So that's it for 4th edition I guess?

[Tony Vargas]

In what way are they symbolically killing 4e? Apart from not producing more of it (that we know of)?

Not producing more of it is /actually/ killing it. 4e is dead. Fans can embalm its corpse if they want, but it's dead.

The 'symbolic' killing of 4e would go beyond that. It would be erasing the edition's 'legacy,' making sure that 5e contains no trace of it, that it receives no future support, and generally acting like it never existed. Which is prettymuch what the development of 5e is doing. L&L articles routinely talk as if 4e had never existed.

When 4e came out the company talk was far more aggressively negative towards 3.5e, promoting that 4e was a better game. WHich of course lead to the alienation of many players who love the game.

How often do companies promote their new flagship product as 'new and almost as good?' Never. It's always 'new & improved.' The idea that it's somehow offensive to try to improve a product is perverse. Especially when it was as remarkably improved as 4e was.

 

[billd91]

How often do companies promote their new flagship product as 'new and almost as good?' Never. It's always 'new & improved.' The idea that it's somehow offensive to try to improve a product is perverse. Especially when it was as remarkably improved as 4e was.

If that is all they had done, I don't believe there would have been many complaints. It's hard to get ticked off when the company says "Here's the new edition. We think some elements, like grappling, work better." That's all positive spin.
The problem was that's not all that WotC did. They not only said they improved the product, they dinged their previous one. That's usually a bad marketing decision. It makes it look like you're deliberately undercutting your previous effort to make your current one look better.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If that is all they had done, I don't believe there would have been many complaints. It's hard to get ticked off when the company says "Here's the new edition. We think some elements, like grappling, work better." That's all positive spin.
The problem was that's not all that WotC did. They not only said they improved the product, they dinged their previous one. That's usually a bad marketing decision. It makes it look like you're deliberately undercutting your previous effort to make your current one look better.

On the nosey!

The 4Ed rollout was full of textbook examples* of how NOT to market the next version of your product, that being a prime example.

Furthermore, "improved" is often in the eye of the (non-objective) end users. Not everyone will agree. One man's "streamlining the process" is another man's "throwing the baby out with the bath water."





* Speaking as one who has actually read textbooks on marketing.

 

[kitcik]

4E, don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Chiming in late here, but that is my 2 cents.

 

[Manbearcat]

Chiming in late here, but that is my 2 cents.

I'm pretty sure this thread is officially toast.

 

[Pour]

I'm pretty sure this thread is officially toast.

Yep, there it goes... *shakes Manbearcat's hand amiably and HOLDS THE DOOR FOR HIM ON THE WAY OUT POLITELY!*

 

[Tony Vargas]

If that is all they had done, I don't believe there would have been many complaints. It's hard to get ticked off when the company says "Here's the new edition. We think some elements, like grappling, work better." That's all positive spin.
The problem was that's not all that WotC did. They not only said they improved the product, they dinged their previous one. That's usually a bad marketing decision. It makes it look like you're deliberately undercutting your previous effort to make your current one look better.

Nothing WotC had to say about 3e was anything that fans of 3e hadn't already said about it on the forums.

 

[billd91]

Nothing WotC had to say about 3e was anything that fans of 3e hadn't already said about it on the forums.

A fact that's totally irrelevant to intelligent marketing. The fans critical of 3e weren't the ones producing and promoting it, only to turn around and demote aspects of it to promote its successor.

 

[Joshua Randall]

For the love of pete, can we drop the five-years-past-relevance edition warring? *sigh*

Yes, 4e is pretty much dead -- or to answer the question posed in the title of this thread "yes, that's it". But "that's it" also applies to every game that is no longer actively produced by its owner.

I plan to continue playing 4e, and I'm actually rather looking forward to people dumping their books so I can scoop them up cheap at secondhand bookstores. (That's how I filled out my 3e collection when 3e died.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Nothing WotC had to say about 3e was anything that fans of 3e hadn't already said about it on the forums.

Perhaps the ads for the next Star Trek movie should comprise a mockery of the cheesiness of the original series (ignoring everything that came after that), with a self-effacing cameo by William Shatner and a few gratuitous shots at the nerds who still like it.

Basing one's business strategy around spite is not a good idea, even if that spite comes from a few malcontents on the message boards as opposed to originating in the marketing department.