Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8641632" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Similar arguments apply to PF1e. Its own designers were eventually forced to admit how flawed and broken its design was, even though, as Oofta and others are quite eager to point out, it managed to overtake 4e on one voluntary measure of physical sales. Like, the designers themselves were forced to admit that the game design of PF1e was holding them back because of its low quality, and that it thus needed to be replaced. A product that sold extremely well in its market...that its designers eventually called, pretty much straight-up, badly made.To meet or beat your sales targets does not tell you that you made a high quality product. It means that the state of the market, the state of your company, your marketing efforts, the interests of the consumer, and the actual product itself aligned successfully. Only one of those things, the product itself, involves any notion of quality—which means you can (and, for many products, do) see situations where the other factors dominate the equation. E.g. Umbran's analysis of McDonald's. The food is precision-optimized to trigger pleasurable responses in the consumer, regardless of nutritional value or ingredient quality: precise levels of fats, salt, sugar, monosodium glutamate, etc. This, coupled with consumers finding utility in the food being inexpensive and quick, mean that it sells well, even though it is unhealthy, nutrition-poor, weak on flavor beyond those really basic hindbrain-pleasers, and low in variety. You know...the vast majority of reasons humans choose to eat food for apart from &quot;not starving to death.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8641632, member: 6790260"] Similar arguments apply to PF1e. Its own designers were eventually forced to admit how flawed and broken its design was, even though, as Oofta and others are quite eager to point out, it managed to overtake 4e on one voluntary measure of physical sales. Like, the designers themselves were forced to admit that the game design of PF1e was holding them back because of its low quality, and that it thus needed to be replaced. A product that sold extremely well in its market...that its designers eventually called, pretty much straight-up, [I]badly made[/I]. To meet or beat your sales targets does not tell you that you made a high quality product. It means that the state of the market, the state of your company, your marketing efforts, the interests of the consumer, and the actual product itself aligned successfully. Only one of those things, the product itself, involves any notion of quality—which means you can (and, for many products, do) see situations where the other factors dominate the equation. E.g. Umbran's analysis of McDonald's. The food is precision-optimized to trigger pleasurable responses in the consumer, regardless of nutritional value or ingredient quality: precise levels of fats, salt, sugar, monosodium glutamate, etc. This, coupled with consumers finding utility in the food being inexpensive and quick, mean that it sells well, even though it is unhealthy, nutrition-poor, weak on flavor beyond those really basic hindbrain-pleasers, and low in variety. You know...the vast majority of reasons humans choose to eat food for apart from "not starving to death." [/QUOTE]

Verification