How many people subscribe to D&D stuff?

[was]

I did but then decided not to renew my subscription. Didn't really feel was getting my money's worth out of it.

 

[Jack99]

It was an hypothesis based on some logical possible cause.
Why is it more interesting to see my motives than think about the logic behind the argument. In fact, the first thing that you do here is to show that you would rather dare accusing people of trolling if they dare think of some idea or hypothesis that would cast in doubt what you want to defend. In your second post I am IDied as that troll enemy of the other side.

1. You had very little substantial arguments to support your "theory".
2. Your motives are interesting, because, according to your own theory, the perception of the online community is very important. And if you are right about that, why are you promoting a theory that makes WotC a bunch of cheaters? Because you think they are, or because you want to have others think so?

 

[Dannager]

It was an hypothesis based on some logical possible cause.

No, your "hypothesis" is a transparent attempt at a smear against a respected company based on absolutely (and I mean absolutely) zero evidence.

If you had evidence, that would be one thing. But you don't.

What you are doing is the tabletop gaming equivalent of, "I'm not saying it's true, but what if it is? All I'm doing is asking questions. What is WotC hiding?" Let's leave the Glenn Beck tactics to Glenn Beck.

Mod Note: Irony - using a hyperbolic host as an example to overstate your own case. Let us leave the political references on boards that allow them, please. Failure to do so will mean that, like Dannager here, you get booted from the thread. ~Umbran

 

[xechnao]

No, your "hypothesis" is a transparent attempt at a smear against a respected company based on absolutely (and I mean absolutely) zero evidence.

If you had evidence, that would be one thing. But you don't.

What you are doing is the tabletop gaming equivalent of, "I'm not saying it's true, but what if it is? All I'm doing is asking questions. What is WotC hiding?" Let's leave the Glenn Beck tactics to Glenn Beck.

It is like someone casting some doubt after seeing an advertisement of some product and you jump on him accusing him of no actual evidence that give him no right to be questionable about said thing.

Or like some people that have been questioning the credibility of the value of icv2 reports.

As I have no problem with people hinting that we should not be so certain regarding the value of icv2's reports I also expect people to accept that we should not be totally certain about DDI's success. You see, I like doubts. Especially regarding marketing arguments. Is this so bad?

1. You had very little substantial arguments to support your "theory".
2. Your motives are interesting, because, according to your own theory, the perception of the online community is very important. And if you are right about that, why are you promoting a theory that makes WotC a bunch of cheaters? Because you think they are, or because you want to have others think so?

Why not say what one thinks of regarding some product of Wotc or Paizo or whoever? Should I feel restrain to express my thoughts because of casting doubts one way or the other? Are you serious people?

EDIT: I think you are assuming the roles of counter-propaganda agents too seriously to be any good.

 

[Jack99]

Why not say what one thinks of regarding some product of Wotc or Paizo or whoever? Should I feel restrain to express my thoughts because of casting doubts one way or the other? Are you serious people?

First of all, my question from earlier still remains unanswered. Do you question all companies, or just WotC?

Also, while it's healthy to have a certain amount of scepticism, it can be taken too far. I mean, if you don't believe anything they say, why even bother reading about it? How far do you go in your disbelief? What is next? Maybe some tinfoil conspiracy that Monte has only accepted to work on 5e in order to help Paizo gain dominance by creating an edition that will antagonize even more fans? Or maybe one about Mearls giving Bill S bad advice, so that Bill gets fired and Mearls gets his job? Maybe it's just me, but I would rather discuss stuff we at least have a little clue or hint about, instead of random speculaions who seem to have been pulled out of where the sun doesn't shine. In short, scepticism towards something concrete is fine, while scepticism towards invented assumptions are a waste of time.

 

[xechnao]

First of all, my question from earlier still remains unanswered. Do you question all companies, or just WotC?

Also, while it's healthy to have a certain amount of scepticism, it can be taken too far. I mean, if you don't believe anything they say, why even bother reading about it? How far do you go in your disbelief? What is next? Maybe some tinfoil conspiracy that Monte has only accepted to work on 5e in order to help Paizo gain dominance by creating an edition that will antagonize even more fans? Or maybe one about Mearls giving Bill S bad advice, so that Bill gets fired and Mearls gets his job? Maybe it's just me, but I would rather discuss stuff we at least have a little clue or hint about, instead of random speculaions who seem to have been pulled out of where the sun doesn't shine. In short, scepticism towards something concrete is fine, while scepticism towards invented assumptions are a waste of time.

It is not the first time we question ethics regarding what we know behind various announcements or methods or practices of Wotc or Paizo or what have you. They are companies after all, and companies are known to behave in whatever way it may help their bottom line. OTOH you are making it personal. You involve people into the argument. That is not fair. I would say that is not an ethical way to guide the discussion. Beyond saying that, I can see your point regarding introducing skepticism for the sake of it. Yet, as I said, it remains a possibility to keep in the back of our mind. Why do I say that? Well, did you expect to see so many current events that paint 4e in a desperate fashion? I guess not. Why do I say desperate? Well, many fans think right now, why do we see a Wotc that is in a hurry to change course? Why is their production plan so poor?

And regarding your question about my motives being unanswered. You did not answer my question first: why the hell do you care? What does it matter? I told you, you seem like a counter-propaganda agent.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

It is like someone casting some doubt after seeing an advertisement of some product and you jump on him accusing him of no actual evidence that give him no right to be questionable about said thing.

Or like some people that have been questioning the credibility of the value of icv2 reports.

As I have no problem with people hinting that we should not be so certain regarding the value of icv2's reports I also expect people to accept that we should not be totally certain about DDI's success. You see, I like doubts. Especially regarding marketing arguments. Is this so bad?



Why not say what one thinks of regarding some product of Wotc or Paizo or whoever? Should I feel restrain to express my thoughts because of casting doubts one way or the other? Are you serious people?

EDIT: I think you are assuming the roles of counter-propaganda agents too seriously to be any good.

The Icv2 stats of their own admissions do not take into account any electronic media by any of those rated. Which means that DDi for WotC and PDF sales by Paizo are not counted. It is strictly from interviews with retailers.

 

[Echohawk]

You see, I like doubts. Especially regarding marketing arguments. Is this so bad?

Please point out to me where WotC have used the number of DDI subscribers who also have forum accounts for any marketing purpose whatsoever.

 

[xechnao]

The Icv2 stats of their own admissions do not take into account any electronic media by any of those rated. Which means that DDi for WotC and PDF sales by Paizo are not counted. It is strictly from interviews with retailers.

Yes. The latest reports have also still influenced the interent D&D communities and edition wars.

 

[xechnao]

Please point out to me where WotC have used the number of DDI subscribers who also have forum accounts for any marketing purpose whatsoever.

Your point? You do not need to have Wotc to officially do this when fans can credibly do it by themselves. And even if Wotc did point out the numbers that would not mean that they were lying.

Hehe, Lisa Stevens and Mike Mearls (has he?) have made posts to boast about the height of their numbers in the past, but this does not mean that if they do not do this then it aint happening.