Why does WotC have to apologize for making money?

[Umbran]

To use your mechanic analogy, let's say the mechanic hoodwinked you into getting a bunch of repairs you didn't really need. Sure, he has a right to make money, but perhaps not that way.

I think you are correct, in that people think that way.

I don't find it to be a valid comparison, for two reasons - one is simply the importance of the issue at hand. If one does not have a working vehicle, one's entire lifestyle may be in danger, requiring a multiple-thousand-dollar expenditure to correct. Basically, the mechanic can play off a customer's fear. I don't think that really applies to D&D.

The other is more important - in order to hoodwink you, the mechanic has to lie. WotC doesn't have to lie, here.

 

[hennebeck]

Just throwing my voice on here to point out that the OP isn't the only one.
I think WOTC can choose to make money.
I stopped buying 3e when there were too many. I chose to do that.
I did buy the new FR book. I chose to do that.
I chose to buy every 4e book for the foreseeable future. My choice.
They can choose to make books, and I can choose to buy them.

They haven't done wrong or done anything deceptive, in my opinion.
I had hoped for the DDI to be complete on June 6th, but alas, I'll have to pay NOTHING to get a free preview of basically a free sourcebook every month. I'll live.

 

[Boarstorm]

I am recusing myself from this topic on the grounds that if I don't I'll likely launch into a rant, encounter a differing opinion and react in such a way as to get myself banned.

 

[Incenjucar]

The books are a good value relative to inflation, but inflation is still pretty rough on people, and a lot of people in their mid-twenties, who grew up with 2nd edition or so, are experiencing their lower earning years with a nasty housing economy, and on top of that people have come to expect a huge amount of entertainment in their lives. I doubt I could afford 4E if I was already paying for a Playstation, Blu-Ray DVDs, Video iPod+iTunes, 42" flatscreen, $100/month internet+cable, phone bills, WoW, a dual-boot iMac laptop that can run Crysis, and a Prius.

 

[Lanefan]

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

 

[Rechan]

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.

Considering the size of a company like WotC (who also has to answer to Hasbro), they can't afford to do something "for the love of the game" alone.

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

I disagree. They'd milked about all they were going to out of it. And I think that 4e intended to do exactly what 2e did: fix some of the glaring issues that are wrong with the previous edition.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

WotC is entitled to try too make as much money as they can. It is in thier best interests.

I am also entitled to look after my best interest. My best interest doesn't include giving as much of my money to WotC as possible. In fact it is in my best interest to spend as little as possible and get the best return on my money.

Do I care if WotC goes out of business? No not really. There are plenty of other game systems out there that I can play. D&D 3.0 and 3.5 is also free forever. I also own plenty of 3.x books and can play for years and years with what I have.

So the way I see things WotC can do whatever they want. If that goal is to take as much money from me as possible they will fail if they go about it in ways I dissagree with. If they release a good system at a reasonable price and don't try to squeeze me dry then I may spend some money with them. Either way is fine by me, it is WotC's choice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

People do have every right to feel like they're paying too much when they can only use 10% of the product, and every right to complain about it.

Though it would probably do more good just to not buy it in the first place.

And if you REALLY can't live without it, well, you've probably got bigger problems than overpaying for game material.

 

[hong]

People do have every right to feel like they're paying too much when they can only use 10% of the product, and every right to complain about it.

Hence the "paying for rules you don't use" thing.