D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[payn]

Yes, I mentioned that there are some exceptions to the rule, thank you for providing an example.

Thats an ass load of exceptions.

 

[Olrox17]

Thats an ass load of exceptions.

If you are a big MMO enjoyer, I’m sure it is by your perspective. If you look at the mainstream market, however, you’ll find it’s all annual releases, sequel grind, remake/remaster like crazy, and egregious monetization (loot boxes, microtransactions).

I’ll gladly take a new dnd edition every 6-10 years, thank you. I think many of us have no idea how good we got it.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, I mentioned that there are some exceptions to the rule, thank you for providing an example.

I’m sure we can easily provide a few more examples if we put our minds to it. Then, we’ll have to look at the literal hundreds of examples of the opposite.

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, when was the last time that games were patched across a 10 year life cycle?"

But yes, once we ignore the buttloads of inconvenient exceptions, your point is correct.

Besides, how many Diablo games did we get since 2000? Come now.

Regardless of how many Diablo games we have gotten since 2000, Diablo 2 was patched until 2016. Sixteen years. How many Diablos in that time frame? One. It was released in 2012. So still twelve years of patching. And for the record, both 12 and 16 are more than 10, which was your original goal post that you put forth.

If you are a big MMO enjoyer, I’m sure it is by your perspective. If you look at the mainstream market, however, you’ll find it’s all annual release, sequel grind, remake/remaster like crazy, and egregious monetization (loot boxes, microtransactions).

I’ll gladly take a new dnd edition every 6-10 years, thank you. It think many of us have no idea how good we got it.

The mainstream market shows that the existence of sequels doesn't preclude older games from being updated and patched by the company as well.

 

[Olrox17]

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, when was the last time that games were patched across a 10 year life cycle?"

But yes, once we ignore the buttloads of inconvenient exceptions, your point is correct.

In a market that includes literal thousands of titles, am I really supposed to be impressed by half a dozen of hand picked examples?I’m not. I wouldn’t be impressed by a hundred.

Regardless of how many Diablo games we have gotten since 2000, Diablo 2 was patched until 2016. Sixteen years. How many Diablos in that time frame? One. It was released in 2012. So still twelve years of patching. And for the record, both 12 and 16 are more than 10, which was your original goal post that you put forth.

You forget the announced and upcoming Diablo 4 and Diablo Immortal. They kept patching Diablo 2 for a decade? That’s cool of them. Of course, they were still making money with a sequel, a remake, a mobile sequel, and are getting ready with another sequel.
I mean, if WotC decided to release a 4e or 3e rules update tomorrow I wouldn’t mind, but 5e/One dnd would still be the current product.

The mainstream market shows that the existence of sequels doesn't preclude older games from being updated and patched by the company as well.

Agreed. What are we disagreeing about? I’m surprised nobody even mentioned Skyrim, I thought it was the most obvious example of a long-living game that is still being sold on current hardware.
The mainstream market, however, is still what it is. Getting a new d&d edition every 5-10 years is fantastically customer friendly in comparison.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The goal post has now been moved.

Perhaps I wasn't all that familiar with the original thrust of the tangent, but I have no idea what you mean by this. My limited understanding of the tangent went something like this:

"Unlike D&D, video games (sometimes) offer free updates."

... to which I responded, in effect, "Yes, but unlike D&D, video games are built to make money that way."

If I moved a goal-post somehow, it's only because I mistook some part of the original conversation. Care to walk me through it?

 

[Incenjucar]

WotC does need to make money off of D&D, one way or another, or else they have no reason to not just shelve the game as anything but a licensing brand. As an edition ages, you get diminishing returns on sales because people already have enough material for their campaigns and the accrual of errors introduced starts to make things messy.

The nice thing is you can keep your books forever as long as they don't get damaged or lost, so they can't just turn the servers off on you.

 

[Scott Christian]

that fact that 20 pages in we see divide and we are still in playtest shows there will be...

Only a divide with two people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Obviously. They print the name "D&D" or "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover.


Diablo 2 was released in 2000. Its latest patch was 2016. But then it got a re-release as Diablo 2: Resurrected in 2021.

Diablo 3 was released in 2012. Still being patched in 2022.

Starcraft 1 and Brood War were released in 1998. Its latest update was patch 1.23.10, which was in September 2022.

Guild Wars 1 (2005) had three patches this year.

It's a lot more common than you think, especially as many PC games involve online co-op play.

And even a long lasting multiplayer game is liable to run into graphics expectations problems at some point; not everyone is happy playing Dwarf Fortress in 2022.

 

[Aldarc]

In a market that includes literal thousands of titles, am I really supposed to be impressed by half a dozen of hand picked examples?I’m not. I wouldn’t be impressed by a hundred.

It doesn't really matter if you are impressed by them or not really. The point is that there are plenty of counterexamples, and likely thousands of counterexamples if someone would be bothered to put in the effort. My post was also meant to add to @payn's post, which mentioned MMOs. So I wanted to add a few prominent non-MMOs to the mix. Blizzard seemed like a good choice since it's a major mainstream game company.

You forget the announced and upcoming Diablo 4 and Diablo Immortal. They kept patching Diablo 2 for a decade? That’s cool of them. Of course, they were still making money with a sequel, a remake, a mobile sequel, and are getting ready with another sequel.
I mean, if WotC decided to release a 4e or 3e rules update tomorrow I wouldn’t mind, but 5e/One dnd would still be the current product.

I forget that they announced Diablo 4 and Diablo Immortal? That's rich of you to assume. I was only addressing your argument that games aren't freely updated and patched over a 10-year cycle. Neither Immortal nor Diablo 4 have been out for 10+ years, so they did not seem pertinent. I would point out that Diablo Immortal came out in 2022, which is ten years after Diablo 3 was released in 2012. Likewise Diablo 4 will probably be released in 2023 (supposedly April), which is eleven years after Diablo 3's release.

I agree that 5e is the current product. I agree that One D&D (however it is called) will be the current product and the primary focus of WotC's published content. I do not agree that video games don't get updates and patches over a ten-year cycle, because there are plenty of counterexamples. Again, it's far more prevalent than you claim.

Agreed. What are we disagreeing about?

That there aren't that many games patched and updated over a 10-year cycle. It's far more prevalent than you think. Even when there are sequels and new games, a lot of older games will still get patches and updates. These may not be big content updates. They may be mostly maintence mode updates. But patches and updates for 10+ year-old games are still pretty dang common.

I agree that there are still market incentives for game companies to make new games, which is also true in the case of WotC with D&D. However, I don't think that this requires fibs about the video game market.

 

[Olrox17]

That there aren't that many games patched and updated over a 10-year cycle. It's far more prevalent than you think. Even when there are sequels and new games, a lot of older games will still get patches and updates. These may not be big content updates. They may be mostly maintence mode updates. But patches and updates for 10+ year-old games are still pretty dang common.

I agree that there are still market incentives for game companies to make new games, which is also true in the case of WotC with D&D. However, I don't think that this requires fibs about the video game market.

Very well, so we disagree whether having patches and updates for 10+ year-old games is a pretty common thing (your position) or a relatively rare thing (my position). I think we can just agree to disagree on this point and move on, especially since my main point was another.

My main point:
Today's new D&D players are very likely to also be videogamers (sometimes casual, often hardcore).
Today's videogamers are (unfortunately) used to pretty aggressive market tactics (constant annual releases, waves of remakes and remasters, and egregious monetization schemes like loot boxes).

Compared to the videogame market, I claim that the D&D model of having us pay for a few core books every decade or so (books you can share with multiple people) is fantastically customer friendly, and I'm personally 100% on board with that.