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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5432439" data-attributes="member: 59506">Because:Not playing or preferring 4E, does not necessarily equate to not purchasing WotC products.AndAnimosity toward WotC, does equal some not purchasing WotC products.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I think the misconception you voiced is part of a common black-and-white view of the edition situation - a misconception that anti-4E must mean anti-WotC/D&D products. I'm not saying that for some this isn't the case (such as the very vocal but minority 4E-haters), but it's not the rule. I and other gamers still occasionally bought D&D products, despite not having adopted 4E. Tiles, miniatures, and campaign/fluff products are non-edition dependent, and even adventures written with specific edition mechanics can be easily adapted by most older edition DM's. A good number of people that didn't switch to 4E, still actually bought 4E core books...some even after they decided not to switch. Even though not the desired system for these gamers, those books still contain ideas and mechanics worthy of mining for their own games, and having the books just in-case they occasionally participate in a 4E game with friends. But significantly, and reinforcing WotC's likely current/future business model, some of that stuff was behind the paywall for DDI. Even though I didn't play 4E, I still had a DDI subscription...mostly for Dragon and Dungeon, but partly because I liked "supporting" the company that made my favorite game - and I wasn't the only one. But things like pulling pdf's led to a good portion of that group refusing to buy any WotC/D&D products at all. For example, prior to the pdf issue, I had purchased the core book set, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Pyramid of Shadows, and a few miniatures through 3rd party retailers...but most importantly for WotC, I had a DDI sub from the first month they went to a pay model. Between when 4E was released and the pdf's pulled, that adds up to about $200 altogether (June 2008 to April 2009). I cancelled my DDI sub the very day WotC pulled pdf's - and again, I wasn't the only one. That's about another $200 dollars of my money that WotC didn't get...and just from DDI! That amount doesn't include other incidental products I likely would have bought, such as more miniatures (that I would have bought, but purposely didn't), and I most likely would have picked up Gamma World, and the new Red Box and Essentials books (for mechanics ideas and comparisons). That's somewhere in the realm of another $150, and altogether (with DDI) about $350 dollars since WotC pulled pdf's - and again I'm not the only one. As for the industry in general, I have bought products from a few other companies that I probably wouldn't have before the pdf thing, but definitely not $350 dollars worth. That was a lose-lose for both WotC and the industry in general as far as this customer goes (though it did free up money for an ENWorld subscription<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />). But that's probably not indicative of the industry as a whole - as for example, Pathfinder seems to have done very well. If WotC is looking at revenue shortfalls (though nobody except WotC knows if they do have shortfalls), I think that would be a significant place to be looking for an explanation. Though whether they are being brutally honest with themselves is also an unknown. Anyways, if WotC's goals are to move almost entirely to a subscription based content model, then their goals have to include getting as many people to subscribe as possible. Selling less books means less revenue from that medium (though maybe they were losing money, or not making enough profit, from that medium anyways...again, nobody really knows for certain except WotC). Also, 4E was designed to bring in new players, but we're almost three years into it now - most "new" players they were going to bring in are probably already here and has trickled off considerably. I also don't think anyone foresaw just how many older players wouldn't switch to 4E. From past history, I know they had to expect some, I just don't think anyone foresaw just how big a group it ended up being. Essentials was designed, along with simplifying/unifying the rules and including errata, to bring back some of those older edition players to 4E. Whatever older players they were going to bring in with Essentials was probably a fairly immediate surge...and then that's it. Most older players probably made up their minds pretty quick. That leaves the majority of untapped potential customers as those who prefer, and almost exclusively play, older editions - and have decided at multiple points not to switch to 4E or Essentials. They are the ones that need to be courted in order to significantly boost DDI subs. It's the only untapped pool of potential customers left to them. Right now, that group is either playing their preferred systems with the materials they already have, and not contributing to the RPG Industry/Economy...or spending their money on other systems/companies products, and not contributing to the WotC Industry/Economy. Either way, it's money that isn't going to WotC...but could. And it's support that older edition players want, but isn't available. It's a simple rule of business: one of the most effective ways to expand is to find an underserved market and fill it's needs. WotC continues to ignore an underserved market, one to which they have an almost exclusive ability to exploit. Sure, they tried to woo some with Essentials. But that's like saying "I know you said you don't want to play 4E, but if we re-dressed it like <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DND/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244660000" target="_blank">this</a>, we're sure you'll like it." No, NO, NO! It's not what we keep telling you we want.* Clean it up and put it in a familiar wrapper all you want, we can tell the difference! The only way WotC will get our money is if they produce what we want. (However, if it wasn't for the pdf thing, you probably would have been able to sell it to some of us, even if we didn't want to play it.) So, that leaves the only things we're interested in is: restoring access to older edition materials, support for older editions on DDI, and developing some houserule flexibility into the DDI system for players of all editions.  *(Though apparently WotC isn't doing a good job of listening to their current customers either - as evidence by running a poll asking customers what they want from DDI, posting those poll results for the whole world to see, and then putting their efforts into DDI products that the poll clearly showed wasn't a priority...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />) As to goodwill, I agree that a lack of goodwill is not what fractured the fan-base - but it has become a significant impediment to getting some fans/customers to return. Generating goodwill with these customers is the only way to overcome the animosity that's been generated, and that means some form of apology. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on the causes or justification of such animosity, the fact that it exists is undeniable. The formula is two-fold, provide the desired product(s), and do something to address customer animosity. DDI type subscriber content is the inevitable future. No way around it. But whatever edition, players want flexible tools that allow them to play their game. And right now, DDI doesn't provide enough of that. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

Verification