Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4128819" data-attributes="member: 18280">OK, (1)  We know that WotC didn't purchase all of TSR's assets.  (ex, Buck Rogers)(2)  I don't think that we know exactly what assets WotC did purchase, because we don't have access to the actual deal.(3)  We know that TSR did some customer feedback, because some of us were customers who supplied that feedback.Based upon this, I have to assume that one of the following is true:(A)  WotC didn't purchase TSR's customer feedback (for whatever reason), so it wasn't there when Ryan Dancy looked for it.(B)  TSR's market data was available, and Ryan Dancey didn't find it impressive.What we should not assume is true is(C)  TSR produced no market data.(If for no other reason than that Ryan Dancey didn't make that claim, either.)Now, my take on the above is that it is most likely that (B) is true.  There was market data (ex. survey cards) that Mr. Dancey didn't think sufficient for a modern business.  However, if this is the case, we still have scant reason to believe that, excepting the initial survey that led to 3e, WotC has done any better.  IOW, it is reasonable to suspect that 4e is as much "in the dark" as any TSR decision was.If (A) is true, then Mr. Dancey couldn't possibly have enough information to determine how poor or good TSR's market data was.  Again, this makes it reasonable to suspect that the decisions driving 4e are as much "in the dark" as any TSR decision was.In either event, the idea that TSR failed due to failure to communicate with its market is nothing more than part of the mythology of the game.  We certainly have no means to determine what is "fact" in this case and what is not.RC</blockquote>

Verification