Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6925660" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand how DDI appeared like a "necessary tool". It was not needed to build PCs, nor to build creatures.And my group was also able to start a 4e game using only the PHB. We didn't have to purchase 2 PHBs to utilise the combination of races and classes we preferred.I'm not sure what the threshold is for "predatory" selling of content - but if we suppose that M:tG is something that crosses the threshold, I don't see how 4e is meant to be an instance of it.For the sake of clarity - by your criteria Pathfinder would also be predatory in it's market model, wouldn't it, because it is also about selling a large amount of material to a given audience. (I don't really like the word "hooked" - I don't think RPGing is addictive in any relevant sense.)I'm also not sure what you eman by "new content rendering old content moot". The errata was all free, so I assume that's not what you mean. Are you talking about some of the instances of feat overlap with Essentials? I would say that's a pretty small component of the overall 4e content produced.I agree that 4e and 5e have obviously different business models. And 5e's clearly seems to be superior from the commercial point of view, and also from the point of view of many D&D players. But I don't think "predation" is the right way to characterise the differences between them.</blockquote>