Disappointed in 4e

[ExploderWizard]

Personally, I find the decision to spread certain "core" things around a series of core books to be pretty sound business strategy and not some evil, soul deadening move of unadulterated greed. I'd rather spend my $30 on a MM4 that has monsters I've actually heard of and would like to use rather than the disasters IV and V were in 3.5e. "You mean all I get is obscure, silly monsters and some of the same old monsters but with class levels or templates already applied? Drow ninjas and Githyanki Blackguards? That's what you got?"

MM 4 and 5 might go the same way in 4th, but the model is sounder, both from a business standpoint and from a usefulness standpoint.

I guess its the nature of the online gaming community that so many look at a company that seeks to make money on gaming as some kind of evil act. It makes some sense, I guess, with how much free stuff floats around the gaming community, and how much gamers like to create resources and share them among other gamers. But it's still a bit odd to attack a business for being a business.

I see it that way too. Revenue is not an evil word. The problem with the whole deal is that roleplaying games, by thier very nature are not huge profit machines unless the games are changed significantly to enable this.
The traditional RPG is played by a GM and one or more players. This is not a high profit marketing model. Yes a company can do an ok business with a good product but nothing like the kind of revenue a collectible competitive game brings in. Larger companies are less inclined to waste resources on products with lower profit margins.

We saw this happen with 3E. More codified rules and marketing to players rather than DM's. This was smart. Why market to one player instead of the majority of players? Of course since the DM gets to decide which products are allowed at the table, the appeal of all the splats are limited.

4E is trying a different approach. More control was returned to the DM in this design and instead the core of the rules spread out across the life cycle of the game.

 

[Imaro]

Personally, I find the decision to spread certain "core" things around a series of core books to be pretty sound business strategy and not some evil, soul deadening move of unadulterated greed. I'd rather spend my $30 on a MM4 that has monsters I've actually heard of and would like to use rather than the disasters IV and V were in 3.5e. "You mean all I get is obscure, silly monsters and some of the same old monsters but with class levels or templates already applied? Drow ninjas and Githyanki Blackguards? That's what you got?"

MM 4 and 5 might go the same way in 4th, but the model is sounder, both from a business standpoint and from a usefulness standpoint.

I guess its the nature of the online gaming community that so many look at a company that seeks to make money on gaming as some kind of evil act. It makes some sense, I guess, with how much free stuff floats around the gaming community, and how much gamers like to create resources and share them among other gamers. But it's still a bit odd to attack a business for being a business.

Uhm first...it's not your $30 on a MM that has monsters you've actually heard of. Since your talking about MM4 it's your 34.95*4 or about $140 for your monsters you've heard of...this also totally ignores the fact that you are still getting a bunch of monsters you've never heard of as filler in each book anyway...so how is this "better" for the consumer than getting the monsters he wants in one book and choosing to add the new ones in based on if they appeal to him or not? Your usefulness argument (for the consumer) fails big time.

Second point is that...I don't think people view "a company that seeks to make money on gaming..." as inherently evil (but using hyperbole to stress your point is great on the internet.). Instead, like consumers of any product they want the best deal, quality, and value for their money... this is just being smart. The same way WotC chooses to do what they feel is intheir best interests. I could see your argument having some validity if posters were claiming we should get the classic monsters for free...but that's not what's being said. It's not about attacking a business for being a business... it's about voicing your opinions on how they choose to conduct business and the value they bring to you as a consumer.

 

[RFisher]

I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.

Yeah. I think this would’ve been a much better idea.

I don't see that at all. The fact is that "core" always sells better than "extra", no matter how good that "extra" is. So of course they hope everyone sees the PHB2, MM2 etc. as "core", since they're probably more likely to buy it in that case.

It’ll be interesting to see.

Of course, it is only natural for the core to sell better. But it isn’t due to perception, it’s due to the fact that people are either going to buy core only or core + supplement. Very few are going to buy only supplement. And one item will always have better sales than two items.

If that makes any sense.

To put it in simplistic terms, I think a lot of us who tend to only buy the core books do so because we only want three books. So, I think this strategy isn’t likely to improve the sales of the additional core books significantly.

As I said, it’ll be interesting to see.

Unfortunately WotC are probably well aware that the sales of each of those sets dwindled by almost an order of magnitude for each step. Perfect for the customers, but bad for the producer. Though I wish they had done that, I can see why they're not.

Just because you don’t sell as many Companion sets as Basic sets does not mean the Companion set was a failure. It brought them sales they wouldn’t have had if they didn’t produce a Companion set at all.

Would another model have improved overall sales? (A set for each class? (^_^)) Maybe. I suspect it wouldn’t have significantly.

 

[dm4hire]

I have to agree about core vs non-core. In the past I bought everything, but as I matured and started becoming more discerned I started focusing on specifics till eventually I bought only core and maybe a little extra. As it stands with 4e, as I said I like it, just have certain problems with it. In that regard when it was announced I decided I was only going to buy the core books and call it quits there, ending my investment in D&D. However I changed that decision before the release, having preordered everything through the end of the year, but now that I've played it am looking at going back to that original thought. I've decided I'm going to finish the initial module run from 1st to 30 and will stop buying modules. I'll buy Eberron stuff, cause I like the setting, as I did FR, but after that I probably won't buy any more campaign stuff unless they bring back a classic or really impress me with the next one. This means I'm starting to widdle it down till all I might be buying after next year, depending on how the other non-core books goes, is nothing but the three core books each year (PHBx, DMGx, MMx). Part of the reason I haven't subscribed to DDI is I see it as WotC trying to force a non-core item on everyone by making the errata and everything else only availabe through it. It's not a necessity to the game and so I may or may not purchase it as is my right of choice; to each their own as the saying goes.

Part of this decision has been based on economy and the rest on just getting tired of buying books I only use part of the time if at all once they are read. Which are factors I believe WotC should really take into consideration with the trend they are starting down.

 

[billd91]

Just because you don’t sell as many Companion sets as Basic sets does not mean the Companion set was a failure. It brought them sales they wouldn’t have had if they didn’t produce a Companion set at all.

But that doesn't necessarily make it a success either. Did those sales, and the downstream effect of those sales on the gaming community and long term sales of other product lines, make the investment in time and effort worthwhile?

 

[Jasperak]

This discussion reminds of why I hate my cable provider. I pay something like $55/month for basic digital cable, of which I watch about a dozen or so channels. I have to pay an additional $30/month for Digital Classic to get my Geek channels (SciFi, NatGeo, The Science Channel.) Included in that bundle are such gems as (We, SOAPNet, Sprout, Nicktoons, Toon Disney, 4 MTV channels, Gospel Music Channel, and Jewlery TV among many others.) I have to pay far more for lots of crap than if they just sold me what I want at an appropriate markup (maybe $10 for the Geek package.)

Now WOTC is selling me rules for all levels of play although I will never use half of them, namely levels 15-30, instead of giving more rules for the game I do play. Bundling in what I consider filler material and forcing me to buy more books to get the game I want reminds me of how my cable provider is sticking it to me. Now I understand that many like or expect to like the higher level play. My concern is their sales strategy to get me to buy more than I want to play.

I have absolutely no intention of paying $175 dollars for the three core books, PHB2, and MM2 so I can play a bard that fights against frost giants (granted those frost giants would likely appear in the 11-20 level range and MM2 anyway, I use them as an example of something that I am use to having that I wouldn't now. Since I do not have the MM I could not say how many iconics are not in there that I would expect. How many level 1-5 range monsters are there?) Will I really have to bring five books to the table to run a 3rd level adventure with bards and some other random 3rd-level monsters?

Using a business model that in some ways mimics my cable provider is a losing situation for them, because I can always find a game system that will give me what I want and not make me buy more than I need.

 

[Thasmodious]

Now WOTC is selling me rules for all levels of play although I will never use half of them

By 'now', I assume you mean, since the 70s. Those bastards!

 

[ExploderWizard]

By 'now', I assume you mean, since the 70s. Those bastards!

I guess the 80's passed you by. We could buy basic and expert sets, game from levels 1-14 and be perfectly content with two slender 64 page rulebooks.

 

[mmadsen]

This discussion reminds of why I hate my cable provider. I pay something like $55/month for basic digital cable, of which I watch about a dozen or so channels. I have to pay an additional $30/month for Digital Classic to get my Geek channels (SciFi, NatGeo, The Science Channel.) Included in that bundle are such gems as (We, SOAPNet, Sprout, Nicktoons, Toon Disney, 4 MTV channels, Gospel Music Channel, and Jewlery TV among many others.) I have to pay far more for lots of crap than if they just sold me what I want at an appropriate markup (maybe $10 for the Geek package.)

That's not true at all, actually. Television programming has tremendous fixed costs, which they must recoup, but tiny variable costs. That is, it costs a lot to make shows, but it doesn't cost much to let one more person watch a show.

If they only charged you for your favorite channel, they'd have to charge you much, much more for it. It's not like its costs a lot less money to only provide you one channel to your taste.

 

[Jasperak]

By 'now', I assume you mean, since the 70s. Those bastards!

Nice snark.

Maybe I should have quoted my earlier post where I explained why I like BECMI, of which this and my previous post expounds upon.

As for all those levels that you quoted, most of my games have gone to between 12-15 levels. Therefore I never bought BD&D's Immortals Set, 2e's High-level Campaign Options, nor 3e's Epic-level handbook. I did buy BD&D's Master set but never used them in play.

I don't feel like I missed out on any character options because of not buying those books. With 4e's design I will have fully 1/3 of the class material (levels 21-30) that I have never played with, nor based on past experience will never play with.

With 1e and 2e I could safely say that I have used that vast majority of options within the core rules. With 1e you had to buy Unearthed Arcana to be able to use Cavaliers, Barbarians, and Thief/Acrobats, but I don't think those classes were left out of the PH to make room for more spells, nor force me to buy UA because it was "core" rules.

My problem with WOTC's sales strategy is they want me to buy 5 books to cover the same level of play as 3 books or sets in any other edition did, and give me the same amount of options.