It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.
- Thread starter ECMO3
- Start date
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I never trusted Hasbro/WotC in the first place, so they didn't lose my trust. No need to forgive, I knew they would do something like the OGL fiasco at some point, they've done it in the past and will do it again. To me, that's an expectation, I wasn't surprised at all. If I create a support product for Dungeons & Dragons, while Hasbro/WotC may benefit financially for the content that myself and other 3PP create for it, I didn't do it to ingratiate my trust with them - my reason for doing it had nothing to with them at all. I do anything exclusively, because I see potential profit for me in doing so, and see myself capable of doing it. I wasn't even thinking about Hasbro/WotC when I conceived any third party product idea (like the one I'm wrapping up right now) - I only think of it's potential for my benefit, and my fans benefit only. I love the game, not the owners of said game. I support the game, not the owners, though they may benefit.
Okay. The consumer who was never going to buy anyway... not the point. Okay? Please stop including this person in your counter-arguments. Honestly, I don't know how else to phrase or frame this. If this argument actually interests you, go back and read what I've previously said but assume this time I am not evil or without feeling.
Better yet... just assume I think you are a cool person. We disagree on this topic, for whatever reason. Isn't it better to just move on and get back together in the future on a different subject?
'My grandma went to Disney World and all I got was this Stupid T-Shirt'
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
While I did purchase the 'disappointing' Spelljammer 5e book set, I needed to see their rules, since I intended to publish a 3PP product for Spelljammer, but otherwise, I haven't made a D&D purchase of any kind since 3.5...
mamba
Hero
that is not how sales work. These are not lifetime rankings…
and what do you call that, demand / new sales. That is precisely my point.
not sure what you mean, it ranks #1, what more data do you need to know it is selling well
Faolyn
(she/her)
See, at no point did I say it wasn't selling well. What I was saying is that it's weird to say it's super-popular and selling well, which means not many people have it. If it's been super-popular, then lots of people have it. If it wasn't super-popular, but there was a surge of sales, then it would mean lots of people didn't have it, but now they do.
mamba
Hero
so being the #1 seller is not not selling well? I guess I am not sure what your point is… no, I assume it is not a surge and has been consistently selling well, that does not change the fact that it is
Faolyn
(she/her)
You would need to actually read the entire sentence to understand the point:
"What I was saying is that it's weird to say it's super-popular and selling well, which means not many people have it."
If I may have a go at my understanding of the argument, and while I can obviously follow my interpretation, doesn't mean I actually captured what they intended, but here goes:
WOTC was previously selling say to 100k customers a year. Of those, 10% or 10k were buying 3PP products.
If through people's unhappiness to this, they lost 50% of sales going forward, then it drops to 50k to WOTC, and maybe to 5k to 3PP as there is a smaller pool of people buying and playing (I don't necessarily think this follows, as could be 50k to WOTC, but still 10k buy 3PP products, I think truth will be somewhere in the middle).
That drop of 10k to 5k would thus be causing harm to 3PP, which may not be covered by consumers going to other systems instead.
If that 50k then went to 5 different alternative systems, then 3PP offerings for any particular system would have a smaller pool, and thus may not be sustainable for them anymore to produce, depending on if they need X sales for a given product (would be case for hard copies, but not so much digital I think), and overall may be less sales if can only cater to a few systems - e.g. if 30k when to fantasy systems, 20k to sci-fi or horror, then a fantasy offering would only be able to go to those 30k.
Lots of ifs, buts and maybes in there really, and comes down to how many may leave WOTC in the first case, and how much bearing those customers leaving will have on 3PP sales upfront really, as to whether there would really be sufficient movement to harm 3PPs.
mamba
Hero
yeah, apparently I did not mark the full text I wanted to. Still, my point is that if a book is selling well then obviously there are many people who 1) want it, and 2) do not yet have it, because not very many people will buy it twice. This says nothing about how many people already have it
Last edited:
Faolyn
(she/her)
@gban007, while this may be the case, the exact same thing would have happened when they switch fully to One, since there are going to be many people who won't buy something for marked as being for old 5e or new One regardless of how compatible the two editions truly end up being.
And there's likely to be an upsurge of people buying 3pp material because they want to play D&D without buying from WotC. So sales of tie-ins to various WotC adventures may go down, but sales of other 5e-compatible 3pp material are likely to stay the same or go up.
And there's likely to be an upsurge of people buying 3pp material because they want to play D&D without buying from WotC. So sales of tie-ins to various WotC adventures may go down, but sales of other 5e-compatible 3pp material are likely to stay the same or go up.
You literally did:
Because in one case you would have bought it.
Faolyn
(she/her)
No? I had no intention of buying the Dragonlance book because I don't like Dragonlance. I haven't bought the majority of the adventures they've published either because they didn't interest me or because I wanted to play in them, not run them. I have never bought a 3pp tie-in to any official WotC material. I've never even been interested in them.
Did WotC and 3pps suffer because of that? Or do they only suffer if I would have bought it, but didn't? Do they suffer if I was going to buy something but didn't because I was broke?
Edit: for that matter, if this whole kurfluffle never happened, would they have suffered if I didn't buy Planescape because I had been burned by Spelljammer and had come to realize the only actual 5e rules I wanted were factions, which means I didn't really need to buy the book at all?
mamba
Hero
learn to read… I said if everyone had it I would not expect high sales currently. There are high sales, so there are a lot of people buying it, most of which do not have it yet.
Where does this say anything about not a lot of people already owning it? ‘Everyone’ is not the same as ‘a lot of people’
So no, I literally did not say that…
Faolyn
(she/her)
Shockingly, neither Scribe nor I said "everyone" either.
mamba
Hero
Still not getting it I see…
‘everyone’ and a ‘lot of people’ are not the same thing.
This is a contradiction: everyone owns an i-phone and everyone does not own an i-phone
This too is a contradiction: everyone owns an i-phone and a lot of people do not own an i-phone
This is not a contradiction: a lot of people own an i-phone and a lot of people do not own an i-phone
If this does not clear it up, I give up
Last edited:
I'll try once more.
There is no harm. My future potential purchases are not assets of WotC that I take away from them.
If I buy from them, WotC benefits. If I don't buy from them, for whatever reason, they do not benefit. But they are not harmed.
The end-state for WotC when I don't make a purchase doesn't change based on the reasons I have for not making a purchase.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Well, since nobody said "everyone," it's clear that you don't get it.
mamba
Hero
I said everyone, you even quoted it, claiming I said ‘a lot of people’ (and I corrected you). Yeah, so far you have not shown the least bit of comprehension, so I am out
Last edited:
Similar Threads
