Why does WotC have to apologize for making money?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is why there were a bunch of WotC books I didn't buy until they were deeply discounted at used-book stores.

Yeah, I bought Races of Fill in the Blank, but I paid $5 for it.

 

[am181d]

Yes, the company "wants" to make as much money as possible. But the *people* who work at the company are all their because they love games. If the *people* were only in it for the money, they would have become bankers.

 

[Bugleyman]

Look out! The capitalists are attacking....and their brought their straw men! RUN!

Your premise is specious. I don't think most people have a problem with WOTC making a profit per se; rather, many seem to believe that profitability shouldn't be WOTC's primary goal. That D&D has a instrinsic value apart from being a engine of wealth creation. Whether or not this is the case is debatable, but I'm not really interested in discussing the ethics of corporate behavior, especially given your apparent conviction that the moral imperative to profit obviates all other responsibilities of societal membership (whether the member in question is a legal or physical person).

 

[Incenjucar]

WotC and Hasbro are not exactly strangers to doing rad things for free.

They already give plenty of free product out.

Just not to you specifically (or you or you or you).

 

[PeterWeller]

Look out! The capitalists are attacking....and their brought their straw men! RUN!

Your premise is specious. I don't think most people have a problem with WOTC making a profit per se; rather, many seem to believe that profitability shouldn't be WOTC's primary goal. That D&D has a instrinsic value apart from being a engine of wealth creation. Whether or not this is the case is debatable, but I'm not really interested in discussing the ethics of corporate behavior, especially given your apparent conviction that the moral imperative to profit obviates all other responsibilities of societal membership (whether the member in question is a legal or physical person).

This isn't a politics forum, and I seriously doubt that WotC hate is a capitalist/anti-capitalist debate.

Games Workshop is only trying to make money, yet lots of people hate them. Not because they want to make money, but because they're craven douchebags about it.

I think the GW hate is just as ridiculous as the WotC hate. There are obvious market reasons for their price increases, and the overall quality of their products has increased substantially over the last twenty years. The fact that they try to keep each army balanced and unique is always going to result in unpopular design decisions. Your favorite over-powered build is going to get nerfed (I'm looking at you flying fish or falcons). The specialist games section of their website is a wealth of awesome free gaming (aside from miniatures and such, which if you're checking out specialist games, you probably already own). Their world wide campaigns, multiple conventions and tournaments, and extensive retail network show that they are committed to fostering their community.

Christ, I sound like I'm a GW press hack, but I do think the hate directed towards them is largely unwarranted.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Part of the issue is that many of us hearken back to the day when there was no "RPG industry" and the companies producing the games etc. did so in hopes of making some money rather than in expectations of making a lot. The suits hadn't got involved yet.

No matter how hard a given company may try to disguise it, it's always easy to tell if something is being done just for the money, as opposed to (in this instance) love of the game. Despite its many shortcomings, I'll give 3e this: it was done - at least in part - for love of the game; 2e was dying on the vine, and the choice was clear: sink the franchise or revive it. They chose to revive it.

3e in 2007, however, seemed to have quite a bit more life left in it than 2e did in 1999.

Or maybe I'm just unusually cynical today.

Lanefan

Maybe you're right, there is more life in 3e in 2007 then to 2e in 1999. But does that mean it's to early for 4E, or 3E came a little too late?

And isn't it more important how much life will be in 4E?



"Hating" WotC for wanting to make money always seems like an insult to the designers and developers. They certainly have more love for the game then some random "suit", and if they create a new edition, you should better assume they will try to make it the best they can come up with - that this also guarantees money for WotC is true, but that shouldn't invalidate their efforts.

 

[Shades of Green]

The thing I'm concerned about is not about them making money but rather for the value for money of my purchases. I like spending my money on useful books - and I want a major portion of any book I purchase to be useful. This is especially true for core-books: For the 100 US$ or so I spend on the three 4E core books I want a completely playable game - as playable and as diverse as you could have with the three 3E core books - without needing any further books. Additional books should be for additional material and detail - not filling holes in the core-books.

If they'll fulfill this condition, I'll be very, very happy with them.

And I buy additional books because they are cool and useful, not just for the sake of a single class or feat - a class or feat I could make by myself. I want any book to be worth its price. that is all I'm concerned about.

Lords of Madness is a good example of good value for money - its got very useful fluff, very useful splat, deals with some of the cooler monsters in the game, has great art, and even has maps and adventure locations I could recycle to other uses. One of the best 3E books ever. I want my 4E purchases to be as good as it.

 

[Moonshade]

It goes both ways. WOTC is free to do what they want to make money and I, as a customer, am free to assess their products and decide whether I want to give them my money. I shouldn't have to apologise for choosing to not buy a product from a company I've supported in the past if I feel its newest product does not interest me.

For example, due to WOTC's online track record, the mediocre-to-bad online content of the past six months and the sketchiness of the current state of the DDI project, I cannot see myself trusting in DDI enough to think it would make $15 a month well spent. Others are saying they'll definitely sign up, but I will not be doing so since I do not believe DDI is worth the money it costs. There's irrationality on both sides: people who blame others for demanding that WOTC apologise for making money are often ones who view it as an insult when some simply say they don't consider product X to be worth the cost. Somehow that translates to saying you hate WOTC and are insulting the intentions of the designers of product X. No, I'm just not prepared to pay that much money for that product, same way I buy some DVDs right after they're released and only give others a try if I happen to see they're on sale for 1/6 of the original price. The studios want to make money, the cast and crew may believe in their project, but I'm not obliged to spend my money just because the people behind the product say it's good.

 

[AtomicPope]

Games Workshop is only trying to make money, yet lots of people hate them. Not because they want to make money, but because they're craven douchebags about it.

Everyone wants to make money. Not everyone is a craven douche.

And before someone accuses me of calling WotC a bunch of craven douchebags, I'm not. I'm merely clarifying that the desire to make money alone isn't why people hate a company, they hate the company because of how they try to get that money.

Games Workshop is the only company I know that:
1) Made online sales for US owned companies a breach of contract (but not other countries)
2) Published an official memorandum stating that "old gamers just complain and don't purchase new products" so they need to focus on "new gamers"

That kind of douchebaggery is unacceptable. It's also abscent from WotC's behavior.

 

[AtomicPope]

I just got back from my weekly 3.5 game and we almost had a TPK but I survived(I rolled a one for my initiative and I was invisible). The game was cut short by a few hours and the possibility of other campaigns popped up. On the way home I chatted with the other carpoolies and they were excited about 4e. The talk was pretty much like this:

I don't feel to invested in third edition. I have the core books and lots of modules, which I'll just convert anyway. Then there's a few fluff books for campaign settings.

This is generally what I hear. Either, they don't feel they've invested too much in 3e or they've invested too much. The rants on WotC focus on how great 3e is which makes me think that the other side to "More Money" is a geniune concern.

Forced Obsolescence

I think the problem some people, not me, are having is they feel that WotC has forced 3e into extinction too soon. From that perspective, it's not that making money is bad, but the motive behind the money making that is bad.

Not that I believe it but I can see why they're frustrated.