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: 5827082" data-attributes="member: 10479">I think they have a deeper problem than what you suggest.  I think they rely so heavily on their current and former brand IP that they are more ready to exploit the brands they have than they are brave enough to create new brands.  And it isn't working out for them, at least not well enough by their own standards of success if the shortening of edition cycles and reports from some former employees is anything by which to judge.If they had simply created a new card-based post-apoc game and marketed it toward the modern gaming crowd rather than vitually creating a whole new game and slapping the Gamma World brand on it, they might have leveraged their muscles as an industry leader to make it very successful, or at least as successful as it turned out to be.  But, those in control of that brand/IP didn't seem to understand that the brand name that really only had cache with traditional gamers who mostly found the new game so unlike the original that the brand name really only served to disappoint most of those who saw the name and had expectations in that regard.So, too, I wonder if they mustered their resources to simply making a whole new roleplaying game in the vein of D&D but left off the D&D branding, perhaps only going so far as to put it forth as "From the makers of D&D" if it wouldn't serve their ends as well without burning their bridges with much of the customer base.  If they could manage to cycle four brands, some perhaps stronger than others but building on their reputation as supportive of of the brands they have without trampling on customer expectations, developing those four brands every eight years in two year intervals, they might not have the PR problems they keep having.</blockquote>

Verification