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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1464921" data-attributes="member: 812">Well, it might, sure. What would you like WotC to do about that possibility? This is no evidence that d20 is bad for the market -- it's a natural result of an industry possessing one primary brand to which all others are drastically secondary. RPG = "Dungeons and Dragons" as far as branding goes and that means whatever associates with D&D is part of the vast majority.That's got nothing to do with d20 -- it's just a consequence of the market. Anytime WotC comes up with a big hit, they're going to expand the market drastically because they ARE most of the market. Oh well.To worry that D&D is a fad, and that a fad will have a negative impact on a market, is perfectly sensible. Data is required to decide if it's in fact the case (what? data? in this conversation? off with you!), but it's a reasonable worry. But D&D being a fad is a very different thing than d20 being bad for the market.d20 may be contributing to fad-like market behaviour by making it easier for publishers to get in on it, but that'll be a short-term effect (as fads always are). In the long term, making it easier for publishers to join the ranks and advertise their increased "compatibility" is good (I know you think compatibility is unimportant and that I'm just buying into a myth, but so far I haven't seen any evidence from you that this is the case, so I'll trust my own judgement there).Please don't think that my questions or constant complaints about lack of data originate from suspicion of you. I'm sure that you're speaking with honesty and conviction -- your posts are well-reasoned and make it clear that you care about this subject and know a great deal about it. But you can't expect me to accept a conclusion if I'm not given any evidence to support it.It's not a question of trust, only of supporting evidence. It's important to me that you understand that. I would not want you thinking I consider you untrustworthy.It's not that it's "probably not very indicative". It's that we can't have very much confidence in its indicativeness.  :\  There's no way to tell if Privateer's experience matches the industry as a whole or if they are an anomaly, and since they are small, they are as likely to be the one as the other (since whichever way they fall won't trend the market very much). That doesn't make it an 'invalid' data point -- ALL data points are valid. It means only we don't know if it's a data point that is part of the trend or not.If it's the ONLY data point we have, the best assumption is that it IS part of the trend. Until other data comes to life, that's the only way we can proceed.If we have two data points and they are in contrast to each other, we have no way of determining which one represents a trend and which one represents an anomaly.Nonsense. It's just not a very smart way to run a company, for a number of reasons. Like you say, it shows a lack of respect for consumers and workers -- both traits that will in the long run cost you. If your customers lose faith in you, they won't buy even your good products. If your workers lose faith in you, you won't have any good products. Companies cannot maintain such a system for long. In the short term you might be able to survive but there's no way to guarantee sustainability.If you can afford to. It becomes a question of cash-flow -- how do you keep money coming in while still making sure every release is brilliant? At what point do you say, "It's good enough, we need to make some sales," and send your product out the door? Each company will have a different way of making that decision. And the correct answer to that question will be different for each company.There's room for companies to flood the market and try to make a buck as quickly as they can. And there's room for companies that craft each release with care and make sure everything with their name on it stands up to high standards. Customers have different standards of "good enough" and that's okay. Everybody knows BMWs are higher value than Chevrolet, but not everybody buys BMW (example only, not actually saying BMW is better than Chevrolet; weblinks to Total Cost of Ownership comparisions unwanted).None of this has the slightest to do with d20 per se.And for this you blame d20? Look there's two possibilities here. Either gaming consumers are dummies and can't tell good products from bad. OR, your notions of good products versus bad products are out of line with what the market thinks.I mean, who are the publishers that are saying, "Yeah, you know those really crappy books we put out, the ones that totally suck? They sell just as well as the really good ones we put out."? What are your standards for good products versus bad ones? Reviews? Your opinion? Anecdotal evidence?None of that is worth anything in the context of the market. Plenty of movies get horrible reviews and yet go on to garner big wads of cash. I know lots of movies I think were brilliant that did poorly. I can tell endless stories of movies my friends hated that struck gold at the box office. You saying that bad products make as many sales as good products does nothing to bolster your case that d20 is bad for the RPG market.</blockquote>

Verification