On the marketing of 4E

[DaveMage]

All their marketing choices definitely turned me off, but ultimately it was 4E itself that turned me away.

Yep.

While the pretentiousness of the marketing was a huge turn-off for me (not to mention over the top, IMO, saying "the game you're playing (3.5, or any other version for that matter) is not fun. We know fun!"), the bottom line is that the 4e game itself changed too much for my liking. I had happily bought (heavily) into every other D&D edition - but not this one. Too different for my tastes.

The marketing aided in the "turn-off" process. It made me pissed off enough to better resist any initial "try out" buying temptation. The game itself did the rest.

But, IMO, the marketing failure was that it did nothing to lure players that were *happy* with the 3.5 ruleset. I was happy with 2E when 3.0 came out, yet switched immediately, so whatever the 3.0 folks did that the 4.0 folks didn't is probably worth reviewing (and yeah, the conversion manual - lame as it was - may have played a bigger factor than anything).

 

[3catcircus]

While the marketing certainly contributed to my disgust with WotC's current offerings, I think that basic fact is that I would have been turned off of 4e because of the conscious decisions as to how to package the content. For me, it isn't the marketing decisions, rather, the business operations decisions.

It is almost like the Packard-Bell situation - where a company builds a reputation for quality, later sells the name to another company, and then the name is used to sell crappy products that have nothing to do with the original.

 

[Derren]

I fully admit the marketing wasn't optimal, but I still think it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even with perfect marketing, those whose personal preferences weren't catered to by 4E's design still would have been alienated. Very few non-adopters say that they liked 4E but were turned off by WotC's marketing. I've seen it once or thrice, but its very rare.

So? People constantly say that 4E plays better than it reads.
With a better marketing campaign more people would have likely playd 4E, if only to get something out of the books they preordered.
And when the initial statement is true, some of those people would have stayed with 4E, instead of not even trying it.

 

[Cyronax]

As a person who bought into the marketing and even listened to a former player's complaints about 3.X's semi-permanent conditions (i.e. longer than a round or two), I thought so-called 'bad fun' argument had merit. I began to think that the penultimate basic rules (initial core books) of the AD&D tradition/edition was bloated and poorly designed. The more I see what kind of 'fun' Wizards' thinks its customers should have has indeed turned me off to slavishly supporting 4e products in general.

I dislike the way 'core' has become synonomous with you must include everything (ie all classes/power sources) or else you're limiting your players. Apparently being a bad DM means not house ruling or encouraing versmilitude (both being loaded words on these forums). The implication is much stronger in this edition, but again that's merely a personal observation. I still like 4e and own many of the books, but I miss a lot of aspects of 3.X.

C.I.D.

PS -- If I had my druthers, Star Wars SAGA would have been pretty much turned into a fantasy version of itself and released as D&D 4e. Star Wars SAGA is probably the best set of heroic RPG rules I've ever seen.

 

[ferratus]

I'm sorry, I have to call bull about 3e's marketing not talking about what didn't work in 2e, and how they were going to change things for the better in 3e. Take out your old dragon magazines and look at the race and class previews.

Heck, they talked about what didn't work in 3.0 and how 3.5 was going to make it better, when they were doing the marketing and roll out for that revision.

The 4e designers just did what the 3e designers and marketers did when marketing the new edition. They said that they found this mechanic or game philosophy problematic so they are removing/changing it because it works better. You may disagree with that decision, but it wasn't like they went around saying "3e sucks and only stupid people play it."

Now if I was to point out the biggest mistake of 4e's marketing, it would probably be the cancellation of dragon. It would have been fine if dungeon and dragon were ready to launch and provide content when they canceled the magazines. I think Dungeon could have been canceled without too much trouble, because it was never particularly popular or profitable. There would have been howls of protest of course, but Dungeon wasn't needed for marketing the new edition and fewer people would have mourned its passing. Dragon on the other hand would have been a good source of marketing in the hobby shops, which is not an advertising medium one should give up on easily. Once the new edition was out, that would have been the right time to move Dragon to an electronic format. I'm absolutely sure that it was the right decision in the end, and that DDI makes more money for wizards than Dungeon or Dragon ever did, without the headaches of distribution and printing.

They compounded their error of shrinking market coverage by making all their previews only available to those that provided their email address to view content. That meant that casual surfers of the website were left out, while only the hardcore online community was let in. If the hardcore gamer didn't like what he saw, I guarantee that the rest of the established gaming group of more casual players isn't going try 4e based on what the hardcore gamer tells them. What is more, the hardcore are usually going to assume the worst and are the most resistant to change.

If the previews had been available to all, then you have a direct line of communication to 4-5 guys, not just one.

 

[Cyronax]

They compounded their error of shrinking market coverage by making all their previews only available to those that provided their email address to view content. That meant that casual surfers of the website were left out, while only the hardcore online community was let in. If the hardcore gamer didn't like what he saw, I guarantee that the rest of the established gaming group of more casual players isn't going try 4e based on what the hardcore gamer tells them. What is more, the hardcore are usually going to assume the worst and are the most resistant to change.

If the previews had been available to all, then you have a direct line of communication to 4-5 guys, not just one.

On that line though, what is the effect of people just going into Borders or B&N and just page-flipping? That catches a lot of casual interest. That's the sole reason I picked up a lot of game-related books over the last few years. The 4e original core books are especially attractive to the casual reader, IMO, despite any perceived flaws of homogeneity, etc. All the books are really professional looking and really are designed for quick and easy reference ... which lends itself to be visually appealing.

Most corporations that publish but provide online content (even most major newspapers, NYT or the Washington Post) have requirements for email addresses. I'm not saying it works or doesn't work, but its not uncommon.

C.I.D.

 

[carmachu]

attacked for perceived "trashing" of 3e (where explaining why a change was made amounted to crapping on 3e).

Hmmm, no. While I'm certain there were percieved trashing, but there were actually instances of them trashing 3.x as 4e was the new hotness. Your whitewashing there a bit.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

4e is quite simply a completely different game.

Marketing does not explain the people who tried it (perhaps despite the marketing) and switched back.

Nerd Rage aside, I really don't think the marketing has much to do with its successes or failures at all. It's all about the rules and the implied setting.

 

[Umbran]

I'm sorry, I have to call bull about 3e's marketing not talking about what didn't work in 2e, and how they were going to change things for the better in 3e. Take out your old dragon magazines and look at the race and class previews.

Also do note that the internet was a less powerful force for communication at the time 3e was released. The stuff in Dragon was print media, and the discussion boards that now repeat and critique the marketing didn't exist yet.

There is a pathology on the internet that I think we are all well-aware of: it amplifies and distributes anger.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'm absolutely sure that it was the right decision in the end, and that DDI makes more money for wizards than Dungeon or Dragon ever did, without the headaches of distribution and printing.

Of course, because it was Paizo that was producing Dragon and Dungeon when it was ended. But now I can't causally pick up a copy on the newsstand to browse through. I have to have already chosen to lay out a subscription to see anything at all.