When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[scruffygrognard]

Disagree completely. The number of classes may have been scaled back, but each class has gone from a two-page write-up to twenty pages (or whatever... it's a lot more). Fewer classes, more content per class. If you like playing paladins or fighters, 4E offers much more bang for the buck.

I wasn't trying to start an edition war... just stating my opinion. I've played 4th edition and feel that, even with their powers, each class seems more restricted... more pigeon-holed than before. I don't care for the design choices made (what is core and what isn't... both races and classes, how class powers scale/work, the emphasis on battle-mats/shifting squares, the look of the books, and how the game scales over time).

Overall I find 4th edition to be less bang for MY buck... though I realize that opinions vary widely on this and respect that I'm the odd-man out. It just bums me out to be "left behind" after 26 years of playing and enjoying every iteration of D&D.

 

[Brutorz Bill]

Jeff,
I'm right there with you. I've been buying gaming products from Wotc/TSR regularly since '79. I like alot of different games. Play alot of different games. BUT...I don't buy Wotc products anymore. They just don't appeal to me. Now I'm not a 4e Hater, it just doesn't appeal to my gaming tastes and my groups gaming tastes and we play everything from 3.x to C&C to Rifts to d20 Modern.
Maybe it is an age thing. I'm 39. I still buy gaming products. Interested in Pathfinder and I just bought some more True20 books. But I haven't bought a WotC product in quite awhile. My FLGS even offered the whole 4e set for 50% off, I looked at the books and sat them back down on the shelf.
If Dragon was still available in print form I'd probably still be buying it, instead I've switch to Kobold Quarterly. But even with those purchases I'm not spending nearly the money I once was on gaming product, and these days I've got a bit more spending money than I used to. So I guess I should thank WotC for saving me some money.
So you are not by yourself in the way you are feeling.
Regards,
Bill

 

[BraveSirRobin]

But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it? 4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books. Right? Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.

I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.

(I want to be very clear that this is not some backdoor into an edition war. If nobody, including me, ever mentions editions, that's fine with me. I'm just trying to figure out how I went from buying everything to buying almost nothing, and then being told that my opinions about things don't matter because I'm now buying almost nothing.)

I think in a way you are better equiped to answer your own question more then we are. Ask yourself what you don't like about 4.0 that 3.5 had. Ask yourself what you liked in 3.5 that 4.0 has. You stopped being the target audience when WOTC decided that there were more buyers that liked the first rather then the second. That being said, you are probably still the target audience. Its just that their product doesn't satisfy you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*. I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all. I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game. That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.

* Note that, like another poster upthread, I'm becoming a little concerned about Paizo's vision for changing, uh, the the second most-recent edition, too, however.

This is a _very_ hypothetical question, but what if the "fixes" would still require you to leave most of the rules stuff of the last behind?
That's essentially what's 4E is forcing us to do. You might be able to keep the fluff (screw POL, Bael Turaeth, Nerathi and Tieflings!), but the crunch is lost. Maybe a change to the way BAB and skills works, maybe a total overhaul of the spell system (imagine going to caster level = spell level approach)

Another question is - how would I feel about a Pathfinder-like approach (if it wasn't for 4E). In a way, I think I would be a lot more draconic with it then I was. My ideals for backwards compatibility haven't really been achieved. And just ramping up the power of some classes and adding a lot of subsystems wouldn't have covered it to me, either. For a short-term change, it was fine, though. Getting new toys is fun, especially if you know that any consequences to imbalances or playability can be forgotten once the "real" new edition came. But it would be harder for me to accept otherwise.

 

[Ximenes088]

You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*. I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all. I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game. That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.

Except that they did.

They just didn't fix it in a way that satisfied you. They fixed it in a way that they presumed would pull in the optimal number of old hands and new players. Whether they're right or wrong about that is something that still needs a couple years to shake out, but for me at least they've got me spending more on 4e stuff already than I spent on 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 combined. I'm back in the game in a way I haven't been since Erol Otus was doing covers. This is small consolation for those left behind by the shifts in design priorities, but it's the sort of calculus that any business that wants to stay viable has to make. If the ROI on X buy-all loyalists can't justify the work while the ROI on 3X new players can, then there's not much question where the business has to go.

 

[Janx]

I started in 1990 on 2. I bought just about every 2e book that was non-world specific.
2e ran until 2002 or so, when 3e came out (don't recall exact year). That got me over 10 years on 1 edition.

3e came out with what I saw as good idea to clean up the game. I bought the core books new (at$20 original price), and the splat books used. I saved some money, and only bought the books when I had a PC to use them.

When 3.5E came out, I waited a year, then traded in my 3e books and rebought the core books. I bought a single 3.5 splatbook.

I have not bought a single 4e book. Oddly enough, my group and I were going to buy into 4e before it released. Then it shipped, and I didn't like what heard about it.

This means the art had no impact on me. I didn't like the summary of the rules as implemented.

So WotC lost a customer and a sale.

WotC's target demographic is people who like games and have money to buy them. If WotC thinks differently, they need to fire their market research staff.

Therefore, if I like games, and I bought other games besides 4e, 4e must be a product that I don't want.

Now its entirely possible that WotC has made more sales to NEW people. But failing to retain EXISTING customers is also a failure. And the sudden influx of cash to WotC for sales of the new books may be misleading. A large number of D&D folks will buy a new edition, just to check it out. That can look like a huge success (and from the goal of selling books, it is). However, the point is to continue selling books (customer retention again). So the real test is how many folks buy expansions.

I have no doubt that I am WotC's target demographic. As is everyone on this forum. If WotC fails to make a product that appeals to us, that is WotC's failure. It may take some time to see if that failure is significant or not.

 

[Tigerbunny]

I gotta say, I don't buy the "factor of age" thing one bit. If there's one thing I've noticed about those who I know who are the biggest converts to 4E, we tend to be of two demographics:

1. Old-timers like me (vintage 1980!), who drifted away from the game since Red Box/RC era, find 4E a nice mix of robust rules with improvisational freewheeling attitude, and welcome the lack of setting focus and loss of decades of rules-cruft.

2. Young players and casual players who were intimidated by the formidable learning curve and mechanical complexity of 3E, but unsatisfied by the lack of options in Neo-OldSchool. I have more kids and casual players interested in the game than I've seen in 20 years.

These are GROWTH markets. The 3E hardcore are not. The old-timers who are set in their ways and attached to their own particular Golden Age are not. Is it any wonder that Hasbro wants to pursue market segments that have growth potential?

 

[CleverNickName]

1. Old-timers like me (vintage 1980!), who drifted away from the game since Red Box/RC era, find 4E a nice mix of robust rules with improvisational freewheeling attitude, and welcome the lack of setting focus and loss of decades of rules-cruft.

Well, not *all* of us.

 

[Toben the Many]

When did I stop being WotC's target audience? And why? Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them?

I think the answer to this is pretty simple. Mike Mearls has said directly that 4th Edition was in response to a number of issues that players had mentioned they had with 3rd Edition. For example, "prep-time takes too long", "stat blocks are large and confusing", "Christmas Tree effect with magic items", "a narrow sweet spot from levels 5 to 12", etc.

4th Edition is a response to many of those criticisms of 3rd Edition. However, Jeff Wilder, you are 3rd Edition complete-ist. So, for you, 3rd Edition either didn't have those issues, you found a way to circumvent them, or something else. 3rd Edition was already good enough for you. When 4th Edition arrived, you were already using a game system that was sufficient for you. There was not need for a new edition. And thus, you were not WotC's target audience.

 

[HelloChristian]

I think Tigerbunny makes some good points. Wizzo is a business owned by a publicly-traded corporation. It is their job to sell a product and make money. While they value the opinions of their customer base, they need to explore avenues of income that might grate on the nerves of some. DDI, the new minis packaging, and an entire new edition itself are all examples of this. Fortunately, we all own and are playing the games we want to play, be it 3.5, 4e or a retro-clone.

And in conclusion, Ronald Reagan.