Why does WotC have to apologize for making money?

[wedgeski]

I'll tell you what really grates with me, and I mean really, really makes me gnash my teeth: people who claim to be boycotting a company's products for some reason, and then pirate the material and use it anyway.

To the subject at hand, one of the prevailing aspects of human nature that has become clear to me in the years I've been online is the sense of entitlement that some folks seem to think comes with being a fan. That laying out $20 on a game or $30 on a rulebook somehow makes you the most important person in the world to company X and that, if they do not pander to your needs, they are money-grabbing corporate monkeys who do not deserve your patronage.

At the end of the day, such people just seem to what what they want, and don't want to pay for it, and they'll run in philosophical and moral circles on message-boards (not like this one, thankfully) trying to justify their actions.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Most of the "money-grubbing" complaints I've heard have been either

1) I shouldn't have to buy a separate book to play my core class, and
2) I don't like minis.

I dunno about the second being money grubbing, as we've always gotten by without minis (pocket change, you are my best friend. My nickel attacks your penny!), but admittingly the first irks me.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Most of the "money-grubbing" complaints I've heard have been either

1) I shouldn't have to buy a separate book to play my core class, and

I agree. I shouldn't have to buy more books then the main 3 to play the "core game" and i shouldn't need to buy phb2 to get classes I had in phb1 in 3.5. Its just annoying. For that wizards had received my undying annoyance.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree. I shouldn't have to buy more books then the main 3 to player the "core game" and i shouldn't need to buy phb2 to get classes I had in phb1 in 3.5. Its just annoying. For that wizards had received my undying annoyance.

There are a lot of definitions of "Core". How about this one:
Core game means you get to play: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. Because that seems to have been the "core" of D&D in almost all editions (though the names seem to change occasionally).

There is no definite core for any game. I think we can all agree that the more options we get, the better, if the options are actually worth it... Whether this is true or not depends on each individiual.

 

[Shadeydm]

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.

 

[hong]

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.

This seems to be at odds with your user title.

 

[Kaffis]

Perhaps (and take this with a grain of salt, as I only dabbled in 2nd Ed., and paid zero attention to "the industry" as I did, so this is kind of constructed after the fact) the hobby is "spoiled" as it were by TSR's complete lack of business sense, that they look fondly back at those days when running the company into the ground was sort of overlooked because the game was good and loved. Given that colored reference point, the assumption is that if you *aren't* running the company into the ground, it's because you don't love the game or aren't focussing on putting out quality material.

 

[Shadeydm]

skeptic does not equate to hater, I have already pre-ordered the core 4e books. I was also skeptical about 2E and 3E and 3.5E when they were released yet ultimatly I still bought them and switched.

But what does this have to do with the swordmage being in the FRCS or is just some more typical Hong obfuscation?

 

[Xanaqui]

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.

I'm still of the opinion that playing a 3.x/4e amalgam looks pretty easy, so I'll loose little of my investment even if/when I fully switch over. Even better, at the moment, I can steal 4e material into my 3e game with very minimal work. I mean, heck, looking at the recent Orcs pages, it looks like all I'd have to do to make them 3.x compliant is to subtract 10 from Will, Reflex, and Fort.

 

[Midknightsun]

Short answer to the OP:

This is the internet.

People like to complain.

Here you'll find posters who are fanatically supportive of 4e as well as those who seem to live to poke holes in every piece of crunch that comes out to prove 4e sucks.

And most of us lie in between. I'm sure for every positive or negative comment about WotC's practices as it relates to 4e's release, there are a whole lot more who really don't see the point of getting locked down in such debates. Most of us, I think, by and large are of the wait and see attitude and hold no real grudge against WotC for wanting to--gasp--make a buck.

With that said, I do agree that putting the swordmage in FR is a bit annoying, but its not enough to make me spew hate for WotC. Nor do I pretend that it isn't an intentional ploy to get us to buy the FR sourcebook.