Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5349542" data-attributes="member: 22779">Irrelevant.&nbsp; These people are still playing, so, obviously, they're not lapsed.&nbsp; However, the game failed to keep significant numbers, and that's what WOTC is trying to draw back in.No, there's a difference in having &quot;no&quot; draw and &quot;not enough&quot; draw.&nbsp; If the game had enough draw, then people wouldn't have dropped it.&nbsp; That's pretty obvious to me.&nbsp; That people dropped it, meant that it didn't have enough draw for them.&nbsp; Perhaps they found something they enjoyed more, perhaps it was time related, whatever.&nbsp; For whatever reason, the game did not hold them enough for them to make the effort to remain in the hobby.Now, we're talking about a product with a lifespan of almost two decades between Holmes, Mentzer and Red box Basic D&amp;D.&nbsp; That's nothing to be ashamed of.&nbsp; It did very well.&nbsp; But, assuming that simply bringing it back will draw players back is wishful thinking.&nbsp; It lost.&nbsp; There's no other way to put it.&nbsp; It didn't have the staying power to keep its audience to the point where it was economically viable to continue putting the game out.Thus, it didn't have enough interest in it to keep it going.&nbsp; So, why would bringing back the same game suddenly cause these people, who didn't stay with the hobby when they could have easily back in the day - it was pretty widely available - suddenly cause them to stop and say, &quot;Hey, gee, I should get back into this thing that I stopped doing fifteen years ago because I lost interest in it&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5349542, member: 22779"] Irrelevant. These people are still playing, so, obviously, they're not lapsed. However, the game failed to keep significant numbers, and that's what WOTC is trying to draw back in. No, there's a difference in having "no" draw and "not enough" draw. If the game had enough draw, then people wouldn't have dropped it. That's pretty obvious to me. That people dropped it, meant that it didn't have enough draw for them. Perhaps they found something they enjoyed more, perhaps it was time related, whatever. For whatever reason, the game did not hold them enough for them to make the effort to remain in the hobby. Now, we're talking about a product with a lifespan of almost two decades between Holmes, Mentzer and Red box Basic D&D. That's nothing to be ashamed of. It did very well. But, assuming that simply bringing it back will draw players back is wishful thinking. It lost. There's no other way to put it. It didn't have the staying power to keep its audience to the point where it was economically viable to continue putting the game out. Thus, it didn't have enough interest in it to keep it going. So, why would bringing back the same game suddenly cause these people, who didn't stay with the hobby when they could have easily back in the day - it was pretty widely available - suddenly cause them to stop and say, "Hey, gee, I should get back into this thing that I stopped doing fifteen years ago because I lost interest in it"? [/QUOTE]

Verification