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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4922561" data-attributes="member: 19675">Most definitely.Examine the way 3Ed was rolled out vs the way 4Ed was rolled out.3Ed1) There was a 2Ed to 3Ed conversion guide.  This made the transition easier and more palatable.  It gave a sense of continuity.  It allowed people to continue playing PCs and campaigns they liked.2) 2Ed was not badmouthed.  It wasn't even mentioned.  Only 3Ed was mentioned in the marketing.  That was the only horn trumpeted.3) While there were mechanical changes, 3Ed had substantial backwards compatibility.  No core races or classes were eliminated.4) The only thing going on when 3Ed was rolled out was that rollout.  Sure, 2Ed was being replaced, but there were no other licenses or products getting the axe.4Ed1) No conversion guide.  Admittedly, there are mechanical reasons for this, but in all honesty, there have been dozens of threads here by amateur game designers- IOW, regular players- about HRs to import 4Ed mechanics into 3.XEd and vice versa.  The guys being paid to design 4Ed could have done likewise.Instead, we were told to ditch old campaigns and start new ones.2) There were pointed commentaries about how 4Ed did things better than 3Ed.  The new game was constantly compared to the one it was replacing, which only highlighted how radical a change this would be.3) Core classes and races were removed from the PHB.  This didn't sit well for a lot of reasons.4) The rollout of 4Ed was either contemporaneous to or subsequent to the ending of several licensing agreements with Paizo, Weis and others.  IOW, things that people liked- besides 3.XEd- were disappearing, and this created a perfect storm of anti-WotC sentiment.I could go on.The point is, as a whole, WotC demonstrated a real "tin ear" as to what the installed base wanted...and how certain actions were being perceived.Yes, they did market research.  However, the risk with even the best market research is that the responses you get only reflect the most vocal portions of the market, not necessarily the bulk of it or the ones with the most spending power.  This is the lesson that New Coke teaches us.Certainly, the majority of their respondents gave them favorable feedback on their proposed changes.  However, each survey I've seen since then has indicated that their wonderful sales reflects a higher-than normal influx of new gamers and a lower than normal changeover.  If that's what they wanted, that's great.  If not, its potentially a sign of bad things to come.I can guarantee you that something as simple as a conversion guide would have added a great deal to the % of changeover among gamers.</blockquote>

Verification