What do you think WotC "owes" gamers?

[The Grumpy Celt]

People in a business relationship do owe each other.

Don't be childish.

 

[Nightfall]

They still owe me 20 bucks for that luncheon.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

For example, if WotC says that in Eberron, it won't detail Xendrik, then two years later releases a supplement that does that exactly, does that constitute a breach of trust between a creator and consumer?

Poor choice of example, because Secrets of Xen'drik doesn't detail Xen'drik and Wizards of the Coast never intended to leave it completely untouched or said they would: what was said is that they want it to be "open" for DMs to fill in and flesh out as they see fit.

However, responding to your actual question:

I personally don't feel like it's an issue of trust between creator and consumer at all. I find it hard to understand the perspective of people who feel betrayed when "promises" about roleplaying games are "broken", because I simply never invest myself in my hopes for the future in that fashion. Rather, I simply reject anything that I don't like.

I guess the difference I'm trying to articulate is between

"White Wolf said they'd never advance the metaplot of the new World of Darkness, and now they're doing it! They lied to me! Now I have to keep up with the changes!"

and

"White Wolf said they'd never advance the metaplot of the new World of Darkness, and now they're doing it? Huh. I guess if it's good I can use it and if it's not I can ignore it, so eh."

The fact that I have preferences doesn't mean I ever get my hopes up, you know? Wizards of the Coast says now that they won't reveal the cause of the Day of Mourning or whether the gods of Eberron really exist or not, but if they do so in the future my strongest reaction would be disinterest, not a feeling of betrayal.

If I didn't know what Secrets of Xen'drik actually was and thought it was a definitive guide to what Xen'drik is all about, I just wouldn't get it - or I would get it and only use the stuff that interests me, depending on how much of that there was. I don't get hung up on issues of "canon" in roleplaying games anyway, because I have never yet met a GM who didn't make changes so things worked the way they liked anyway.

 

[Nifft]

They owe me a live Nymph.

I'm waiting!

-- N

 

[Glyfair]

While I agree with the majority of the opinions here (and completely agree that Secrets of Xen'drik is a bad example, because it doesn't really detail anything), I will add a caveat.

WotC does owe us when they make promises to us. They don't necessarily owe us to stick to the promises, but they owe us an explanation and extra consideration when they break it.

For example, if they had said they would never publish another Black Lotus for MtG, and then decided it was a good idea, they need to explain why. They also would owe the collectors who took them at their word consideration (perhaps making the Black Lotus noticibly different, such as new art).

 

[Nightfall]

They owe me a live Nymph.

I'm waiting!

-- N

Give me 20 dollars and I'll what I can do Nifft.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

What is happening is the same thing that is happening throughout the consumer markets in the United States.

The corporations are not delivering decent goods and services because we keep buying them as is. Why should they up their overhead with research and focus their products to meet our needs when we (I'm guilty) will buy almost anything that hits the street. How many times have you recently accepted poor products and services because it was too inconvenient to do otherwise.

Quite rarely, actually.

I don't have an example of a problem with a roleplaying game where I've "settled" for something less than good and useful because I'm happy with the roleplaying products I purchase. I'll use films and television on DVD as an example.

I just got back last night from a trip to California to see my fiancee. Now, I live in Australia, where DVD region coding has been de facto eliminated (it's not legal to sell a DVD player that cannot be "unlocked" from Region 4, or comes unlocked out of the box). Nevertheless, despite the fact that I could have bought plenty of good films and television series I want to own on Region 1 DVDs during my trip to California, at lower prices than I can get the same DVDs here in Australia, I chose not to because I don't want to own my favourite films and TV shows in the inferior NTSC colour format, the PAL format we use here being superior.

I don't buy fullscreen films just because the widescreen version isn't there when I look in the stores. I don't buy so-called "special editions" without features I consider worthwhile - primarily cast or director's commentaries - even if it means waiting months or years until I can buy a version I'm satisfied with. I still don't own Pulp Fiction on DVD because Quentin Tarantino hasn't gotten off his arse and done a commentary like he said he should on the From Dusk Till Dawn commentary. I don't own either Kill Bill film because I'm waiting for the deluxe edition Tarantino has planned which includes a version of both films cut together as one.

I'll live with renting bare-bones or otherwise unsatisfactory versions of films and shows I love when I feel the urge to watch them, because I'm not willing to buy something that isn't the way I want it. Hell, if Tarantino never doesn't get around to the Pulp Fiction DVD commentary then I guess I'll wait for a high-definition DVD release where he does, or pick up a very cheap copy in the future. What I won't pay for is garbage like the recent anniversary edition which has nothing special on it.

 

[Nightfall]

Mh,

WotC still owes me 20 bucks though.

 

[jdrakeh]

Publishers don't owe their fans anything.. but this works both ways. Fans don't owe publishers anything, either.

 

[Glyfair]

Publishers don't owe their fans anything.. but this works both ways. Fans don't owe publishers anything, either.

However, publishers who act as if they owe their fans something tend to find their customers act as if they owe the publishers something. That's the important thing to remember as a publisher.