corporate vrs non-corporate business. Sure, any business is designed to make money. Doesn't matter if it's corporate or not. Just because it's corporate doesn't mean it's designed to trick you into buying a crummy product.

I also think we have a differing view of sales/advertising... I don't believe you can make anyone buy something they don't actualy want to buy. (Well at least not without a gun or soemthing...)

And again I don't think there's a difference anyway. Just because it's private or corporate.

No it doesn't assume that. It just gives the owner more choices about what direction he wants to take. The new owner can make the choice based on his own opinions of what he thinks is a better game rather than what will make the most money. WotC may have made the best game, but their choices are required to go the route that makes the most money whether or not it is the better game.

What I'm questioning is what defines "better game."

If more people are buying it, doesn't it stand to reason more people are liking it, and therefore it's a better game?

Why wouldn't a better game make more money? I guess that's the part that really confuses me.

Sure its possible, but private doesn't neccesarily mean small or undercapitalized. Private companies can be worth millions or even billions.

Sure, but I wasn't arguing that fact.

Well so be it. But having sucky products doesn't mean that they are produced by a private company. Public companies can make sucky products too.

Sure, I wasn't arguing that either. I'm just confused by the thought that private company automatically = better game.

C: He makes a a product he likes better even though he knows he may not make as much (or any) money. If you agree with him great, if you don't then that is fine too.

That's fine too, but I don't understand how this implies it would be better for the game. Seems more like it would be better just for people who dig that guy's version of the game.

 

[bouncyhead]

One thing I've taken, for example, is the 1 hp "minion" concept. I'm also intrigued by the way the cosmology is laid out.

For me minions not so much - that's one of the more 'gamist' elements that 4E introduces which doesn't fit with my approach. But I can see why some DM's eyes lit up! They do give a load of encounter building options.

I have to disagree with you if you are implying that 3.x had a "15 minute workday problem" - that, in my most humble opinion, has never been a game problem but rather a player issue.

I think any game that has a daily cycle to spells and healing tempts players to rest and re-boot more often. Not specifically a 3.x thing. 4E did address this with encounter powers/short rests/action points to incentivize parties to press on but, again, that's all a touch too gamist for my tastes. I appreciate it's a spectrum, we are talking about wizards and goblins after all

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

970 votes, and we have a small change:

Changeover: 32%
No Changeover: 59%
Partial Changeover: 9%

Option 6: 32%

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Can someone pull up the First Changeover Poll, and post the results here?

With a comparable number of votes, we can now make a direct comparison between the results of the two polls.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

And again I don't think there's a difference anyway. Just because it's private or corporate.

What I'm questioning is what defines "better game."

If more people are buying it, doesn't it stand to reason more people are liking it, and therefore it's a better game?

Why wouldn't a better game make more money? I guess that's the part that really confuses me.

Let me throw a different example why I think private ownership is better for the game.

Same Rule System but 2 ways to sell it. Both options cost the same $15,000,00 of initial investment.

Option 1 is pure digital and costs $50. It will sell 500,000 copies so the company grosses $25,000,000 so it nets $10,000,000 in profit.

Option 2 is in paper format and costs $20. It will sell 1,000,000 copies so the company groses $20,000,000 so it nets $5,000,000 in profit.

A public company has no choice but to go with Option 1 sinse it makes the most profit for its shareholders. A private company can choose between Option 1 or Option 2 depending on whether it values more people playing the game or makeing more money.

Again this is the same rules system so one option is not a better game than the other. Which is the better distribution option? There isn't a right answer because the right answer depends on what ones priorities are. Is the priority making more money or having more people play the game. The reason I think that ownership by a private company is better than a public one is because the private one gets an option, but a public one doesn't.

 

[Scribble]

Let me throw a different example why I think private ownership is better for the game.

Same Rule System but 2 ways to sell it. Both options cost the same $15,000,00 of initial investment.

Option 1 is pure digital and costs $50. It will sell 500,000 copies so the company grosses $25,000,000 so it nets $10,000,000 in profit.

Option 2 is in paper format and costs $20. It will sell 1,000,000 copies so the company groses $20,000,000 so it nets $5,000,000 in profit.

A public company has no choice but to go with Option 1 sinse it makes the most profit for its shareholders. A private company can choose between Option 1 or Option 2 depending on whether it values more people playing the game or makeing more money.

Again this is the same rules system so one option is not a better game than the other. Which is the better distribution option? There isn't a right answer because the right answer depends on what ones priorities are. Is the priority making more money or having more people play the game. The reason I think that ownership by a private company is better than a public one is because the private one gets an option, but a public one doesn't.

Again I have issues with this model because it assumes too many things many of them WAY too over simplified.

The reality is option 1 is not the only option of the publicly traded company.
A good business is not only looking to make money, but also towards the health and life of the company. Sometimes number two trumps number one.

If a company behaves in a way that will be unhealthy towards its wellbeing soley for the pupose of number one, that's a porely run company.

It's also too simplified with an either you do one thing or the other. The reality is probably looking for a way to please the most people while trying to maximize profits.

Which most likely means some type of combination of 1 & 2.

It's also in my eyes a fallicy to assume that a non publically traded company will mean it doesn't choose option one.

I'm not arguing either is the better choice. Public or private. I just don't believe that private automatically = better for the game.

 

[Treebore]

Again I have issues with this model because it assumes too many things many of them WAY too over simplified.

The reality is option 1 is not the only option of the publicly traded company.
A good business is not only looking to make money, but also towards the health and life of the company. Sometimes number two trumps number one.

If a company behaves in a way that will be unhealthy towards its wellbeing soley for the pupose of number one, that's a porely run company.

It's also too simplified with an either you do one thing or the other. The reality is probably looking for a way to please the most people while trying to maximize profits.

Which most likely means some type of combination of 1 & 2.

It's also in my eyes a fallicy to assume that a non publically traded company will mean it doesn't choose option one.

I'm not arguing either is the better choice. Public or private. I just don't believe that private automatically = better for the game.

The fact that I like PAizo, Green Ronin, Troll Lord Games, XRP, 93 Studios, Goodman, and others far more than I like WOTC tells me all I need to know about public versus privately owned RPG companies.

 

[Scribble]

The fact that I like PAizo, Green Ronin, Troll Lord Games, XRP, 93 Studios, Goodman, and others far more than I like WOTC tells me all I need to know about public versus privately owned RPG companies.

Which is fine. You can have any opinion that you want, who am I to tell you otherwise?

I'm just saying that saying one is automatically better then the other for the game paints an overly simplistic false argument.

It's also a false argument to say one simply exits for making money, and not for making money through the best product it can.

There are many privately owned companies out there with what I would consider attrocious business practices.

There are many publicaly traded companies out there doing GREAT things for the world.

The reverse of both is also true. It's just not that simple to say one automatically = better then the other.

 

[Dragon Snack]

I have to say I'm surprised how many are picking option 7 - it simply did not occur to me not to buy the new edition.

I think the "bought the books, did read them, did not like what I read, did not start playing" people chose option seven.

"Tried" implies actual, more than one session play, IMHO.

Although I didn't buy the books, I read the books of one of my players. That was the nail in the coffin for me (although the previews and "marketing" had already given it a steep hill to climb). I haven't played, but I still think I have a pretty informed opinion.

As for the poll, there are probably too many reasons and individual cases that one poll couldn't cover everything. I could have chosen 4 options from bouncyhead's list (with a slight revision of not having bought the books) and it still doesn't cover all the reasons I don't/won't play.

I also think we have a differing view of sales/advertising... I don't believe you can make anyone buy something they don't actualy want to buy. (Well at least not without a gun or soemthing...)

While I may agree with your assertion about public vs. private companies, I can think of a couple of ways to get someone to buy something that they don't actually want (without a gun)...

Bait and Switch (or outright lies) or Bundling (selling it with something they do want to buy).

 

[Scribble]

Bait and Switch (or outright lies) or Bundling (selling it with something they do want to buy).

Eh... I'm not sure I agree.

In the first case you're not really getting them to buy something they don't want. You're getting them to buy something they DO want, and switching it for soemthing they don't. You're not really getting them to say this isn't what I want, but I'm going to buy it anyway.

The second one... Maybe, but is it really the same since they're still getting what they actually want? The other thing is just an added uncared about bonus.

Like when I buy a new computer and it comes with all that bonus software I don't really care about. I've never thought of it as actually having purchased that stuff. I saw it as having purchased the computer, and that other stuff was just thrown in. Whoopie, free songs from emusic.com...