Jim Ward's latest 900 Words: More Bombast
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
- Status
For those that feel this trend in the 900 words column is doing Jim Ward and FFE harm ask yourself these questions:
1. How often did I read the 900 words column before all the controversy? (for me that would be a whopping grand total of ZERO times).
2. How often have I read it since the "Reviewing the Reviewers" and subsequent controversial articles? (for me that would be all three times).
There's no such thing as bad publicity, maybe? I would love to know the answer to this, my final question: How many hits did the FFE website garner before these articles and how many have they recieved because of these articles? Hey, if they can get you into their "store" as it were, maybe you'll shop around and find something you actually like.
1. How often did I read the 900 words column before all the controversy? (for me that would be a whopping grand total of ZERO times).
2. How often have I read it since the "Reviewing the Reviewers" and subsequent controversial articles? (for me that would be all three times).
There's no such thing as bad publicity, maybe? I would love to know the answer to this, my final question: How many hits did the FFE website garner before these articles and how many have they recieved because of these articles? Hey, if they can get you into their "store" as it were, maybe you'll shop around and find something you actually like.
KDLadage
Explorer
My problem with the attitude expressed in the 900 words columns/rants.
It is a funny thing, what the world has become in the span of my lifetime. I was born in October of 1968. My earliest memories are from 1973/1974 or so. Since that time, I have watched as the world has changed in ways that no adult in 1968 could possibly have forseen.
I owned one of the original PONG games. I watched as that blossomed into the video game revolution that generated $8,000,000,000 (yes, that would be eight billion dollars) per year in its heyday. That would be a lot of quarters. I watched as Atari came and went. I saw the reports that said that in-home video game systems were dead. Someone forgot to tell Nintindo. I watched in awe as it was rekindled into another blazing fire of profit. I watched in amazement as computers went from being something seen behind locked doors in movies, to ad-hoc, glorified game machines, to true business capable machines, to being in nearly every home in America. I watched as the internet went from something that was known only to a few, to the behemoth it is today.
In this same lifetime, I discovered RPGs in 1978. They became my primary past-time by 1981. I designed my first RPG in 1983 (and before you ask: yes, it was terrible; yes, I still have a copy; no, I will not share it
). I have watched as RPGs waxed and waned. I remember the joy of holding my first copy of the Player's Handbook in my eyes, and the horror of watching it burn after my mother saw MAZES AND MONSTERS on television.
Now, you might be asking yourself why I bring up the shifts in computer/internet communications and role playing in the same diatribe. it is simple: this, I feel, is why Jim Ward is having trouble.
Back in the 1980's, if a man that had an attitude such as Jim Ward's worked for a company such as TSR, then his attitude was buffered from the general audience that the company was hoping to reach. Sure, he can sit back and fume, or even write a letter for the next issue of DRAGON magazine -- but there is a whole slew of people that would ensure that what he said met with the image that the company wanted to portray. In other words: this individual could be censured.
Fast forward to the early 1990's. If a man that had an attitude such as Jim Ward's worked for a company such as TSR, then his attitude was buffered from the general audience that the company was hoping to reach. Sure, he can sit back and fume, or even write a letter for the next issue of DRAGON magazine -- but there is a whole slew of people that would ensure that what he said met with the image that the company wanted to portray. Sure, he could post something on rec.games.rpg.dnd -- but the total number of people that this would reach would constitute a very small segment of the target audience. Thus, the damage such an attitude might cause would be mitigated, and this individual could still be effectively censured on any mass media outlet.
Fast forward again to today. If a man that had an attitude such as Jim Ward's worked for a company such as WotC, then his attitude could not be buffered from the general audience in any reasonably effective manner. Not only can he post to the internet and manage to reach a large audience, there really is no way to stop him. Message boards, personal web sites, review sites and so on offer a plethora of places someone like that could do damage to a company or its reputation (which I wuld argue is the same thing).
Now this is where we get to my problem: Someone can write a review of one of a company's products. This review can do some minor damage to the company. But when the company representatives lash out that such things are wrong, and do so with a hollier-than-thou attitude, then they manage to do more damage. But who listens? Those that were already customers, in my estimation. If I were someone that was not buying products from this company, then why do I care? I am still not buying the products, and they have lost no business. If I were someone that was buying the products, then I care what this guys says; I care what image the company portrays. And in the end, I either continue to buy product or stop.
In other words, this sort of ranting has only two possible outcomes: no change or loss of sales. Sure, Jim Ward is intitled to his opinion; sure, those that read that opinion are entitled to theirs. But if I were one of the people that worked within the company Jim Ward works for/owns... then I would be rather upset with Jim Ward for harming my business. But this is not what appears to be happeneing! Other members of the company are seeing this as an opportunity to rant themselves (as evidenced by the article following the review of reviewers).
Now, my understanding of the human psyche is not complete -- perhaps there is a method to the madness of insulting your potential customer base. perhaps their is a legitimate business case for ranting against those that would review your product with anything less than a stellar rating. Perhaps there is a valid psychological cause and effect that has placing yourself above the unwashed masses resulting in greater admiration and sales. Maybe it is there, and I am just not aware of it.
But common sense tells me that Jim Ward, for the good of his company, would do right by himself to just shut up.
It is a funny thing, what the world has become in the span of my lifetime. I was born in October of 1968. My earliest memories are from 1973/1974 or so. Since that time, I have watched as the world has changed in ways that no adult in 1968 could possibly have forseen.
I owned one of the original PONG games. I watched as that blossomed into the video game revolution that generated $8,000,000,000 (yes, that would be eight billion dollars) per year in its heyday. That would be a lot of quarters. I watched as Atari came and went. I saw the reports that said that in-home video game systems were dead. Someone forgot to tell Nintindo. I watched in awe as it was rekindled into another blazing fire of profit. I watched in amazement as computers went from being something seen behind locked doors in movies, to ad-hoc, glorified game machines, to true business capable machines, to being in nearly every home in America. I watched as the internet went from something that was known only to a few, to the behemoth it is today.
In this same lifetime, I discovered RPGs in 1978. They became my primary past-time by 1981. I designed my first RPG in 1983 (and before you ask: yes, it was terrible; yes, I still have a copy; no, I will not share it
). I have watched as RPGs waxed and waned. I remember the joy of holding my first copy of the Player's Handbook in my eyes, and the horror of watching it burn after my mother saw MAZES AND MONSTERS on television.Now, you might be asking yourself why I bring up the shifts in computer/internet communications and role playing in the same diatribe. it is simple: this, I feel, is why Jim Ward is having trouble.
Back in the 1980's, if a man that had an attitude such as Jim Ward's worked for a company such as TSR, then his attitude was buffered from the general audience that the company was hoping to reach. Sure, he can sit back and fume, or even write a letter for the next issue of DRAGON magazine -- but there is a whole slew of people that would ensure that what he said met with the image that the company wanted to portray. In other words: this individual could be censured.
Fast forward to the early 1990's. If a man that had an attitude such as Jim Ward's worked for a company such as TSR, then his attitude was buffered from the general audience that the company was hoping to reach. Sure, he can sit back and fume, or even write a letter for the next issue of DRAGON magazine -- but there is a whole slew of people that would ensure that what he said met with the image that the company wanted to portray. Sure, he could post something on rec.games.rpg.dnd -- but the total number of people that this would reach would constitute a very small segment of the target audience. Thus, the damage such an attitude might cause would be mitigated, and this individual could still be effectively censured on any mass media outlet.
Fast forward again to today. If a man that had an attitude such as Jim Ward's worked for a company such as WotC, then his attitude could not be buffered from the general audience in any reasonably effective manner. Not only can he post to the internet and manage to reach a large audience, there really is no way to stop him. Message boards, personal web sites, review sites and so on offer a plethora of places someone like that could do damage to a company or its reputation (which I wuld argue is the same thing).
Now this is where we get to my problem: Someone can write a review of one of a company's products. This review can do some minor damage to the company. But when the company representatives lash out that such things are wrong, and do so with a hollier-than-thou attitude, then they manage to do more damage. But who listens? Those that were already customers, in my estimation. If I were someone that was not buying products from this company, then why do I care? I am still not buying the products, and they have lost no business. If I were someone that was buying the products, then I care what this guys says; I care what image the company portrays. And in the end, I either continue to buy product or stop.
In other words, this sort of ranting has only two possible outcomes: no change or loss of sales. Sure, Jim Ward is intitled to his opinion; sure, those that read that opinion are entitled to theirs. But if I were one of the people that worked within the company Jim Ward works for/owns... then I would be rather upset with Jim Ward for harming my business. But this is not what appears to be happeneing! Other members of the company are seeing this as an opportunity to rant themselves (as evidenced by the article following the review of reviewers).
Now, my understanding of the human psyche is not complete -- perhaps there is a method to the madness of insulting your potential customer base. perhaps their is a legitimate business case for ranting against those that would review your product with anything less than a stellar rating. Perhaps there is a valid psychological cause and effect that has placing yourself above the unwashed masses resulting in greater admiration and sales. Maybe it is there, and I am just not aware of it.
But common sense tells me that Jim Ward, for the good of his company, would do right by himself to just shut up.
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
Harlock said:
It is an often stated axiom that no press is bad press but it is one that I think is wrong.
Bad Press is bad press.
Controversial press can be good press but purely bad press is bad press.
BTW, I know people have wondered if Mr. Ward reads this or any of the other threads that have discussed his ""900 Words" well I think the fact that three in a row have been on this topic says yes he does either read this or gets second hand info about what is said.
If that is the case then I do feel sorry for him. I know I woudlnt like a couple dozen people to psycho-analyze me on a message forum. Which is why I try to keep from not sticking my foot to far into my mouth.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
As I said elsewhere, if one places no worth in the criticism one finds on the internet, one should simply ignore it. Responding to it indicates one does, indeed, think it's important, and further indicates one feels the sting of that criticism a bit too keenly, perhaps.
DocMoriartty said:
Well, if by "bias" you mean that I am actually familiar with Jim and his work that is true. If I were ignorant, I would refrain from making any statements (although I might ask for information).
The grandiose statements were substantiated by his work that I noted in the posting.
I have hired and paid Mr. Ward for his work. I got good value for the dollar, too. As for what was "proven", from my perspective the only thing proven was that your statement that his name had been on my paycheck was completely without basis.
To pick one of your other comments: "DragonballZ cardgame would be a winner no matter who put it out. That was a cash cow waiting to happen."
Like "Buffy", "Wheel of Time", and other popular IPs turned into CCG's were cash cows waiting to happen?
One of the things that people who lack actual experience in the game industry don't get is that there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Lots of extremely popular books, movies, TV programs, etc. have been turned into games that just didn't sell well. This is because gamers buy good games, not "hot properties".
When one of these does sell well, it is more because of the game than because of the name.
Do you really want me to go back and go over each of your other comments?
While this may not be apparent, I am going out of my way to be nice here.
Victor
Psion
Adventurer
WizarDru said:
A look at the FFE products he has written bear that out.
What's worse, when confronted about this over on their boards, such comments are dismissed with statements dismissing the worth of mechanical correctness (usually dwelling on the subjectivity of CRs, which is really the tip of the iceberg. Sure CRs may be SOMEWHAT subjective... but that doesn't mean that sorcerers using intelligence as a casting stat is "okay", or that omitting ECLs from new creatures is not going to be a problem in using a product.)
WizarDru said:
Here I have to agree wholeheartedly. Listing Spellfire on your resume is not a wise move We're talking about a CCG that was hastily slapped together with poor production values consisting of recycled artwork and half-assed game mechanics. Unlike MtG, you were given no reason to use any but the most powerful cards, so 95% of what you bought was worthless and most decks were sickeningly similar. On top of that, the most powerful cards were of the most OTT sort, providing blanket invulnerabilities or sweeping uncheckable destruction. It was not unlike D&D 2e itself in that there seemed to nobody manning the helm that gave a damn about the big picture. Just one sloppy OTT expansion after the next.
So now I have cause to wonder: when giving himself his accolades in this column, is he simply talking about products with his name on that were financially successful, and equating success with quality (i.e. "it must be good, because people paid bought it")?
Psion
Adventurer
Harlock said:
It should be noted that, when I responded to his previous 900 words, my motivations were neither to give him publicity (good or bad), nor prevent such. I was curious if anyone else actually felt this way, and felt it important to correct a factual error in his post.
- Status
Similar Threads
