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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5423106" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>Not precisely, since only the online computer elements of D&D are really being (currently) built that way.  The books still present a game that can continue to be played regardless of support from the company.  However, by discontinuing support and, by extension, pressuring the bulk of the player network to adopt a newer system, the company creates incentive to adopt while creating a sense of obsolescence for older editions.  By tying the game now so closely to computer-tools support with a subscription business model, the company has discovered a way to shorten the cycle of editions (in actuality or in principal) amd thus renew their revenue stream.  At least some would say, though not all agree, that the move from 4e in June of 2008 to Essentials in Fall of 2010 represents the shortest such edition cycle on record.  I believe it portends even shorter cycles to come.  It's further difficult to have any discussion about edition fatigue without examining what constitutes a new edition and what constitutes producing virtually a whole new game (setting aside whether or not merely branding something qualifies something as merely an edition of a continuing game line).  Hypothetically, one wonders if as many people would have switched to the new ruleset in June 2008 and, if in then coming out with the "upgrade" last Fall, would those adpoters of the new ruleset being feeling edition fatigue at this time, since it would actually be the first "upgrade" of a new game rather than the umpteenth "upgrade" of a game that first appeared in 1974.  Can the feelings of edition fatigue be mitigated by producing multiple brands rather than reinventing a single brand?</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification