Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5344136" data-attributes="member: 55271">He's a guy on the internet. So are you.  I didn't say, "LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF GOD TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK."  I said, "Here's a guy saying some <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> that I think makes sense."  You guys need to learn some perspective.    I'm not sure how you can fail to see the distinction. It's fairly clear-cut: The BECMI Basic Set was designed as part of an extendable game system in which the Basic Set would never be discarded.   Yes, there was also AD&D. There was also Boot Hill and Gamma World and a bunch of other TSR games. But that's different than a pay-to-preview product.And, yes, there was the 1977 Holmes Basic Set. (Although that product included full rules for character creation.) And the post-1991 TSR Basic Sets. And TSR's AD&D First Quest boxed set. And the 3E Basic Games. Nobody's saying the pay-to-preview product originated with WotC or 4E. There's a long history of them.  And it's a long history of failure.  The BECMI Basic Set was massively successful compared to other products of its kind. So successful that, 20 years later, WotC is trying to recapture its success in a very literal way. Why is that? What was different about it? What separated it from the other dozen basic sets and basic games that TSR and WotC have released over the years?  It wasn't pay-to-preview.  Maybe you're right and that distinction is irrelevant. It's certainly possible. But literally everything else about that boxed set has been replicated time and time again... and failed time and time again. So maybe at some point, WotC will think about trying the one thing about that boxed set that they haven't done in 20 years.  Also: Yes. There are people who were introduced to the game through pay-to-preview products. That doesn't actually negate the larger question of comparative effectiveness. There are plenty of people who played DragonDice. That doesn't mean it was a huge hit.  I literally can't think of another game in the entire universe that works like this: "Buy this version of the game that's been designed for obsolescence after a handful of plays (at most) and is packed full of advertisements for the real version of the game. And once you buy the real game, this product is designed to be stuck in the closet."  Computer games have demos... but they generally don't charge you for them.  Board games have expansion packs... but when I buy Arkham Horror: Kingsport I'm not expected to throw away my copy of Arkham Horror. The expansion is specifically designed to increase the utility of the base product.</blockquote>

Verification