Marketing criticisms miss the point

[Doug McCrae]

I think the smirking tone in Rouses's point is that since generating INTEREST in a product is a major goal of marketing, having a 12-page thread of people intensely debating the marketing of 4e is a strong -- albeit ironic -- example of 4e marketing success.

Particularly considering that many of the critics of 4e on ENWorld have bought the product.

 

[xechnao]

I actually think that it would have been worse. Instead of a period stretching from GenCon to now where some people have been worried, it would have been a long ongoing flamefest that would have made the criticism aired now seem like a tempest in a tea-cup.

Many gamers don't like big changes to D&D, and will go to great length to tell the rest of the world this.

Dicussing the changes of D&D in an open way such as you describe would probably have been a disaster for WotC, especially if they wanted to make big changes.


/M

Care to give any actual example of what you are suggesting here? Because I have the 3e open development and the new pathfinder as actual examples of what I am talking about.

 

[AllisterH]

Care to give any actual example of what you are suggesting here? Because I have the 3e open development and the new pathfinder as actual examples of what I am talking about.

3E open development?

Um, I certainly don't remember that and I was Eric's first scooper long ago.

 

[xechnao]

3E open development?

Um, I certainly don't remember that and I was Eric's first scooper long ago.

I think we are lost in translation or semantics here. How 3e started? How was it marketed?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Care to give any actual example of what you are suggesting here? Because I have the 3e open development and the new pathfinder as actual examples of what I am talking about.

You know, if I wasn't firm on 4E, I might actually be discussing all those Pathfinder chances. They work for me under the assumption that I switch to 4E anyway soon and it's just to "blow off some steam". But if things where differently, and I seriously had the plans to make a long-term campaign with it, you could be sure I had a lot of bitching, whining and complaining to do. (Well, at least as much as I am willing to do it. I am generally not the kind of guy dwelling much on stuff I do not like.)

 

[Maggan]

Care to give any actual example of what you are suggesting here? Because I have the 3e open development and the new pathfinder as actual examples of what I am talking about.

Is Pathfinder a stellar example of open design as a good recipe for marketing success? We'll see if the interest is sustained until launch. And the fact that it doesn't say "D&D" protects it from much of the worst griping; Paizo isn't "butchering" (my word) D&D, they're creating Pathfinder, which will be a lot easier to sell. Not that the reactions have been unequivocally positive as to the path Paizo is taking with the 3.5 rules set. So they're not out of the woods by a long stretch yet.

In my mind 3e wasn't developed as an open process, I don't recall a dialogue with the fans as such.

I've seen some nasty reactions when allowing fan input. Black Industries had a hard time managing expectations about and reactions to the (then) new WFRP, resulting from a combination of making some big changes and vocal fans (they don't get much vocal than WFRP fans). Of course, BI weren't really the most diplomatic custodians at the time, so that's also one thing to consider.

Also witness the furor over DDI on the Gleemax boards. Imagine having that reaction for a year. Because that's what I think an open process would result in. For very little benefit to WotC, by the way.

And again, take note of the negative impressions about the statements from WotC of earlier editions that are being expressed in this thread. Now imagine to have WotC try to discuss changes from a previous edition, candidly and in a spirit of improvement, for a full year, without stepping on any toes.

Inconceivable, to borrow the words of a devious little bastard.

YMMV, of course. I just don't think open design of D&D is a feasible strategy for product development. Not PR wise, nor commerically.

/M

 

[xechnao]

You know, if I wasn't firm on 4E, I might actually be discussing all those Pathfinder chances. They work for me under the assumption that I switch to 4E anyway soon and it's just to "blow off some steam". But if things where differently, and I seriously had the plans to make a long-term campaign with it, you could be sure I had a lot of bitching, whining and complaining to do. (Well, at least as much as I am willing to do it. I am generally not the kind of guy dwelling much on stuff I do not like.)

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if Wotc began an open demo for new edition ideas through various alphas and betas and customer feedback, you would be just bitching and whining? Well, if this is what you are just saying, I fail to understand what is your message.

I can understand though that if for example Wotc announced or made clear to a priori base the new edition on a mini game and people were not comfortable with this yet, bitching and whining would have been heavily noticed.

 

[xechnao]

YMMV, of course. I just don't think open design of D&D is a feasible strategy for product development. Not PR wise, nor commerically.

/M

You are generalizing. It depends on what your commercial priorities are. If Wotc priorities were to cash in as quickly as possible from associating to brand name power then yes, you have a point -this is what stuns are for. If Wotc priorities were to establish and develop a solid brand name in long terms then you are wrong. What has happened with 4e is a mix of the above. Wotc did provoke a communication with the fans and also it did react to feedback it seems. The above balance might be leaning to one side or the other though.

 

[Maggan]

You are generalizing.

Of course.

Look, if you're hoping that I'm gonna be specific about the pros and cons about conducting an open development process of D&D, and relate that to real life strategy and market impact, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to bow out here.

I just don't have that much insight into WotC and the market.

But then again ... who has?

Oh, and btw ...

It depends on what your commercial priorities are.

Of course. But that's true for everything. Was marketing bad? it depends. Was it good? It depends. Is 4e a success? It depends. Is it a failure? It depends.

Everything depends on everything. And most often it depends on what viewpoint you adopt.

/M

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if Wotc began an open demo for new edition ideas through various alphas and betas and customer feedback, you would be just bitching and whining? Well, if this is what you are just saying, I fail to understand what is your message.

No, what I am saying the only example of open, public design I am aware of and might even have been part has a lot of things I don't trust or like or agree with. And considering from what I've heard from members of my group that are more active (at least as readers) on the Paizo Board, fully incompatible would collide. Compromises are sometimes possible, but they have the drawback that they will never completely satisfy anyone. End result is a system that "kinda works, if I rip out all the pieces I don't like it might even be good". Instead of having a game system "that's not really for me" or a game system "That's really great!".

Design by Comitee rarely works.