WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Scribe]

I'm not sure if it does. A lot of the time, companies use or even manufacture controversy in order to get free advertising by people on social media. "There's no such thing as bad press", after all.

Nobody, especially a company like Wizards, wants to be hearing that they are a racist over and over on repeat in the Twittersphere.

There is a difference between bad press, and that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure if it does. A lot of the time, companies use or even manufacture controversy in order to get free advertising by people on social media. "There's no such thing as bad press", after all.

You think the Hadozee was a manufactured controversy?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How much would it have impacted further sales, if they did nothing? I would wager that the continued (rightful) complaints would have registered, would have been picked up by the press. That errata needed to happen. 100%

See my reply to @Micah Sweet. There's no such thing as bad press. I'm not convinced that Spelljammer would have lost money because of the Hadozee controversy. Not that I'm against the errata, I'm glad they acknowledged it and changed it, but I think you're overblowing the effect that the controversy would have.

Because then it wouldnt be in my book. That is the totality of it. If I am going to buy a book, I want it to be complete. If they cannot help themselves from ruining things (in my completely biased and subjective view as we all hold) then I'm not going to take a piece from here, download this over there, print them out as I despise digital, and then...what, cut the book up? No.

I have a binder full of the UA that I want to use at my table.

And this is the funny part. The adventure sounds great. The various Orders are described, behave, and look to line up all as they should. It actually looks pretty much perfect.

But they removed restrictions anyway, despite pitching the whole thing exactly in line with how the setting should be, they just had to do it. I have a view on why, but its just pissing me off so...it is what it is.

Yeah, I think that's extremely irrational and probably unhealthy mentally. Getting that mad at a tiny, tiny change that you're not going to allow anyways, and you like the adventure, and the adventure follows the rule that you like from previous editions . . . that's just anathema to me. There are small aspects of every single 5e book that I don't like. But if I like the concept of the book besides those small aspects, I buy it, because it will enhance my play experience.

You do you, though.

 

[MGibster]

It's difficult for me to think WotC needs a new visionary leader when it appears to be doing just fine right now. It might not always be goign in the direction I like, but it appears very healthy.

 

[darjr]

I'm not sure if it does. A lot of the time, companies use or even manufacture controversy in order to get free advertising by people on social media. "There's no such thing as bad press", after all.

There is if it hurts sales. And this looks like it has. Not only for the existing product but it kinda looks like the malaise surrounding Spelljammer has suppressed Dragonlance sales.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Nobody, especially a company like Wizards, wants to be hearing that they are a racist over and over on repeat in the Twittersphere.

There is a difference between bad press, and that.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have done something. I'm just saying that I don't think controversy is inherently bad for business.

You think the Hadozee was a manufactured controversy?

Oh, no, almost definitely not. But other companies have purposefully manufactured controversy in order to get free advertising online (remember when people were burning Nikes because Colin Kaepernick was in one of their commercials? Stuff like that). I was just saying that I don't think controversy inherently makes a company make less money, and that there are examples of companies using it to their benefit.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There is if it hurts sales. And this looks like it has. Not only for the existing product but it kinda looks like the malaise surrounding Spelljammer has suppressed Dragonlance sales.

But were the dips in sales (if there were any) because of the Hadozee controversy, or how small and lackluster the books are? And is Dragonlance doing poorly (if we take your word for it) because of Spelljammer, or is it because there's just inherently less interest in the setting or this type of setting-adventure hybrid book?

 

[Scribe]

I have a binder full of the UA that I want to use at my table.

Right, and this is fine, 3PP? Homebrew? Go nuts. All good.

Yeah, I think that's extremely irrational and probably unhealthy mentally.

No argument whatsoever, I fully agree, but it simply is what it is as we all have our limits and issues.

 

[Scribe]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have done something. I'm just saying that I don't think controversy is inherently bad for business.

Oh, no, almost definitely not. But other companies have purposefully manufactured controversy in order to get free advertising online (remember when people were burning Nikes because Colin Kaepernick was in one of their commercials? Stuff like that). I was just saying that I don't think controversy inherently makes a company make less money, and that there are examples of companies using it to their benefit.

1. I get what you are saying, and yes I fully agree that Governments and Corporations will generate controversy, or fabricate it, for their own agendas. Its a poor line of discussion for the forum though.

2. The Spelljammer stuff, is not that, and intentional or not, needed to be addressed.

Thats all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have done something. I'm just saying that I don't think controversy is inherently bad for business.

Oh, no, almost definitely not. But other companies have purposefully manufactured controversy in order to get free advertising online (remember when people were burning Nikes because Colin Kaepernick was in one of their commercials? Stuff like that). I was just saying that I don't think controversy inherently makes a company make less money, and that there are examples of companies using it to their benefit.

Maybe not all controversy, but social justice-related controversy is, to my mind, a different kettle of fish.