Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cybit" data-source="post: 6527505" data-attributes="member: 66111">Some of the assumptions about the profitability of 4E and how many people actually play PF are not accurate, fyi.  I think their reasoning for slowing the schedule down is wise; what usually contributes to the death of a system is the demands of ever rising profits, which usually lead to more and more splat books, which then usually overloads the systems with too many options.  Even Pathfinder, who is using the single hardbound book a year bit, has hit the saturation point with many of their customers (see PFS: Core).  That's with a fanbase that is predisposed to liking lots of options as well.  I think every edition has a saturation point for options and books, and the longer you can stave off that saturation point (to an extent), the longer the edition will survive.      I think WotC's strategy to make the game long lasting is to decouple the survival of the product from the sales of the books.  If you know that you're going to always be making money regardless of how many books you sell in a year - what would you be able to do?  What if your goal is to rebuild the brand of D&D, so that another whole generation of gamers has at least played it, or messed around with it?  You could pick and choose what books to make - you can work on universes rather than splat books - you can even take risks.  I'm OK with that.  It is easy to look at an earlier edition of a game, when you have 5+ years of content, and then look at a new edition and feel like "there's not enough stuff here!".  But fundamentally, you're comparing years and years of published materials for a system versus a system that has been out for, what, 6 months?    I'm OK with the slower pace.  The reasoning is sound, and it makes the game far, far more accessible to brand new players.</blockquote>

Verification