Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6543463" data-attributes="member: 957">Obviously you are missing my point if you repeat this rebuttal.Hussar's point relies on the idea that a revision means the system isn't &quot;evergreen&quot;.&nbsp; But neither 3.5 nor PF support that premise and a look at the history shows the opposite.3E was very much still completely green when 3.5 came out.&nbsp; 3E was still booming.&nbsp; So any conclusion tied &quot;it was needed&quot; is flawed.&nbsp; You can do a revision because sales are flagging and your product is no longer green.&nbsp; But that is not the only reason.&nbsp; Hussar's argument is stuck on the faulty assumption that this is the only explanation.Because they wanted it to be Paizo's game and brand associated with them.&nbsp; They also said they had some changes they they simply liked.If it wasn't thriving, why would they invest in it?&nbsp; &nbsp; (I think they thought it was thriving.&nbsp; Their poster literally said &quot;3.5 Thrives&quot;)Who would they &quot;rake in the money&quot; if it was failing?&nbsp; Paizo has made community involvement a huge foundation of their business model.&nbsp; Again, you are pointing at something that had nothing whatsoever to do with poor sales and proclaiming a connection.Right, so we agree that you are missing the point.And huge sales throughout.&nbsp; What is the goal you are seeking?&nbsp; At this point in 3E the number of &quot;upcoming&quot; titles was significant (ignoring the OGL/3PP onslaught) .&nbsp; 5E has a very sparse list, as motivated this thread.3E was booming when 3.5 came out.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you are disputing that point, please flat out say it.If the 3E rate of production was a bad thing, why was it booming when&nbsp; 3.5 came out?Nothing you have said addresses my point that 3.5 was a CASH IN on success.&nbsp; When you look at a &quot;reboot&quot; from a very simplistic and out of context perspective it is easy to say that it means the system NEEDED it.&nbsp; But if you look at BOTH of the D20 reboots that you keep harping on, thoughtfully and in context, they demonstrate the exact opposite of need.Hussar is the one who used factually incorrect numbers to make a faulty comparison.&nbsp; Is that not edition war rhetoric?&nbsp; All I have done is correct him.&nbsp; The numbers he used are wrong and the resulting conclusion he based on his wrong numbers is also wrong.Again, 3E was BOOMING when 3.5 came out.&nbsp; BOOMING is not failure under any definition.&nbsp; Cashing in on booming is being used to redefine history.&nbsp; You either have to admit that 3E was booming when this happened and therefore not &quot;indicative of a problem&quot;, or you can claim it was failing and NEEDED a reboot to save it, which will make you look silly to anyone who was around at the time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6543463, member: 957"] Obviously you are missing my point if you repeat this rebuttal. Hussar's point relies on the idea that a revision means the system isn't "evergreen". But neither 3.5 nor PF support that premise and a look at the history shows the opposite. 3E was very much still completely green when 3.5 came out. 3E was still booming. So any conclusion tied "it was needed" is flawed. You can do a revision because sales are flagging and your product is no longer green. But that is not the only reason. Hussar's argument is stuck on the faulty assumption that this is the only explanation. Because they wanted it to be Paizo's game and brand associated with them. They also said they had some changes they they simply liked. If it wasn't thriving, why would they invest in it? (I think they thought it was thriving. Their poster literally said "3.5 Thrives") Who would they "rake in the money" if it was failing? Paizo has made community involvement a huge foundation of their business model. Again, you are pointing at something that had nothing whatsoever to do with poor sales and proclaiming a connection. Right, so we agree that you are missing the point. And huge sales throughout. What is the goal you are seeking? At this point in 3E the number of "upcoming" titles was significant (ignoring the OGL/3PP onslaught) . 5E has a very sparse list, as motivated this thread. 3E was booming when 3.5 came out. If you are disputing that point, please flat out say it. If the 3E rate of production was a bad thing, why was it booming when 3.5 came out? Nothing you have said addresses my point that 3.5 was a CASH IN on success. When you look at a "reboot" from a very simplistic and out of context perspective it is easy to say that it means the system NEEDED it. But if you look at BOTH of the D20 reboots that you keep harping on, thoughtfully and in context, they demonstrate the exact opposite of need. Hussar is the one who used factually incorrect numbers to make a faulty comparison. Is that not edition war rhetoric? All I have done is correct him. The numbers he used are wrong and the resulting conclusion he based on his wrong numbers is also wrong. Again, 3E was BOOMING when 3.5 came out. BOOMING is not failure under any definition. Cashing in on booming is being used to redefine history. You either have to admit that 3E was booming when this happened and therefore not "indicative of a problem", or you can claim it was failing and NEEDED a reboot to save it, which will make you look silly to anyone who was around at the time. [/QUOTE]

Verification