What do you think WotC "owes" gamers?

[jdrakeh]

I will also say that I find the opposite is happening more & more frequently as well. I know a number of consumers who will go somewhere to save a small amount of money, even though they are no longer supporting a business that had gone out of their way for that customer (and often, for their customers as well).

Companies aren't the only thing making decisions solely based on the money. Consumers are doing it as well.

Sure, but by 'abusive behavior' I was actually referring to things like a company, in order to boost sales, faking bankruptcy and claiming their books were being pulled from circulation -- not a company failing to publish things that fans were wanting to see published. The latter is acceptable in terms of business, the former is not. I'm not sure I've seen any fans sticking it to publishers on that level

 

[Cadfan]

WOTC "owes" nothing to its customers.

It has an "interest" in publishing products its customers want to buy.

This is, of course, entirely different from publishing products that grognards want to buy. Because grognards rarely want to buy anything.

Fortunately for us, WOTC has a game in which most (all, even?) material is optional. So when WOTC publishes a module, book, or collectible miniature game that I do not want, I can decline to buy it. And when they publish a book I DO want, I can purchase it freely.

I need feel no anger that WOTC publishes books that I do not want, because I do not feel that WOTC owes me an entire product line aimed at my personal tastes. Other people buy from WOTC besides myself, and I am happy for them that WOTC publishes books that they want. I simply do not buy those books unless I want them as well.

I am sorrowful for the many grognards on this forum, who appear to be forced at gunpoint to purchase WOTC's full product line, even when they do not want to do so. I suppose if some cruel person were to do that to me, I too would feel that WOTC owes me an entire product line aimed at me and my campaign.

 

[freebfrost]

I believe the idea that businesses exist solely for profit is unsophisticated. Profit is what distinguishes a business from other social organs, but it is not the sum total of why a business exists. Just as a for instance, grocery stores exist so that people who are not farmers can eat. What distinguishes a grocery store from a public storehouse is that it is run for profit. But what distinguishes it from a book store is that you can buy apples.

A business has no morality - it is an extension of what created it, and that is profit. There is no moral reason a grocery store needs to exist. They were created because someone saw an unmet need and the profits of meeting that need exceeded the cost of doing something else.

Businesses based around being moral do not survive unless they are also profitable.

Profitable businesses that are not moral continue to survive. Does my company give money to charities to be moral? No, they do it for the tax incentives that make them more profitable. My company matches funds for employee contributions to charities - but only to certain charities. Charities that provide certain tax benefits. Those charities that don't fit that bill, even if they are good moral charities, do not get the nod. That is not moral behavior, it is profitable behavior.

You're making an erroneous statement when you say businesses have social concerns.

 

[WayneLigon]

It pains me to no end to see how many people agree that a business owes nothing to anyone but itself.

WOTC, like every business, does owe us something.

In the case of WOTC, the two that come to mind at once are:
1. Playtesting and proofreading.
2. Quality testing of materials used in production, and compensation for failure in this department.

I'm sure there are others.

 

[jdrakeh]

You're making an erroneous statement when you say businesses have social concerns.

Well, some businesses do have social concerns but, as you point out, those businesses that operate solely according to a moral code, rather than making decisions based on practical economics, don't stay in business very long.

Business, like many other things, is often romanticized by those individuals who don't have much experience with it. Indeed, decisions based on this romantic notion of business, rather than on basic market realities, led to the downfall of many an early d20 publisher.

 

[jdrakeh]

It pains me to no end to see how many people agree that a business owes nothing to anyone but itself.

WOTC, like every business, does owe us something.

In the case of WOTC, the two that come to mind at once are:
1. Playtesting and proofreading.
2. Quality testing of materials used in production, and compensation for failure in this department.

I'm sure there are others.

If publishers owed consumers those things, a great many wouldn't be in business that are (in business, that is). Fact is, they don't owe consumers those things, but I agree that it would sure be nice if they provided them (the near complete lack of editing in many modern RPGs is a constant source of irritation for me).

 

[Glyfair]

I'm not sure I've seen any fans sticking it to publishers on that level

Well, it's hard for an individual "fan" to do that. Still, putting a publishers product up on filesharing networks probably comes close.

 

[Glyfair]

A business has no morality - it is an extension of what created it, and that is profit.

I think people are confusing morality and ethics. They mean ethics.

However, it is possible for a business have morality. I think I could think of a few illegal and reprehensible practices a company might traffic in that would have most consider the company to be "immoral" (although not directly related to hobby gaming).

 

[pawsplay]

Businesses based around being moral do not survive unless they are also profitable.

And vice versa. Morality does not bring home the bacon, but neither does profit justify a business's existence.

I don't think I am being naive. My step-father is a business owner, I have briefly run a few (unsuccessful, sad to say) businesses, and I have worked a company before, during, and after an IPO and then a buyout.

Saying "a business should be run only for profit" is similar to saying "a consumer should get a product for the absolute cheapest they can." So, for instance, the right thing for a consumer to do would be to buy from a wholesaler who has managed to gouge the publisher out of a profit. Soon after, the publisher folds, and no more books appear.

There is such a thing as a "reasonable profit," and whenever a business strays too far in either direction, correction is soon to follow. Similarly, there is such a thing as doing business in good faith. There is a reason why, after laying down money for a year's subscription to Dragon, you don't receive twelve issues of Cosmopolitan with the word "Cosmopolitan" scribbled out and "Dragon" written in. Even though they may have fulfilled the letter of their contract, it's likely you have an actionable civil case against them.

It's not actionable if WotC starts producing a minis line that maximizes sales of boosters while frustarting collectors and gamers, but ultimately, the line is going to die. People don't like to invest emotionally, in the long term, in a hobby that fills them with frustration and disappointment. That's why in recent articles on the Wizards site, they have emphasized anew their commitment to "giving the people what they want" within their goal of making a profit. People bought Ulmo Lightbringer, but they resented him, so they are now producing fewer obscure or invented uniques.

If Wizards canceled further support of the OGL, they would be within their rights to do so, but it would anger people who felt it was an invitation that has been retracted. WotC would likely find themselves facing a consumer and publisher revolt, fueled by small, agile rivals they helped create.

What does WotC owe the customers? What they said they would deliver. If they are honest, and are not using coercion to further their bargaining position, that's fairness.

 

[pawsplay]

I think people are confusing morality and ethics. They mean ethics..

I minored in Ethics. You can mean either you like. They don't differ in any definable way.