Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events

[SSquirrel]

EDIT: I didn't read the whole thread and Danny covered the much longer history of New Coke already. It's a very interesting story tho and a great example of a vocal minority upending the cart

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, if you're saying that WotC bungled the release and marketing of 4E, I agree. If you're saying that 4E was too far removed from "traditional" D&D, I somewhat agree. If you are saying that 4E should not have been different from traditional or 3.5 D&D, I disagree.

I'm not saying that 4Ed should not have been different from traditional or 3.5D&D...but the market may be.

Personally, the D&D split is much like the early days of New Coke: I like 4Ed as a FRPG, but I dislike 4Ed as a replacement for 3.5. And I'm not alone. As Yogi Berra might say, people are staying away from 4Ed in droves. Its a success by many measures, to be sure, but I seriously doubt that the divide was desired or envisioned by its designers.

And the thing is, it probably didn't have to be like that.

As the major player in the RPG market- especially with the backing of Hasbro- I think WotC could very well have adopted a business model not unlike the soft-drink companies eventually did (after New Coke) and supported 2 top-notch FRPGs. (Whether both would/should have been called D&D in such a model is a debate for another time, perhaps.)

 

[Reigan]

The biggest competition for 4e printed books is ddi, WotC seemed to have hopelessly mismanaged this.

 

[BryonD]

If you are saying that 4E should not have been different from traditional or 3.5 D&D, I disagree.

4E definitely did could have been different from traditional or 3X and been much more successful than it turned out to be.

But the specifics of what was different did play an important role.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I don't think the problem is whether or not they're looking for errors. What people might be griping about is the volume of it. If there's too much errata, then it's an indicator they didn't build/test properly before publishing. And, given the rules are codified in physical books that we buy and hold in our hands, errata is a pain in the ... Either you have to carry around printouts and remember which printouts contain which errata, or you have to fill your books with sticky notes, or mark them up with pen or whatever. Or wait until the errata is codified in a new print run, and buy the same books all over again.

I hear what you're saying but at least in my experience it's been pretty easy to incorporate relevant errata without much fuss. I play in two 4E games and when there's new errata I look at only the stuff that's relevant for my character (i.e., their class, race, powers, feats, skills, etc.). That pares it down from being a ton of errata to a minor amount of errata.

Selling devoted fans playtest drafts, just so you can sell them the finished versions later as well is a pretty crappy way to treat the people who care enough about the products to put in the effort to improve them.

But isn't the errata free?

Regardless, for me I still like that if they see something that needs to be fixed (either because they missed it or because the vast sea of gamers and their character optimization boards found a legal loophole) they try to fix it. It's much preferred to systems that have problems that never get addressed.

 

[qstor]

Yeah I ordered the Bestiary 2 on borders.com with a Xmas gift card I got and its back ordered. I talked to a friend at a con this weekend and he's junked playing 4e cause of the essentials books. He feels that they were a marketing ploy by WOTC.

Mike

 

[ExploderWizard]

But isn't the errata free?

Regardless, for me I still like that if they see something that needs to be fixed (either because they missed it or because the vast sea of gamers and their character optimization boards found a legal loophole) they try to fix it. It's much preferred to systems that have problems that never get addressed.

Sure the errata is free. Customers are free to print out the edited versions of content and insert them into the nice hardback playtest draft that they just spent money on. By the time the material is released in a corrected form that is clean and polished the customer is expected to buy it again.

I said before that fixing issues and getting input from players is a good thing. There are ways to do it that are more friendly.

Green Ronin released most of the material for the 2nd Dragon Age boxed set as a playtest draft (free of charge) to do exactly what WOTC charges thier player base full retail price for.

When the box is released it will have the benefit of public playtest and customers will only have to pay for a nice printed copy once.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

By the time the material is released in a corrected form that is clean and polished the customer is expected to buy it again.

That seems especially cynical to me. I think the whole reason they give out the errata for free is so that it is easily accessible and doesn't require the customers to make any further purchases.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now if WotC comes out and says "we're abandoning print b/c our electronic revenues are 2x, 3x, or some other multiplier greater than their book sales then it's a rational business transformation. What evidence (slight & often anecdotal, I'll admit) exists today, however, paints a far less rosy picture.

So basically what you're saying is that until WotC comes out and tells you that their DDI subscriptions are their main source of revenue... then DDI is not their main source of revenue and the company's not doing well.

Oh yeah. Makes perfect sense. (And yes, that was sarcasm.)

 

[Maggan]

Fair enough, bit IMHO, there's a significant difference between the opinions of staff and the observations of owners who get to see where all of the dollars and cents are going...or NOT going.

Fair enough. As an aside, my FLGS is owner-staffed. Those who own the shop, work in it. But yeah, not all of them are into the nitty-gritty business side of things.

/M