|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 2:35AM
#71
|
|
|
I'd be even more happier if they sold thematic,non random sets of miniatures for a reasonable price.
For example aberration set 1&2, goblinoids 1,2 ,3 and so on.
I was asking for this when 4E was first released.
Most of my Minis insiders tell me non-randomized are going to be expensive and not terribly profittable.
Let's not even touch the hornet's nest of "3D Printers".
Really I wouldn't care if they were randomized if I were able to see what I was getting before hand. I mean just put 1 very rare, 2 rare, and 4 common minis in a clear plastic container and let people pick which box they buy. Then sell them individually at a higher price for those that want them. From my experience in working in the plastics industry (at the bottom level in manufacturing) the cost of a mini is about the same production wise they use about the same plastic about the same paint all the costs are about the same (with the exception of clear plastics being slightly more expensive). So what they talk about with the cost being too high is probably their projected profit margin. So a beholder might cost exactly the same to produce as an orc of the same size, but they expect to be able to sell the beholder for X amount more than the orc because its 'cooler' or whatever. Once they remove that thought process and return to an X% profit on each mini they don't have a problem. In fact the price of the minis could go down with that and they would make more money on bulk sales. Really it just seems they wanted another MTG and didn't realize that players didn't want that...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 2:56AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I totally agree with you lokiare.
currenty,at my fav comic shop, the minis are at a discounted price of 9.90Euro.And no one still buy them.
This mean that with a 8 piece booster, to complete a 60 mini set i'd have to spend about 500euro...and have lots of double o even triple ones.
Also,common or uncommon ones dont sell well on the web,and selling minis on internet is a great time investment (who i dont have).
I was taken away from MTG for the same reasons: too costly,and too much money involved to complete a set.
So, if they sell complete sets i'dgladly pay something more to not to bother with randomness,otherwise,as it is now the case,i spend nothing.
Sturdy paper miniatures (as the recently released pathfinder bestiary ones) are really cool (i own 2 sets of them) and cost 1/10 of the plastic ones.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 3:12AM
#73
|
|
|
~snip~
Really it just seems they wanted another MTG and didn't realize that players didn't want that...
Bingo.
That's WotC's flagship. The Original Card Board Crack peddler. With forced obsoletion to further drive the market.
Everything will be compared to it.
The more Hasbro meddles, the more they will expect profit in lines with static/reskinned board games.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 3:12AM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Any sort of "random" purchase set-up offends me. I didn't buy those packs of random plastic figures. I don't play MtG, and never would. And personally - anyone out there that does? I look down on you.
That was a really unfortunate thing to say. MtG is played by people with ridiculously high IQ's, MIT and CMU have both historically had significant numbers of players, and any given person with a Computer Science degree or Engineering degree has a pretty decent probability of having played it at some point.
So basically, what I'm getting at, is you just insulted a pretty fair number of people who're very likely an order of magnitude more intelligent than you are.
So while you're welcome to look down on people who are headed for 6 figure salaries and incredibly well respected positions, you're really going to be alone in "Looking down on them".
To be honest neither someone's tested IQ or their income (or future income) has any innate effect on whether I agree with their decisions in life. (I don't personally go around insulting the poor and stupid either)
The CCG setup is so blatantly manipulative*... but whatever it's your choice, it's your money. I'm not here to get into an argument on that subject. (Also doing so would really imply that I was much more serious with this statement than I really am)
I realize also that MtG and similiar games use the inflated prices of "rares" as a way of balancing more powerful cards. When you apply that randomization to something that lacks even the metagame justifications all you're left with is the manipulative gouging.
*I suppose it's possible at some point in the history of game's development that rares were just concieved of as being "rare". Only some players will have them and other players will marvel when the occasional giant world destroying monster drops onto the field. The fact that players responded to this by buying hundreds of dollars worth of cards just to get the one they actually wanted - or buy those rare cards outright for hundreds of dollars - was perhaps just a (profitable) accident. That defense only applys to the original design and release of the game though, and definately not to the imitators that flooded in afterwards.
Oh well, even if I try to direct this away from seeming like troll-bait, it's still off-topic.
All you MtG players will survive my snide internet condescension just as I survive the scorn of the well-heeled intelligensia. C'est la vie. (I totally drop french phrases into my speech on a daily basis)
edit: I inherited the messed up quote tags from the post I quoted... fixed
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 7:04AM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
For the game, it should be quality over quantity, and for the business practice it should embrace the community versus pushing it away or controlling it (ala digital content). And above all else, WOTC please be consistent, think before you speak, and be accountable for your actions.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 7:29AM
#76
|
|
|
WotC would alienate me if instead of simply having 5E provide for different styles of D&D they instead cave in to people asking for validation of their playstyle over that of others. This is important enough to me that it would alienate me if they end up doing it by accident, and I'm looking for them to make a concerted effort to avoid validating some playstyles over others.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 8:02PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2009
|
For me it would be dropping support for 4e like a hot potato, just to force me onto 5e.
I pay for a DDi subscription so I can use the character builder and store my characters online. If that goes, then I would be cutting my subscription. The magazine content has been rather hit and miss for a while now. It has gotten better of late, but only after a large break. So it's mainly the OCB that's keeping me here.
At present, 5e doesn't really appeal to me for many reasons and I have players who are happy with 4e. I have a lot of books and adventures yet to be played so that will keep us going for years. I might even be good enough by then to create my own adventures.
But I've found creating 4e characters by hand is quite hard due to the amount of material available. It's just easier to have the computer do it for me/us.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 14, 2012 - 8:21PM
#78
|
|
|
1) Dropping online support for 4E. As far as I'm concerned if you spend a half-a-decade trying to drive people to online support and structure the game such that it's rather difficult to play sans online support you create an implicit contract with your player to preserve said online support.
2) Not allowing substantial 3rd Party Support. Don't care about the details too much as long as it's there, but WoTC hasn't proven able to support it's own products sufficiently. I'll take my chances having to dig through some duds to find the high quality material WoTC by and large doesn't seem willing/able to provide.
3) Not selling content via PDFs, especially for adventures (I want to be able to write in the margins)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 3:02AM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2008
|
Once again great topic iokiare.
Bussiness practices that alienated me or known friends.
1) dragon and dungeon being a subscription only option.
They are great hooks for players and dms alike. They can help new parties with new ideas and adventures without having to pay for a big published adventure or setting. Kids bought them and used them. Why demand a master card for this? Base magazine printing on demand but keep the option there.
2) lack of dm support.
So many splatbooks, so many players options but so few dm tools, so few quality adventures.
3) lack of campaign support
Balance your splatbooks with fluff/adventure books, board games easily available to a non rpg crowd. This will keep power creep out of our edition for a longer period. It will make campaign fans happy. Pick 1,2 or 3 settings and support them within reason. Give other settings to 3rd parties so they can support those as well.
Balance is important both in game mechanics and product line if we want a successful edition. Something stable and exciting that will inevitably attract a larger crowd.
4) The less is more mentality.
I cant understand it and I dont like it. For me it was always a poor marketing strategy trying to convince me that I should pay the same price for less content and I should be happy about it.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 9:48AM
#80
|
|
|
Once again great topic iokiare.
Bussiness practices that alienated me or known friends.
1) dragon and dungeon being a subscription only option.
They are great hooks for players and dms alike. They can help new parties with new ideas and adventures without having to pay for a big published adventure or setting. Kids bought them and used them. Why demand a master card for this? Base magazine printing on demand but keep the option there.
2) lack of dm support.
So many splatbooks, so many players options but so few dm tools, so few quality adventures.
3) lack of campaign support
Balance your splatbooks with fluff/adventure books, board games easily available to a non rpg crowd. This will keep power creep out of our edition for a longer period. It will make campaign fans happy. Pick 1,2 or 3 settings and support them within reason. Give other settings to 3rd parties so they can support those as well.
Balance is important both in game mechanics and product line if we want a successful edition. Something stable and exciting that will inevitably attract a larger crowd.
4) The less is more mentality.
I cant understand it and I dont like it. For me it was always a poor marketing strategy trying to convince me that I should pay the same price for less content and I should be happy about it.
Thank you, and I agree with everything you said. Mostly I just think WotC is asking the wrong questions. One of their surveys should have the title to this thread as a question with a big blank box to type in what you want and then have someone collate it into the biggest categories...
|
|
|
