Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5205316" data-attributes="member: 18280">People may enjoy minis as gamers; WotC enjoys minis as a seller.Prior to the advent of 3e, WotC did a massive survey, including the spending habits of those who use minis vs. those who did not.&nbsp; Those who used minis were shown to spend something on the order of 10 times as much as those who did not, perhaps more.3.0 was more mini-centric than 2e or 1e as a result.&nbsp; 3.5 was more mini-centric than 3.0.&nbsp; 4.0 is more mini-centric than 3.5.&nbsp; In fact, 4.0 is the most combat-focused version of D&amp;D.&nbsp; And that combat all but requires minis.&nbsp; And the inclusion of minions requires more minis!This was not an accident.&nbsp; WotC would have to have a poor business plan indeed if they were aware you would probably spend ten times times as much on a mini-centric game than on a non-mini-centric game, to not have actually planned to boost the miniatures aspect.During the TSR days, minis production was licensed out; it is doubtful that TSR made any more on the basis of whether or not Joe Gamer used minis.&nbsp; WotC, on the other hand, has a clear vested interest in Joe Gamer using minis.&nbsp; If WotC can get you to refuse to play without minis, to break out minis every time you want to have a combat, marketing has done its job.Even if you are playing another system -- even if you are playing Pathfinder -- WotC stands to make a significant profit if you can simply be convinced that buying their minis is the way to go.(And, frankly, I am tired of the double standard that goes:&nbsp; If WotC does something that would be questionable were it a person doing it, it is defensible on the basis of their being a corporation required to make a profit.&nbsp; BUT, should you assume that their motivations are those of a corporation seeking to make a profit, shame on you for your derogatory statements!&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />)RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5205316, member: 18280"] People may enjoy minis as gamers; WotC enjoys minis as a seller. Prior to the advent of 3e, WotC did a massive survey, including the spending habits of those who use minis vs. those who did not. Those who used minis were shown to spend something on the order of 10 times as much as those who did not, perhaps more. 3.0 was more mini-centric than 2e or 1e as a result. 3.5 was more mini-centric than 3.0. 4.0 is more mini-centric than 3.5. In fact, 4.0 is the most combat-focused version of D&D. And that combat all but requires minis. And the inclusion of minions requires [I][B]more minis[/B][/I]! This was not an accident. WotC would have to have a poor business plan indeed if they were aware you would probably spend ten times times as much on a mini-centric game than on a non-mini-centric game, to not have actually planned to boost the miniatures aspect. During the TSR days, minis production was licensed out; it is doubtful that TSR made any more on the basis of whether or not Joe Gamer used minis. WotC, on the other hand, has a clear vested interest in Joe Gamer using minis. If WotC can get you to refuse to play without minis, to break out minis every time you want to have a combat, marketing has done its job. Even if you are playing another system -- even if you are playing Pathfinder -- WotC stands to make a significant profit if you can simply be convinced that buying their minis is the way to go. (And, frankly, I am tired of the double standard that goes: If WotC does something that would be questionable were it a person doing it, it is defensible on the basis of their being a corporation required to make a profit. BUT, should you assume that their motivations are those of a corporation seeking to make a profit, shame on you for your derogatory statements! :hmm:) RC [/QUOTE]

Verification