Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CharlesRyan" data-source="post: 5413510" data-attributes="member: 5265">I want to go back and make a quick point about Matt's first post.Matt, as always, your thoughts are insightful and well stated. But in this case, you've missed one important factor which is relevant to the OP's position.D&D is a lifestyle brand. Most people connect to it by joining the social groups that embrace it, rather than through buying a product off a shelf. When managing that sort of brand, it's business suicide for a company to ignore the thought leaders within the social groups. They may be a small subset of the market--and even a subset that doesn't spend a lot of money--but they are incredibly influential among the rest of the marketplace.As one example, think about D&D Encounters. No matter how much fun you make a program like that, you won't have a single 12-year-old playing if you don't also have a small cadre of invested 20-something (or 40-something) players to GM the games and pull people in with their enthusiasm. That's an overt example, but there are dozens of more subtle examples.GW can get away with pushing out the 17-year-olds because they have a physical network of stores. In effect, they rely on paid employees as the thought leaders. That's a unique formula, and WotC can't emulate it.To the OP, it may look like WotC isn't supporting their old-timers because the focus for the past six months or so has been on Essentials, as they've tried to correct for a very old-timer bias that's existed for decades. I  think the Essentials push is just about over (because I think Essentials isn't supposed to be a revolving product line; they've now made just about all the Essentials books they need and will simply keep them in print) and you'll start to see attention shift back toward the invested player.We aren't hated; we are, in fact, loved and cherished. They just haven't been showing that love quite as directly for a few months. They'll come back to us!</blockquote>

Verification