There is also some wishful thinking![]()
Oh, no doubt. I'm certainly guilty of my share.
There is also some wishful thinking![]()
As for armchair game marketing -- at this point, would it even be possible to do it worse than the real thing? I can't imagine how...
Dude, while many people were really hoping for the electronic tools, many weren't. There's likely hordes of people for whom the project failure matters not a whit. For them, the hubub over these tools is itself patently ridiculous.
So, yes, there's ways to do it much worse than they've done it. If nothing else, if the situation was bad, going forward on it anyway, and continuing to promise what wasn't going to be delivered, would have been far worse - and that is something that companies do sometimes, and so isn't patently ridiculous.
The 5E release has been marketed extremely successfully - one of the best rollouts I've seen in years, with equal enthusiasm and inclusion of mainstream media and focused bloggers, combined with continual and extensive interaction via social media.
I've watched several of these now. This is by far the best managed.
This DS setback is unfortunate, but it's not enough to set all that goodwill generated over the last year aside.
And I've watched them all as well, starting with 2E. I don't share your opinion. I think 5E is definitely better than 4E, but frankly that bar wasn't very high.
The spectacular failure of DS wasn't just a set-back...it was a practical inevitability given WotC's record with digital products. Many predicted it in advance. And now that it has happened, it just serves as another piece of evidence that D&D deserves better than WotC/Hasbro is willing or able to provide.
They've got a great product in 5E, but watching them punch themselves in the face over and over is simply...exhausting.
I'm not sure anyone is really disagreeing that WotC has a poor record with digital offerings. What people are saying (as I see it at least) is that failure in the digital market is not the be all and end all of product marketing, and 5e D&D is actually doing quite well so far.
I would add that I don't think it is likely to lose many people. Most gamers simply aren't nearly as picky as those of us (I'm including myself) who are passionate enough about something to log in to a forum just to argue with people we don't actually know.
And I've watched them all as well, starting with 2E. I don't share your opinion. I think 5E is definitely better than 4E, but frankly that bar wasn't very high.
The spectacular failure of DS wasn't just a set-back...it was a practical inevitability given WotC's record with digital products. Many predicted it in advance. And now that it has happened, it just serves as another piece of evidence that D&D deserves better than WotC/Hasbro is willing or able to provide.
They've got a great product in 5E, but watching them punch themselves in the face over and over is simply...exhausting.
Step 1: Lose market leadership.Step 2: ???Step 3: Profit!
At some point posters on these forums are like robots posting the same stuff over and over.
X posts the same argument. Y posts the same rebuttal. Z posts the same non-sequitur.
That's not discussion. It's just bots having a pissing match.
I think this gets less true as you zoom out. If DS is the one and only digital offering, for example, it would be a much bigger deal. I personally haven't heard of any other plans, and I was served the kool-aid about how it was the only digital tool anyone would ever need.The hyperbole is getting a bit tiresome, don't you think? DS was not nearly as important as you think it was. The majority of D&D customers aren't even aware it existed. Let's reign back the excitable exaggeration, eh? It's no spectacular, catastrophic, or anything else; it's a speedbump.
I've had a quick read of the judgment, after looking at Kim's summary and extracts.Several, however, have established significant precedents in the boardgaming venue. One that's particularly relevant is Allen v. Academic Games... JH Kim has a page discussing it: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/academic.html
Tough to say how important DS was I think. Given that many people (over the years) have said they wouldn't play 4e without a character builder makes me think that DS was pretty important. A lot of people like character builders, good ones anyway. Personally? It doesn't matter to me, but I'm not blind, I know a lot of people were looking forward to it. If they weren't then this topic wouldn't be 33 pages. It would just be a blip on the radar, which clearly is not the case. At this point I.. just feel sorry for Wizards they can't do digital correctly. They just simply cant and it sucks for them.
I've had a quick read of the judgment, after looking at Kim's summary and extracts.
The notion of ideas not being copyrightable, together with the doctrine of merger of text and ideas,was key to the decision. (Because of this, the court didn't consider the issue of derivative works.) From the closing paragraph of the decision, "To hold otherwise would give Allen a monopoly on such commonplace ideas as a simple rule on how youngsters should play their games."
In the context of an RPG, it's not clear to me that the doctrine would operate in the same way, in part because (using another phrase from the decision), it's not the case that an RPG "consistof abstract rules and play ideas." It also consists of story elements. So recognising (for instance) WotC copyright in it's armour table or weapons table wouldn't necessarily give it a monopoly on rules for how we youngsters play fantasy RPGs. Other publishers would just have to use other combat systems (eg Traveller, RQ, Rolemaster, to name a few fairly traditional approaches).
I do.I don't see much in the way of story elements in a typical core rulebook.
I was going to quote just the first paragraph but these forums are awful on a mobile phone.And I've watched them all as well, starting with 2E. I don't share your opinion. I think 5E is definitely better than 4E, but frankly that bar wasn't very high.
The spectacular failure of DS wasn't just a set-back...it was a practical inevitability given WotC's record with digital products. Many predicted it in advance. And now that it has happened, it just serves as another piece of evidence that D&D deserves better than WotC/Hasbro is willing or able to provide.
They've got a great product in 5E, but watching them punch themselves in the face over and over is simply...exhausting.
I was going to quote just the first paragraph but these forums are awful on a mobile phone.
You hit the nail on the head with your first paragraph. 4th edition had problems from the start and they never ended through out it's short run so saying the next edition did better than the previous edition isn't saying a whole lot. Wizards hasn't been at the top of their game in years. 5th edition is doing well, but it's not doing anything ground breaking.