Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6543307" data-attributes="member: 957">Honestly, I think you are missing my point and if you saw ti your would sere that I'm not missing the thread's point.The question is regarding light release schedule.&nbsp;&nbsp; 3E was nowhere near &quot;light&quot; and yet that core system has produced a seriously evergreen foundation.&nbsp; Hussar himself has argues that 4E faced an &quot;unfair&quot; challenge because PF was a continuation.Also, the claim that 3E/3.5/PF are new &quot;editions&quot; is highly questionable, as is the claim that they &quot;needed&quot; to do so.3.5 took a lot of feedback and re-tooled the game.&nbsp; It is also was &quot;striking while the iron is hot&quot;.&nbsp; 3E was so wildly successful at that point in time that rebooting the core was a great excuse to sell a lot more books in a hurry.&nbsp; You can argue about the wisdom of that.&nbsp; It worked short term, maybe not so much long term for a variety of reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp; But on the topic at hand the claim that they &quot;needed&quot; to release 3.5 because it was not thriving is a total historic error.&nbsp; 3E was BOOMING at that time.&nbsp; Wotc was not trying to salvage anything, they were doubling down / cashing in.&nbsp; As to the PF change, if the system has gone from green to brown then Paizo would not have been interested.&nbsp; They stayed with the system because it was still thriving.&nbsp; Yes, they made changes.&nbsp; Putting their own stamp on it made sense,&nbsp; they needed to turn it into something that they were associated with and that worked.&nbsp; The claim that they &quot;needed&quot; to because there was a challenge of maintaining long term sales without change is completely flawed.It is just flat wrong to spin it that way.The long term success of 3e is the best available model of &quot;evergreen&quot; in the current environment.And you keep tying it to quality of the system.&nbsp; When I talk about the system here I am not saying it is the a debate over quality.&nbsp; I am saying that the system, including the release volume that came with it was a good example.Edit: and the attempt to put the 3E life and 4E life on equal footing is quantifiably wrong and misleading.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6543307, member: 957"] Honestly, I think you are missing my point and if you saw ti your would sere that I'm not missing the thread's point. The question is regarding light release schedule. 3E was nowhere near "light" and yet that core system has produced a seriously evergreen foundation. Hussar himself has argues that 4E faced an "unfair" challenge because PF was a continuation. Also, the claim that 3E/3.5/PF are new "editions" is highly questionable, as is the claim that they "needed" to do so. 3.5 took a lot of feedback and re-tooled the game. It is also was "striking while the iron is hot". 3E was so wildly successful at that point in time that rebooting the core was a great excuse to sell a lot more books in a hurry. You can argue about the wisdom of that. It worked short term, maybe not so much long term for a variety of reasons. But on the topic at hand the claim that they "needed" to release 3.5 because it was not thriving is a total historic error. 3E was BOOMING at that time. Wotc was not trying to salvage anything, they were doubling down / cashing in. As to the PF change, if the system has gone from green to brown then Paizo would not have been interested. They stayed with the system because it was still thriving. Yes, they made changes. Putting their own stamp on it made sense, they needed to turn it into something that they were associated with and that worked. The claim that they "needed" to because there was a challenge of maintaining long term sales without change is completely flawed. It is just flat wrong to spin it that way. The long term success of 3e is the best available model of "evergreen" in the current environment. And you keep tying it to quality of the system. When I talk about the system here I am not saying it is the a debate over quality. I am saying that the system, including the release volume that came with it was a good example. Edit: and the attempt to put the 3E life and 4E life on equal footing is quantifiably wrong and misleading. [/QUOTE]

Verification