|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:36PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
I guess that's what they're going for with 'modular'
But really, what makes supporting multiple editions a bad idea? There are 3.X/PF players, 4e players, AD&D players, they all have their FAVORITE D&D experience already!
At worst, what we have here is the elimination of Coke n' Sprite to create some kind of Spoke to 'unify the fanbase'
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:42PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
I guess that's what they're going for with 'modular'
But really, what makes supporting multiple editions a bad idea? There are 3.X/PF players, 4e players, AD&D players, they all have their FAVORITE D&D experience already!
At worst, what we have here is the elimination of Coke n' Sprite to create some kind of Spoke to 'unify the fanbase'
You meen Coke n' Sprite to Spook the fanbase right? 
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:50PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2004
|
Supporting multiple editions is a laudable goal, but previous experience has shown that it's just not sustainable as a business model. TSR was keeping Basic and Advanced versions of the game going at the same time, and they eventually figured something out: most of their fanbase was locked out of half of their product. With a low-margin business like RPGs, cutting your potential sales of a given product like that is tantamount to suicide.
Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who could be "won over" to a new edition. I'm among the group that sees each previous edition as flawed in some significant way. If they were to create a modular edition that would let me address those flaws in my own way without a serious overhaul, I'd be completely into it.
Rhymes with Bruce
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 5:52PM
#4
|
|
|
You make crystal clear Coke. And you tell them it's kool-aid. 
République du Plateau, Montréal, Québec
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 6:34PM
#5
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Just to continue the analogy a bit, is there any reason we can't have...
Coke Classic
Diet Coke
Caffeine Free Coke
Caffeine Free Diet Coke
Cherry Coke
Vanilla Coke
Cherry Vanilla Coke
Diet Coke with Splenda
Coke Zero
Etc?
They're all coke, just different varieties and flavors.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 6:39PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
If you try and please everybody, you won't please anybody. Each edition should focus on a part of the gamming communtiy and attempt the cater to what they want in a game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 6:50PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
Just to continue the analogy a bit, is there any reason we can't have...
Coke Classic
Diet Coke
Caffeine Free Coke
Caffeine Free Diet Coke
Cherry Coke
Vanilla Coke
Cherry Vanilla Coke
Diet Coke with Splenda
Coke Zero
Etc?
They're all coke, just different varieties and flavors.
That depends. Coca Cola is a huge multinational megacorp easily worth billions and billions of dollars all towards pushing "coke". Even then, the lion's share of it's product is one product: Coke Classic. That is it's flagship.
Do you really think that Wotc has (or Hasbro will permit Wotc to have) the resources to push a flageship game and a bunch of subsidiary games especially when each subsidiary game will have it's own start up and fixed and maintanence costs?
My point is what works on a massive sky (like Coke or Pepsi) doesn't necessarily work on the much smaller scale.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 7:02PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2004
|
Just to continue the analogy a bit, is there any reason we can't have...
Coke Classic
Diet Coke
Caffeine Free Coke
Caffeine Free Diet Coke
Cherry Coke
Vanilla Coke
Cherry Vanilla Coke
Diet Coke with Splenda
Coke Zero
Etc?
They're all coke, just different varieties and flavors.
That depends. Coca Cola is a huge multinational megacorp easily worth billions and billions of dollars all towards pushing "coke". Even then, the lion's share of it's product is one product: Coke Classic. That is it's flagship.
Do you really think that Wotc has (or Hasbro will permit Wotc to have) the resources to push a flageship game and a bunch of subsidiary games especially when each subsidiary game will have it's own start up and fixed and maintanence costs?
My point is what works on a massive sky (like Coke or Pepsi) doesn't necessarily work on the much smaller scale.
-Polaris
Not to mention, Coke is consumable. People are ok buying a case of vanilla coke on a whim, because when it runs out they can go back to the regular version. If we start having multiple incompatible versions of D&D, every purchase becomes a sunk cost and locks that player in a little more to that version, because his books don't go away. Sure it's a fallacy from a logical point of view, but it's the way people behave.
Rhymes with Bruce
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 7:15PM
#9
|
|
|
Supporting multiple editions is a laudable goal, but previous experience has shown that it's just not sustainable as a business model. TSR was keeping Basic and Advanced versions of the game going at the same time, and they eventually figured something out: most of their fanbase was locked out of half of their product. With a low-margin business like RPGs, cutting your potential sales of a given product like that is tantamount to suicide.
Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who could be "won over" to a new edition. I'm among the group that sees each previous edition as flawed in some significant way. If they were to create a modular edition that would let me address those flaws in my own way without a serious overhaul, I'd be completely into it.
That's the thing, the RPG business doesn't have to be so small margin. In this day and age with electronic distribution, they would charge $15-$20 per book, instead of $40 and I'd be they'd have a larger margin of profit.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 7:25PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
If you try and please everybody, you won't please anybody. Each edition should focus on a part of the gamming communtiy and attempt the cater to what they want in a game.
That's why we have pathfinder, retroclones, and 4e. Now 4e is called a failure because people are playing retroclones and pathfinder. WotC wants them all.
|
|
|
