Why does WotC have to apologize for making money?

[ProfessorCirno]

So every edition of the PHB should have the same classes in it? Or every edition should be a superset of previous editions, with the number of classes being added to the core game spiralling ever upwards to absurdity?

"I shouldn't have to..." is just an expression of your own opinion. There's no law that binds Wizards to what is, and what isn't, released in the big 3.

Stop purposefully misreading what's being said.

There's a difference between being a splatbook to get some random new class that was developed recently, and not being able to play a class that's been core for over a decade right from the box like we've been able to for over a decade.

 

[EATherrian]

2) I don't like minis.

Well, to be honest, I believe a great deal of 4E is built around this idea. The entire delve system is designed to encourage minis. As to the main point, I don't begrudge them making money, I just don't like that I won't be getting what I want from just the books, it sounds like too much interesting stuff will be placed in the DDI ghetto, which for their pernicious murder of my beloved magazines, I'll never ever step foot into.

 

[Puggins]

Thats with the assumption that the decision was the best most profitable one. Many companies make many decision every day that misread public opinion and result in failed products. Given the many past failures that WotC has done or tried, why is the assumption made that this given plan is the best most profitable one.

Whether or not that decision is the best, most profitable one is immaterial- it was perceived as the best, most profitable one, and was thus implemented. Whether or not the perception is correct will be tested over the next year, but their reaction to that perception is one that I or any other (presumably) competent manager would have executed.

 

[MaelStorm]

A few months ago I was very angry with the approach they (WotC) decided to take with their new 4E, when I was playing D&D long ago (AD&D 2E, minis weren't essential. Now, with the pure tactical advantages given by powers to slide and push your opponents, you need a battlemat (tiles) + minis or token or something to represent adequately what's going on to determine the outcome of a battle. At the beginning I didn't like this. I saw it as a marketing ploy to sell more of their accessories. The problem is that you are not sure you're going to get the minis you need to play their games when you buy a few boosters, as every line of minis have a small percentage of minis you actually want. Why WotC is not releasing a non-collectible line for 4E, no they want you to buy their DDM and you're stuck with tons of minis you won't need to prepare your game. I want to have access to buy minis I need and nothing else. Anyway, I understood that it was to give more options to players, to make the game more enjoyable, and that you could get around the problem by playing gridless. It's ok, but still they could have come for a line of minis that was devoted to the need of 4E as separate from the DDM game.

Another thing I did not like was that you couldn't start the game with all the iconic classes, now you have to wait years before playing the classes you really want. Why is their no nature mage in the PHB I is beyond me, no more familiars for your wizards, etc. Now, if you want to get around the problem you have to design new classes with 80 powers, design paragon paths, and epic destinies, etc. It's a real nightmare. In a year, maybe the classes you want will be released, if not wait another year or until a 3PP release the class you want. Sheesh! Oh, I forget, you can also pay for DDI, and maybe you will get your class or race in advance.

Plus, they recently made the official comment that every book is now core material. Now you will have to buy every books, every setting to get all the material you need to play with 4E. That means you have to buy setting X if you want to play class Y, or race Z. Sure WotC is a business, but when RPGs were less commercial, it was a little bit different. TSR didn't pay 7 digit numbers to design a new edition. It's clear that they are looking for way to get a return for their investments. It was a corporate decision to go that way. It could have been more economical, why do they need a big staff on payrolls since 2005 for 3 year and a half before releasing a new edition? Sure they need to get paid, but what I'm saying is that the project could have been done in less time. Anyway, now they want their money back and the only way to get it is to make everyone buy all their books. I don't think I have the budget to buy every books to play 4E. That's why I understand some people are complaining.

Now, I'm less bitter, and more optimistic than a few months ago. I'm going 4E. And I like most of the change they did with the new editions. But I think 4E could have been done more economically. They could have made the process a less complicated one, and save a digit out of the 7 digit numbers it took to create the new editions.

 

[Chibbot]

I have no ill towards WotC for attempting to make money. I want them to make money, so they continue to publish products that I want.

While the execs may be "in it for the money," I fully agree that its insulting to the WotC staff to say that they are just in it for the money, and not the love of the game. If you've been following the podcasts, etc, its clear that they are doing this because they love it.

Many people complain that 4e (excuse me, '$e'?) is just a money-grubbing exercise, and I completely disagree. I think that, considering WotC has been working on it for several years now, its very much a development of passion and love for the system. True, they want to make money, but so do the freelancers and 3rd party publishers. Everyone needs to eat, and have somewhere to sleep, after all.

On a side-note, I fall into the group of people who hate GW but continue to buy their products (or did, until I moved and lost my wargame group). In addition to previously mentioned GW douchery, if memory serves, every year of the 4th of July GW celebrates hiking their prices. To be fair, thats not relevant to the rest of the world. But then, a lot of the GW dickery isn't. A lot of their policies simply revolve around being obnoxious to the US (see previous comments about online sales).

 

[drothgery]

I take issue of something like the Swordmage being put into the FRCS instead of the PHB or PHB2. I have no interest in the Realms and no intention of buying it but I am definetly intersted in the Swordmage. Am I willing to buy a campaign setting for this one class?
HELL NO, but its those kind of tactics that make me appriciate the "piracy" of such materials.

Eh. I bought Heroes of Horror because I thought the Archivist looked cool, even though I have almost no interest in horror as a genre.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Stop purposefully misreading what's being said.

There's a difference between being a splatbook to get some random new class that was developed recently, and not being able to play a class that's been core for over a decade right from the box like we've been able to for over a decade.

There is also a difference between a ~10 year old edition/game and a newly developed edition.

The new edition has new strength, new possibilities. They should be explored at the right time with the correct investment. If Warlords and Warlocks can highlight new system strength, and Druids and Bards need further refinement, than that's how it's gonna be.

I have seen and played my share of Bards and Druids and Half-Orcs in 3E. I am not full of them. But if a new edition offers me a few new classes and races, and promises to give me the Bard and Druid in new awesomeness at a later time, I am fine with it. Not only do I get to play with a new system, I also get to play with new classes. Everything is shiny and new, and my imagination is already running hot for the kind of opportunities waiting for me.

 

[The Highway Man]

I think people on all sides of the arguments need to clearly separate discussions about the mechanics and the game itself from topics pertaining to the actual manner (PR, marketing) and reasons for the game to be marketed.

If these two issues were kept clearly separated, a lot of the conversations could end up more constructive for anyone involved.

 

[wedgeski]

Stop purposefully misreading what's being said.

I don't see how I could have misread the post I quoted. "...i shouldn't need to buy phb2 to get classes I had in phb1 in 3.5."

There's a difference between being a splatbook to get some random new class that was developed recently, and not being able to play a class that's been core for over a decade right from the box like we've been able to for over a decade.

Again, I offer that there is no rule that says Core for Edition X should be Core for Edition X+1, even if arguably you could discuss whether certain classes are quintessentially D&D and a new edition without them better have a pretty good reason for letting them go (Fighter, Wizard, et al).

 

[Dedekind]

Hasbro's operating margin is 13.5% and their net profit margin is about 8%. These numbers are not particularly crazy compared to other entertainment companies. Assuming that WotC's numbers are comparable to their parent (and they should be), I think I am comfortable with paying 13% of their costs to allow them to make more products in the future.

(I'm not sure what the mark-up is for retailers, but note that that 13% is not 13% of the cover price. It is 13% of something less than the cover price.)