Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9389189" data-attributes="member: 7808">The whole thing is just a case of marketing gone amuck.There's a big trend in naming things to not include versions anymore.&nbsp; Like how we used to talk about &quot;Internet Explorer 6&quot; or &quot;MacOS Leopard&quot;, brands like to just call themselves &quot;Edge&quot; or &quot;Photoshop&quot; without any of the numbers/identifiers.&nbsp; This is logical, because it helps solidify brands for recognizability and minimizes sub-identities.&nbsp; But the thing is, all of those software cases still have formal versioning.&nbsp; Firefox doesn't refer to itself and Firefox 127 anymore, but if you go to Help&gt;About you can still find the version information. Because the casual user doesn't need to care, but there are lots of times when it's critical to know the exact version.WotC jumped on this trend for D&amp;D.&nbsp; And it's not the first time, either (if you go look at multiple things released for 3e it will just say &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot; on the cover).&nbsp; But somewhere along the line this got pushed from a simple marketing concept to the point where WotC refused to even name the next version.&nbsp; And I'll give them that versioning for something like D&amp;D isn't anywhere as strict or critical as it is for software release.&nbsp; But the idea that you won't even acknowledge the change is just being reductionist to the point of absurdity.Obviously, everyone will call it D&amp;D in casual conversation, the way people always have.&nbsp; But, equally obviously, there also needs to be some way to communicate about which copy of the rules we're using.&nbsp; Whether it's on a VTT (where it really is critical) to just telling your DM what page of a book you're reading from.&nbsp; So, 3x obviously, someone has to name it.&nbsp; But WotC refuses to do it.&nbsp; And we, as a community, kinda suck at consensus.&nbsp; So here we are.&nbsp; Bleh.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9389189, member: 7808"] The whole thing is just a case of marketing gone amuck. There's a big trend in naming things to not include versions anymore. Like how we used to talk about "Internet Explorer 6" or "MacOS Leopard", brands like to just call themselves "Edge" or "Photoshop" without any of the numbers/identifiers. This is logical, because it helps solidify brands for recognizability and minimizes sub-identities. But the thing is, all of those software cases still have formal versioning. Firefox doesn't refer to itself and Firefox 127 anymore, but if you go to Help>About you can still find the version information. Because the casual user doesn't need to care, but there are lots of times when it's critical to know the exact version. WotC jumped on this trend for D&D. And it's not the first time, either (if you go look at multiple things released for 3e it will just say "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover). But somewhere along the line this got pushed from a simple marketing concept to the point where WotC refused to even name the next version. And I'll give them that versioning for something like D&D isn't anywhere as strict or critical as it is for software release. But the idea that you won't even acknowledge the change is just being reductionist to the point of absurdity. Obviously, everyone will call it D&D in casual conversation, the way people always have. But, equally obviously, there also needs to be some way to communicate about which copy of the rules we're using. Whether it's on a VTT (where it really is critical) to just telling your DM what page of a book you're reading from. So, 3x obviously, someone has to name it. But WotC refuses to do it. And we, as a community, kinda suck at consensus. So here we are. Bleh. [/QUOTE]

Verification