Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 2411556" data-attributes="member: 9391">Boom. Bam. I agree totally. Especially when you compare them to a product that you know can continue selling supplements for years. Focusing on the existing market is a guaranteed way to make bank; there's no incentive to look at other concepts.My frustration in the thread has been that I can't tell a lot of the times whether people are takling about &quot;worth Hasbro publishing&quot;, &quot;worth a small press publishing&quot;, &quot;worth my group playing and enjoying&quot;, and &quot;worth exploring as a concept&quot;. Hasbro's got a good thing going with D&amp;D, as they do with Magic. But I feel like a lot of the conversation in the thread, especially the quote from RyanD at the beginning, was like someone saying &quot;Simple card games aren't as good as Magic&quot; and you find out the reason is because Hearts doesn't have mana resource allocation or counterspells. And *then* you find out the real reason they're not as good is because once you have 52 cards, you don't need more. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But there are games that are not card games, that are not Magic, and some of those games are fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SweeneyTodd, post: 2411556, member: 9391"] Boom. Bam. I agree totally. Especially when you compare them to a product that you know can continue selling supplements for years. Focusing on the existing market is a guaranteed way to make bank; there's no incentive to look at other concepts. My frustration in the thread has been that I can't tell a lot of the times whether people are takling about "worth Hasbro publishing", "worth a small press publishing", "worth my group playing and enjoying", and "worth exploring as a concept". Hasbro's got a good thing going with D&D, as they do with Magic. But I feel like a lot of the conversation in the thread, especially the quote from RyanD at the beginning, was like someone saying "Simple card games aren't as good as Magic" and you find out the reason is because Hearts doesn't have mana resource allocation or counterspells. And *then* you find out the real reason they're not as good is because once you have 52 cards, you don't need more. :) But there are games that are not card games, that are not Magic, and some of those games are fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification