Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8828197" data-attributes="member: 10531">Wow, it's almost like I should have written something like &quot;That doesn't mean a new story has to strictly adhere to the audience expectations; playing off or against them is a perfectly valid artistic choice.&quot;Oh, wait, I did.Yes, sure. Just like, since the copyrights on (most of) the Holmes canon has expired, anybody can publish whatever Sherlock Holmes stories they like.But the only thing that gives the trademarks any value at all is expectations derived from previously-published material. If neither game had any publication history, the difference between &quot;Tunnels &amp; Trolls&quot; and &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot; as game names would be essentially nil. What makes the latter so much more valuable than the former is the expectations of people when they see the name, formed by nearly fifty years of publication history.WotC, of course, learned the difference between &quot;We can legally publish whatever we want as Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot; and &quot;We can successfully publish whatever we want as Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot; in 2008-2011.And if anyone actually said that, I'd be right along side you not taking it seriously.There is a huge and not-remotely-subtle difference between:A) If a product is released under the same brand as an older product, audience members will bring expectations from the older product to the new one. As audience expectations are the only thing that gives a brand any value, intelligent brand managers will never dismiss these audience expectations as irrelevant, even if the product that shaped them is quite old.B) You can't ever change anything.Arguments against the latter do not, in any way, impact the former.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="see, post: 8828197, member: 10531"] Wow, it's almost like I should have written something like "That doesn't mean a new story has to strictly adhere to the audience expectations; playing off or against them is a perfectly valid artistic choice." Oh, wait, [I]I did[/I]. Yes, sure. Just like, since the copyrights on (most of) the Holmes canon has expired, anybody can publish whatever Sherlock Holmes stories they like. But the [I]only[/I] thing that gives the trademarks [I]any[/I] value at all is expectations derived from previously-published material. If neither game had any publication history, the difference between "Tunnels & Trolls" and "Dungeons & Dragons" as game names would be essentially nil. What makes the latter so much more valuable than the former is the expectations of people when they see the name, formed by nearly fifty years of publication history. WotC, of course, learned the difference between "We can [B]legally[/B] publish whatever we want as [I]Dungeons & Dragons[/I]" and "We can [B]successfully[/B] publish whatever we want as [I]Dungeons & Dragons[/I]" in 2008-2011. And if anyone actually said that, I'd be right along side you not taking it seriously. There is a huge and not-remotely-subtle difference between: A) If a product is released under the same brand as an older product, audience members will bring expectations from the older product to the new one. As audience expectations are the only thing that gives a brand any value, intelligent brand managers will never dismiss these audience expectations as irrelevant, even if the product that shaped them is quite old. B) You can't ever change anything. Arguments against the latter do not, in any way, impact the former. [/QUOTE]

Verification