Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5703718" data-attributes="member: 7006">I'd be interested in where you got this information, and more importantly... who was it that ran these taste tests and how wide a sample size did they use?  Because I do not seem to recall the problem being when it was released that "this new Coke tastes SO much better than the old one, but the can just says 'Coke' and not 'Coca-Cola' on it anymore, so I'm not going to buy it."  The problem for most people as far as I remember living through it was actually "this soda sucks."  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But what is WotC better off producing... a crappy product with the name D&D or a great product without the name D&D?Comparing 'good' to 'great' is pointless.  In both cases it implies they are at least trying to create a quality product, and it all comes down to perception whether one ends up being 'good' and one ends up being 'great'.  However... WotC could easily produce any piece of crap product they wanted to in 1/10th the time, energy, and cost and slapped the D&D name on ... if they thought the name alone would generate sales.But if they did that... they'd find that eventually the D&D name would become as much crap as the products they were slapping it on.</blockquote>