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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4534078" data-attributes="member: 2067">The wonkiness here is that you consider not having anticipated the sales of a book that, I'm sure, wasn't even part of the discussion in the run up to 3e (not a twinkle in a designer's eye!) as "proof" of a "bad business model."Whatever 3e's business model was, it was a very good business model for the eight years the edition was in force for. It hasn't been "proven" yet that the 4e PHBII will anywhere near equal the sales of the 4e PHB (though that is certainly the hope, I bet).Basically, there's no proof of a bad business model to be found in 3e's inclusive approach.There's the hope that 4e's "parsing" approach will be a *better* business model, in that it will make collectors want to buy more books, but it's also true that the hope carries with it the risk of alienating those who value inclusiveness before you get a chance to put out their favorite race or class, meaning that, in three years, when you eventually get around to it, they've already found a different game or given up on the hobby altogether. Let's not claim early victory in this decision. Call a spade a spade. The 4e plan hopes to cement more sales for future supplements, but it is a risk. The 3e model did its job very well by being inclusive...it certainly built the game up from where it left off at the end of 2e. 3e's model didn't fail (it wasn't bad). It had 8 years of success, and there are several other companies banking on a very similar model. 4e's model hasn't yet succeeded (it might be worse, it might be equal, it might be better). 4e is, so far as I can tell, the only RPG to ever really attempt this kind of collector's challenge (you could make a case for GURPS, maybe?). They think it will be better, but it's only a hypothesis, it has yet to be tested.</blockquote>

Verification