Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 2730260" data-attributes="member: 33060">Well, it is my opinion and I'll state it without flinching.&nbsp; I'm not demanding you agree with me, however.&nbsp; Certainly, Wotc reports that things are rosy for them.&nbsp; I'd then expect my opinion would not meet with universal acclaim, if any at all.&nbsp; It remains, however, my opinion. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I think there is a connection between the two.&nbsp; I'd like to shop where you do.&nbsp; Seriously, I am not stingy with spending for games (I have a large number) and I just continue to find less I am genuinely interested in.&nbsp; Yes and no.&nbsp; The d20 publishers do not all march in lockstep.&nbsp; Wotc still significantly shapes the market and the d20 folks have to do business in the market so shaped.&nbsp; Wotc is presently sending the message, IMO, &quot;more of the same, only different.&quot;&nbsp; This influences expectations in the market, IMO.&nbsp; If Wotc conditions the market to expect A, B can still sell but it is somewhat going against the grain as Wotc's market shaping power is, IMO, considerable as they are far and away the market leader.&nbsp; This is not saying &quot;Wotc can tell customers what to buy.&quot;&nbsp; That would not be true.&nbsp; They can, however, exert influence through the management of their brand and the people who follow &quot;officialdom.&quot; No.&nbsp; It is flawed as it was executed by TSR.&nbsp; The fallacy is excluding &quot;as executed by TSR&quot; from the statement&nbsp; If executed well, I believe, multiple settings would expand the market and _thereby_ succeed.&nbsp; TSR had half the puzzle but couldn't draw flies with its settings.&nbsp; The problem was not uniquely the number of settings but also and more importantly their inability to draw new gamers to them.&nbsp; I think everyone would agree if 10 new settings exponentially increased the market, that would be a good thing.&nbsp; The key then is finding the settings that will draw.The only DMs will buy setting material is another half-truth that ignores (1) how that &quot;setting material&quot; is put together and (2) all the DMs who complain because their players already have and have read the latest supplements.&nbsp; But that is another topic. Quality is irrelevant?&nbsp; I think not.If you have the resources, which I will imagine Hasbro could provide Wotc, there would not be an issue. If Wotc &quot;learned&quot; that you cannot support more than two settings and nothing more, they didn't learn much.&nbsp; Sorry but the &quot;common wisdom&quot; is overly simplistic, IMO.The reaction to a new setting would depend on how it was rolled out and what it's its target audience was determined to be and how its content looked to approach the target audience.&nbsp; If they just went, &quot;Here it is.&nbsp; Come get it,&quot;&nbsp; sure, it would flop.&nbsp; I would hope for a more thoughtful approach.&nbsp; If it was aimed at Eberron and FR fans, it would also likely tank.&nbsp; Unless the industry is more niche than I imagine, not everyone who might game does game, leaving lots of potential targets out there to be wooed, however.Correct.&nbsp; My note in that regard is just that - a note.&nbsp; New settings are not a panacea in and of themselves.&nbsp; They are merely symptomatic of Wotc's &quot;play it creatively safe&quot; model that appears to be doing well enough for them.&nbsp; Incarnum was a good try, even if it failed to fully achieve its promise.&nbsp; I would like to see Wotc try more creative things.&nbsp; That is not what I am seeing, however, and I believe their &quot;play it safe&quot; mode is coloring the market, boring it into a stupor.&nbsp; As goes Wotc, so goes the hobby, 5 times out of 7.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GVDammerung, post: 2730260, member: 33060"] Well, it is my opinion and I'll state it without flinching. I'm not demanding you agree with me, however. Certainly, Wotc reports that things are rosy for them. I'd then expect my opinion would not meet with universal acclaim, if any at all. It remains, however, my opinion. :) I think there is a connection between the two. I'd like to shop where you do. Seriously, I am not stingy with spending for games (I have a large number) and I just continue to find less I am genuinely interested in. Yes and no. The d20 publishers do not all march in lockstep. Wotc still significantly shapes the market and the d20 folks have to do business in the market so shaped. Wotc is presently sending the message, IMO, "more of the same, only different." This influences expectations in the market, IMO. If Wotc conditions the market to expect A, B can still sell but it is somewhat going against the grain as Wotc's market shaping power is, IMO, considerable as they are far and away the market leader. This is not saying "Wotc can tell customers what to buy." That would not be true. They can, however, exert influence through the management of their brand and the people who follow "officialdom." No. It is flawed as it was executed by TSR. The fallacy is excluding "as executed by TSR" from the statement If executed well, I believe, multiple settings would expand the market and _thereby_ succeed. TSR had half the puzzle but couldn't draw flies with its settings. The problem was not uniquely the number of settings but also and more importantly their inability to draw new gamers to them. I think everyone would agree if 10 new settings exponentially increased the market, that would be a good thing. The key then is finding the settings that will draw. The only DMs will buy setting material is another half-truth that ignores (1) how that "setting material" is put together and (2) all the DMs who complain because their players already have and have read the latest supplements. But that is another topic. Quality is irrelevant? I think not. If you have the resources, which I will imagine Hasbro could provide Wotc, there would not be an issue. If Wotc "learned" that you cannot support more than two settings and nothing more, they didn't learn much. Sorry but the "common wisdom" is overly simplistic, IMO. The reaction to a new setting would depend on how it was rolled out and what it's its target audience was determined to be and how its content looked to approach the target audience. If they just went, "Here it is. Come get it," sure, it would flop. I would hope for a more thoughtful approach. If it was aimed at Eberron and FR fans, it would also likely tank. Unless the industry is more niche than I imagine, not everyone who might game does game, leaving lots of potential targets out there to be wooed, however. Correct. My note in that regard is just that - a note. New settings are not a panacea in and of themselves. They are merely symptomatic of Wotc's "play it creatively safe" model that appears to be doing well enough for them. Incarnum was a good try, even if it failed to fully achieve its promise. I would like to see Wotc try more creative things. That is not what I am seeing, however, and I believe their "play it safe" mode is coloring the market, boring it into a stupor. As goes Wotc, so goes the hobby, 5 times out of 7. [/QUOTE]

Verification