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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azgulor" data-source="post: 5794377" data-attributes="member: 14291">By your logic, reading comprehension is optional so long as you get to support your viewpoint.  Here's the direct quote:Admin here. No personal insults, please. ~ PCatIt was late 2010 that WotC first seriously started thinking about a new edition. This was prompted by divisions in the RPG community: "First, we had a divided audience. Second, if we kept altering the core of 4th Edition, the division would only become more apparent."Note that he didn't say, "This was always the planned lifecycle for editions of D&D per the WotC business model."  I wonder why he didn't?By your logic, we should have seen the "errata edition".  Except he specifically cites that they knew that continued alteration of the core of 4th edition would have exacerbated the problem.Also, and I'll have to look for the article as I don't recall which interview it was, he expressed that a longer edition lifecycle would be desireable.Was 3.5 a cash grab?  Sure it was.  However, it wasn't a brand new edition.  It's also totally irrelevant to this thread as the direct quote clearly demonstrates.  I'm sorry if that's a little too much reality introduced into your worldview, but 4e fans can't debate the source in this instance.  If you can't read his statement and realize that WotC was not happy with D&D's performance -- not that it was a bad, necessarily, but that it wasn't good enough from their business perspective -- then there's little more to be said without wasting time & breath.</blockquote>

Verification