Monte Cook speaks ... and he doesn't hate 3.5!

[Desdichado]

Anyway, Monte was misquoted. Half a quote to support an argument but ignoring the half that doesn't fit that argument... That's dishonest in a way...

Actually, he was not. At both rpg.net and here, the lemon ==> lemonade quote was given immediately following the part people actually held up. His assessment that he was quoted out of context doesn't seem very well founded to me. If he were to complain that people >>focused<< on one part of what he said while not focusing on the statement immediately afterwards, that's one thing, but it wasn't because the quote was truncated by the thread starter in either location.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

It'll probably make it a blockbuster quarter sales-wise for Wizards of the Coast. From an economic aspect, I can't see how anyone can fault them for doing this.

Oh, I don't fault them their reasoning, or for trying to make money. I fault them for lying about the reasons so as to pretend they're serving me rather than themselves, and doing so in such a transparent fashion as to insult my intelligence in the bargain. Surely that distinction is not hard to understand. Not that I'm unaccustomed to being lied to by marketing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[TiQuinn]

Oh, I don't fault them their reasoning, or for trying to make money. I fault them for lying about the reasons so as to pretend they're serving me rather than themselves, and doing so in such a transparent fashion as to insult my intelligence in the bargain. Surely that distinction is not hard to understand. Not that I'm unaccustomed to being lied to by marketing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

They're posting the revision in the SRD document on the same day that the books come out. How is that not serving the customer?

 

[Mark]

Oh, I don't fault them their reasoning, or for trying to make money. I fault them for lying about the reasons so as to pretend they're serving me rather than themselves, and doing so in such a transparent fashion as to insult my intelligence in the bargain. Surely that distinction is not hard to understand. Not that I'm unaccustomed to being lied to by marketing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on EN World...EVER.

Simply by being in business as a company they have declared their intentions to seek profits. Marketing is merely the tool they use to attempt to make it palatable.

Either you are joking or there really is no fear of them insulting your intelligence... ... ... ... ...

 

[Brown Jenkin]

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on EN World...EVER.

Simply by being in business as a company they have declared their intentions to seek profits. Marketing is merely the tool they use to attempt to make it palatable.

Either you are joking or there really is no fear of them insulting your intelligence... ... ... ... ...

I will have to go with Dr_Rictus on this one. Yes by definition a company is out to make money, but there are different ways of doing this. Company A makes a product that I actually need and has developed it from customer demand creating a high quaility product to boot. They make lots of money because people want thier product. Company B makes a product that I don't want or need and makes it out of inferior materials to save money for marketing. They then market the product by lying about its usefulness, abilities, and workmanship. They also sell many items and make lots of money because people believed the marketing. Are you claiming that there is no difference morally between these two companies or that I should be happy about the product company B sells? Yes a company is out to make money but there is a morally right way and wrong way to go about it. While I am not saying WotC has completely crossed this line, I to feel that 3.5 is being foisted on us unneccecarily.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It is not that every WotC Costumer said: "Oh, make a revision, the game is horrible". But everybody found mistakes he wanted to change - there were several FAQs and Errata for all the questions and complaints the gamers made - so, WotC came to a logical conclusion - if many customer complain, find mistakes, and want clarifacitions - why not sell it to them by revised cure rulebooks, that fix and clarify everything and improve the part that seemed broken ...


Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Enceladus]

I would have thought the whole 3.5 controversy would have died out by now. I'm still amazed the same old crap is rehashed over and over and over and over.......

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Did people really expect WotC's advertising campaign to be

"We want a chance to make a blatant lunge for your wallet."

Seriously, even Microsoft wouldn't do that. Instead, they give out some good stuff, and if you want to change, you can do so.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Company A makes a product that I actually need and has developed it from customer demand creating a high quaility product to boot. They make lots of money because people want thier product.

Company B makes a product that I don't want or need and makes it out of inferior materials to save money for marketing. They then market the product by lying about its usefulness, abilities, and workmanship.

Are you claiming that there is no difference morally between these two companies or that I should be happy about the product company B sells?

The difference between A and B is largely illusory, and based on your personal "need" for the product.

Do you "need" role-playing games?

Capitalism has nothing to do with "morality," man!

 

[Brown Jenkin]

It is not that every WotC Costumer said: "Oh, make a revision, the game is horrible". But everybody found mistakes he wanted to change - there were several FAQs and Errata for all the questions and complaints the gamers made - so, WotC came to a logical conclusion - if many customer complain, find mistakes, and want clarifacitions - why not sell it to them by revised cure rulebooks, that fix and clarify everything and improve the part that seemed broken ...


Mustrum Ridcully

When I first heard about the revision I thought 3.1 with errata, reformating, and clarifications included and only minor changes to the most egregious problems (Harm/Haste). If this had been the product I would be up front in line waiting to buy it. Instead we get 3.5 which is very close to a new version with all the changes they made, including a breaking of the commitment they made to try and make it backwards compatible. I do not want 3.5 and as a result I won't buy it, so if wizards had made a decision to release 3.1 instead of 3.5 they would have an extra $90 from me (plus sales on future books which I won't be buying because they are designed for version 3.5).