What do you think WotC "owes" gamers?

[Umbran]

Actually, it constitutes you -not knowing what you're talking about-.
...snip...
So, in closing, your example is wrong, and you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Actually, this constitutes an example of how folks here are -not respecting The Rules-

Folks posting in this thread probably ought to review those guidelines. Politics, personal attacks and insults are not appropriate for these message boards. Please treat your fellow posters with respect. And be aware that discussion of corporate ethics can drift into politics if you don't choose your examples and tone carefully.

So, in closing, please behave in a civilized manner, because the moderators take this stuff seriously.

 

[wayne62682]

No business owes their customers anything. However, the flipside is also true: The customers don't owe the business anything either. It's a symbiotic relationship: if WotC (or any company, but WotC is the subject here) doesn't produce things that people want to buy, and/or doesn't produce quality products, then customers won't buy from them and their profits will go down. If they DO produce things people want and produce quality items, then we as consumers will purchase them and their profits will go up.

In short: Neither of us (WotC and we, the customers) owe the other anything, but it's in their (i.e. WotC) best interests to act like they owe us in order to keep our business. A business that flat-out doesn't care about appeasing their customer base (or pretending to) doesn't stay in business for very long.

 

[amethal]

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.

So how does giving money to charity make companies more profitable?

 

[Gargoyle]

WOTC owes me nothing.

When I buy a WOTC product, I have expectations, and if they are met or exceeded, I consider the product of high quality and I am more likely to buy future products. If they are wise, they'll consider my feedback on future products, if not they'll produce stuff I don't want and I won't buy it. Each business transaction is its own, and since I have the ability to read reviews and flip through books before purchasing, there ususally aren't any surprises regarding quality.

Now if the binding on a book fell apart shortly after its purchase, I'd feel they would owe me a replacement. Hasn't happened yet to me, but I'll agree that for my money they owe me a certain level of quality, when it is something as objective as a book binding. If I've purchased something, and it doesn't meet basic, objective expectations, I would consider it a breach of contract.

With regard to content, they don't owe me a thing. A rule that turns out to be unbalanced, a class that is not fun to play, or a spell that is poorly written will make me more cautious in my next purchase, but I wouldn't consider that any sort of breach of contract. Art is subjective, and as scientific as we try to be about game rules, it's not a science. It's a game, not a textbook, and if people can't understand the difference, then I don't know how to explain it to them.

Not printing a book I want to see isn't going to bother me either. As much as I'd love to see a new version of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia updated to be a basic version of 3.5 D&D, I'm not going to say they "owe" it to me. If they "promise" to print it and then decide not to, I'm still not going to say it was owed. I know that if they don't, it was a business decision, and I want them to stay in business.

There are too many people in this world who think that everyone owes them something.

 

[Morrus]

So how does giving money to charity make companies more profitable?

Big tax breaks. They save more in tax than they give to charity, thus making the act profitable.

Or something like that. I'm no expert. I'm aware the phenomenon exists, though.

 

[Remathilis]

WotC owes me some balanced, playtested, and well-defined rules.

I'll pay them for the privilage of making balanced, playtested, and well-defined rules.

Other than that, we owe each other nothing.

And "Business Ethics" is an oxymoron.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WotC owes me a long lingering kiss after a walk on the beach in the moonlight.

And a 3.5 oozemaster.

 

[Aeolius]

3.5 version of the Oozemaster

Updated with aquatic oozes, of course

And how about some flumphs, while we're at it?

 

[freebfrost]

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."

And there are a number of threads here where this attitude is shown by (gaming) consumers.

There is such a thing as a "reasonable profit," and whenever a business strays too far in either direction, correction is soon to follow.

I don't see the profits of the oil companies being "reasonable" at this point - do you think they'll be folding soon? Or do they have an effective monopoly on the marketplace of consumer and commercial transportation?

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.

And if suddenly, those same boosters become all the rage in say, mainland China, don't you think WotC will continue to produce those boosters? A different market, with different wants and needs suddenly starting buying those boosters, and the needs and wants of the collectors and gamers gets totally left in the dust. You think that WotC is going to turn down 2 billion potential consumers for the 2 million potential gamers in the USA?

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.

First, lets clearly establish the fact that WotC cannot cancel support of the OGL - they can stop supporting it themselves, but they cannot touch the OGL. Just want to make sure that is clear here for anyone reading.

Second, WotC will do what is profitable. If they determine that 4E should be a card-based giant miniatures game that has a potential 10 million customers, the 2 million established gamers will fall by the wayside. A consumer revolt? Publisher revolt? WotC is the big dog - they can do what they want and leave the OGL to the smaller publishers. As far as consumer revolts - you are claiming to speak for gamers, but D&D gamers are but a small segment of the gaming market. ENWorlders are an even smaller segment. Be wary when you are talking about the marketplace as a whole with a non-representative sample as your comparison.

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.

There was a "revolt" when they said they'd never develop Erlkazar too, much like the Xendrik argument today. Funny, D&D is still alive and well after these revolts.

WotC owes the consumer nothing. WotC owes its shareholders increased value.

 

[amethal]

Big tax breaks. They save more in tax than they give to charity, thus making the act profitable.

Or something like that. I'm no expert. I'm aware the phenomenon exists, though.

In the UK, charity donations are often an allowable business expense.

If you are paying the top rate of tax (40%), then for every pound you spend you save forty pence. I'll gladly give forty pence to someone for every pound they give me, if they consider that "saving money".

I've come across Americans, like (I assume) the poster I quoted, who seem to think corporations gain from giving to charity. That would mean for every dollar they give to charity the government gives them (say) one dollar and twenty cents. That is so ludicrous I can't see how it can be true.

If it isn't true, then US corporations are regularly losing out financiallly by donating to charity so people's comments about US corporations caring only about profit isn't true. (So the question is somewhat on topic )

If it is true, then no wonder the budget deficit is so large!