Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 6556278" data-attributes="member: 467">First of all, I am not &quot;claiming&quot; anything : I used the word &quot;imagine&quot; for a reason. Nor am I trying to convince you of anything. Even if I could, I feel confident that your are not a suit at Hasbro and therefore have no power to change the things I would like to see changed.Now, that said, you are absolutely right that Mearls said that the 3E and 4E release schedules were bad for D&amp;D. What we don't know is &quot;bad, how?&quot; 3.5 lasted quite a long time and was popular enough that a competitor could pick up the torch and become the market leader in D&amp;D's absence. 4E lasted fewer years by some counts (some folks go to the last DDI support rather than the last hard copy release). I have no doubt the release schedule was bad &quot;bad&quot; for Hasbro's finance department, but we don't know whether that means &quot;in the red&quot; or &quot;not profitable enough&quot; or something else entirely. During the life of 4E Mearls certainly wasn't pooh-poohing the release schedule, and if the release schedule was the primary problem would we have needed 5E at all? Why not just release essentials and then produce two APs a year for 4E?Lots of questions and no real answers, leaving those of us who prefer a robustly supported D&amp;D, like in editions past and PF currently, to wonder what has changed so drastically that the old model no longer works? Or, less charitably, how has WotC managed to screw the release schedule up so badly when they made such an awesome version of D&amp;D?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 6556278, member: 467"] First of all, I am not "claiming" anything : I used the word "imagine" for a reason. Nor am I trying to convince you of anything. Even if I could, I feel confident that your are not a suit at Hasbro and therefore have no power to change the things I would like to see changed. Now, that said, you are absolutely right that Mearls said that the 3E and 4E release schedules were bad for D&D. What we don't know is "bad, how?" 3.5 lasted quite a long time and was popular enough that a competitor could pick up the torch and become the market leader in D&D's absence. 4E lasted fewer years by some counts (some folks go to the last DDI support rather than the last hard copy release). I have no doubt the release schedule was bad "bad" for Hasbro's finance department, but we don't know whether that means "in the red" or "not profitable enough" or something else entirely. During the life of 4E Mearls certainly wasn't pooh-poohing the release schedule, and if the release schedule was the primary problem would we have needed 5E at all? Why not just release essentials and then produce two APs a year for 4E? Lots of questions and no real answers, leaving those of us who prefer a robustly supported D&D, like in editions past and PF currently, to wonder what has changed so drastically that the old model no longer works? Or, less charitably, how has WotC managed to screw the release schedule up so badly when they made such an awesome version of D&D? [/QUOTE]

Verification