Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4890123" data-attributes="member: 2067">&quot;Stifling Innovation&quot; seems a really strong way to put it. AFAICT, the negative reactions come from this:The new editions don't give the people who like the game as it is enough reason to switch.If you've been plugging along blissfully in your game of choice for a few years, you may very well have some issues with it -- some quirks you're not a fan of, or some rough spots you need to iron out. But by and large, you like the thing you do each week. You don't want a major overhaul. You don't want a new way of doing things. A revolutionary innovation has no appeal -- no value -- to you. You're getting mostly what you want.Now, you might be on board for a change. It's been some years and there are some rough spots. You have no problem with a re-working of your game. But you don't need the entire way you play to be changed. Addressing complaints from people who don't play the game isn't going to help the new edition appeal to you in the slightest. You're pretty happy with it. So what does this new game give you in exchange for loosing all the value of your old game?This is part of why an edition treadmill is kind of unsustainable over the long haul. As you make better games, more people are going to be satisfied with what you produce, and more people will be against changing when the hot new thing comes out. By the time you hit edition 5 or 6 or whatever the rough spots you can smooth out are fewer and father apart, or more basic and require a bigger system overhaul, and neither of those are a selling point for your new edition to the people who play the current one. Innovation is fine and good and great, but the place for it is not generally in a game that a lot of people like as-is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4890123, member: 2067"] "Stifling Innovation" seems a really [I]strong[/I] way to put it. AFAICT, the negative reactions come from this: [B]The new editions don't give the people who like the game as it is enough reason to switch[/B]. If you've been plugging along blissfully in your game of choice for a few years, you may very well have some issues with it -- some quirks you're not a fan of, or some rough spots you need to iron out. But by and large, you like the thing you do each week. You don't want a major overhaul. You don't want a new way of doing things. A revolutionary innovation has no appeal -- no value -- to you. You're getting mostly what you want. Now, you might be on board for a change. It's been some years and there are some rough spots. You have no problem with a re-working of your game. But you don't need the entire way you play to be changed. Addressing complaints from people who don't play the game isn't going to help the new edition appeal to [B]you[/B] in the slightest. You're pretty happy with it. So what does this new game give you in exchange for loosing all the value of your old game? This is part of why an edition treadmill is kind of unsustainable over the long haul. As you make better games, more people are going to be satisfied with what you produce, and more people will be against changing when the hot new thing comes out. By the time you hit edition 5 or 6 or whatever the rough spots you can smooth out are fewer and father apart, or more basic and require a bigger system overhaul, and neither of those are a selling point for your new edition to the people who play the current one. Innovation is fine and good and great, but the place for it is not generally in a game that a lot of people like as-is. [/QUOTE]

Verification