WOTC and trust


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Sissyl wrote:
It would help if you cut some too...

Fair enough. Can you give me an example of where I've gone too far in this thread? I'm honestly not sure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
WoTC is the one that took their toys back. DTRPG may be wrong for saying "the toys will always be in our house", but that does not matter to some people.
Clearly. It ought to matter, but it doesn't. Much easier to blame the big company making a business decision than it is to blame the small company that lied to you because it made their service sound more attractive!

I get what you are saying, but it was still a poor move to make. I might not tell my gf that I will never cheat on her, but it is just assumed to be that way until otherwise stated. Likewise pdfs are normally able to be downloaded at will. This is more of an unwritten agreement thing, than a broken promise issue to people. It also did not help with the suddenness in which the decision was made. I am sure that even with a 30 day window, or even a 2 week window people would have been upset, but they would have been less upset people, and less people who were upset.

Now I don't know if WoTC said remove the files "right now", but with the way it was done, it was taken that way.


Scott Betts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
As for your trust comment--->Trust is a very large key to getting money from people, and any smart company will try to build it.

My argument is that a very, very small amount of trust is required for a tabletop game company. And most of that can be waived by providing the ability to try the game out for free, which has happened for the last three editions.

We're not talking about a medical insurance company, an airline, or a university. We're talking about what is, at its core, a bunch of people who write books.

Having free samples does not mean people will buy the product if they don't feel good about the provider. Whether it is a book or free-ware found online, the full version of either is not likely to do well unless people feel comfortable giving the company money.


Pan wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Tell you what, let us check the first post of the thread:

Pan wrote:
Many folks have mentioned being turned off/away by WOTC products and/or decisions in the past 5-10 years.
Anything else?
And I'm talking about the subset of those people who said that their trust was broken by the release of 4e.

The word trust was something I scooped from other posters. What I really should have refered to is brand. There are many examples covering many products of why WOTC brand has gained an inconsistent reputation. What does WOTC need to do to change that for you. You being someone of course who was a customer and now feels the brand is inconsistent or untrustworthy.

Please lets not debate motives or let this go into E.war territory.

The brand and trust are tied together so either way it would not really matter. I think Sony is still suffering from their network being hacked a while back. The trust for that brand is not what it was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is what people are trying to say---> Having the right(legally) to do something does not make it morally right, or a good way to develop relationships(business or personal).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Wraithstrike, Bugleyman, TheJeff, Sissyle, my buddy RVT, and everyone else speaking similar things. I was a crap move on WotCs part and that's as simple as it gets. I'll personally buy a few Magic: The Gathering boosters and such, and MAYBE an intriguing-looking book or two, but they will not have my regular custom by any stretch of the imagination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

"Okay, guys, time for 4dventure! Let us focus on tactics and combat only, after all we are trying to attract the MtG and WoW players. Skills? Nah, we just make them a guessing game and call them skill challenges. What else?"

"Well, we could do inspiring monsters?"
"Nah, the bean counters want us to use only copyrightable names, so icefrostchoke elemental is what is going to happen."
"Darnit. How about interesting powers for the PCs?"
"So long as they can only do straight damage, inflict ongoing damage or conditions, or move people around the board. The ninety-year-old focus group doesn't understand more than that. They also think we should have more hotels, free parking and do not pass go."
"Umm.. Okay. I know, we can focus on the IP we already have, like the Forgotten Realms?"
"No, focus groups have said there is too much stuff on it, so we are carpet bombing it with a Spellplague and then a century time jump. The fans are going to love it, by our calculations."
"What calcuations?"
"The ninety-year olds told us."
"Sounds like a tough situation... Computer stuff?"
"Yeah, about that, we really want people to pay every month instead of just once, you know like WoW, so we are going to make this really cool three dimensional dungeon delving system. All the details aren't sorted out yet, but hey, we can still promise it."
"The Paizo guys are REALLY getting fan support nowadays, shouldn't we throw some support their way?"
"Hmmm, no. Let's cancel both mags, and fold it into our monthly scheme. We can even do a cool corporate sketch about four parts of the experience interlocking and supporting each other - the bosses upstairs would really like that."
"But... Cancel? Is that wise?"
"Their fans are our fans. They can't do diddlysquat without legal access to the ruleset."
"Uh, sir... You do know about the OGL?"
"Damn, we... I know, we release a new one, charge five grand for using it and include that those that do never get to publish under the OGL again! I mean, this is the new hot stuff, it has to sell...

*rolls eyes*

And the edition war continues......


bugleyman wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
It would help if you cut some too...
Fair enough. Can you give me an example of where I've gone too far in this thread? I'm honestly not sure.

Heh. I merely meant that maybe you should cut the quote you made of the text you felt I had said too much in. =)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Scott's white knighting for WotC always blows up a thread.

Thankfully, I wasn't a victim of that pdf BS, which is a dick move. On both WotC AND DriveThruRPG. And this is why I absolutely hate digital versions of things. Games, books, movies, etc. They are so easily made unavailable after purchase. And also why I don't care whether WotC provides pdfs or not for 5th edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.

And yet the "decisions" you paraphrased are basically your negative opinions of the edition and less to do with actual reasons for those changes.

Second, how does ANY of that constitute a trust violation? From my perspective the only thing WotC is at fault for is the taking away of PDFs people bought (though why they weren't saved and stored on a device is beyond me) and falling through with their promises on a VTT and on-line tools. Everything else, no it wasn't a breach of trust. They didnt go in a direction people like and they got mad and complained.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.

And yet the "decisions" you paraphrased are basically your negative opinions of the edition and less to do with actual reasons for those changes.

Second, how does ANY of that constitute a trust violation? From my perspective the only thing WotC is at fault for is the taking away of PDFs people bought (though why they weren't saved and stored on a device is beyond me) and falling through with their promises on a VTT and on-line tools. Everything else, no it wasn't a breach of trust. They didnt go in a direction people like and they got mad and complained.

If a company i purchase from goes in a direction i do not wish for or desire, then i can no longer trust them to make what i like. How many things have to diverge from a person's preferences for them to be able to say they have no trust in the company's actions to satisfy your personal definition?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think sites which were distributing others' PDFs should have made it clear that they werent guaranteeing the downloads would be available in perpetuity.

That doesnt really relate to the trust issue though - people trusted WotC not to pull the rights of distribution and WotC betrayed that trust. They had the right to do what they did, but given other RPG companies allow sites to offer perpetual downloads, wasnt it reasonable to assume WotC would also?

Trust isnt about doing what's legal it's about doing what's expected.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Personally, I think sites which were distributing others' PDFs should have made it clear that they werent guaranteeing the downloads would be available in perpetuity.

That doesnt really relate to the trust issue though - people trusted WotC not to pull the rights of distribution and WotC betrayed that trust. They had the right to do what they did, but given other RPG companies allow sites to offer perpetual downloads, wasnt it reasonable to assume WotC would also?

Trust isnt about doing what's legal it's about doing what's expected.

There's also a difference between "guaranteeing the downloads would be available in perpetuity" and "You won't be able to get them tomorrow".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do think Wotc did overeact somewhat. Yet DriveThruRPG should have also made sure they could sell Wotc PDFs. Both are at fault. Posters can keep making it onesided if they like. It wont chanfge what truly happened. While I say the bulk of my stuff on my hard drive. I do save important things on USB keys or spare hard drives. Which people should have been doing in the first place. Relying on just ones hard drive or DriveThruRPG was asking for disaster.

Wotc never lost trust with me. I knew full well that 4E was going to be different. At the time glad for it. I really did not want to be anywhere near 3.5 when 4E was released. There were previews. The 4E devs outright told us it would be different. Why expect it not to be is beyond me. To think they would not release a new edition after they released 3.5 so soon was pretending to be truly naive imo.

To me Wotc and Paizo are companies I owe nothing to. They are not my friends or close family. They have done nothing to me as a favor. And no releasing rpgs is for their benefit mostly not as a favor to me. I would lose trust if a good friend slept with my girlfriend. Switching editions while Im tired of it is not going to go away. Eventually Paizo may have to do the same.

A rehashed rpg with new art and no changes is not going to go over that well outside of these forums. Already some in the hobby avoid PF because rightly or wrongly they dont feel its too different from 3.5. Good luck trying to sell it a second time. Espcially if 5E can pull off being modular enough to allow all previous editions to be used.

As for it being Wotc fault that people edition war. No matter what we would still be doing itt. Using Wotc is just a excuse for bad behavior. Edition warring benefits no one. If one is going to engage in such behavior at least have the courage to admit that its being done because one whats to do it. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to act that way. So spare the Wotc made me do it BS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Thankfully, I wasn't a victim of that pdf BS, which is a dick move. On both WotC AND DriveThruRPG. And this is why I absolutely hate digital versions of things. Games, books, movies, etc. They are so easily made unavailable after purchase. And also why I don't care whether WotC provides pdfs or not for 5th edition.

BINGO! We have a winner!

WOTC handled the OGL and PDF issue just like the major record labels handled Napster (watched a documentary on it just today:) and WOTC took it in the shorts financially for just the same customer unfriendly reason as did the major record labels.

Take-away lesson from this?
Lots of stuff is legal and not the least bit right or long-term business friendly.

Plus, with all digital services they track your every move:
- how many times did you "rewind" to watch that scene.
- what passages did you mark in the book.
- how long you took to read the book.
- on what device and where and for how long did you view the book/movie.
- etc.

Heck, I have enough free stuff (genuinely free - like the link to the Final Fantasy d20 PDFs someone posted on another thread) that I could comfortably not buy anything gaming related for several years I'm certain. I will though ;)


Pan wrote:


The word trust was something I scooped from other posters. What I really should have refered to is brand. There are many examples covering many products of why WOTC brand has gained an inconsistent reputation. What does WOTC need to do to change that for you. You being someone of course who was a customer and now feels the brand is inconsistent or untrustworthy.

Please lets not debate motives or let this go into E.war territory.

Okay, this is a question I can answer.

Trust is something I generally reserve for people. I didn't have any trust in the WotC 'brand' before 4e, and I don't have any now.
I do have some trust in Bruce Cordell and James Wyatt, both of whom are involved in writing 5e, I don't have a very strong feeling about Mike Mearls, because I didn't play 4e long enough and he wasn't as involved in 3e.
I don't think I am the target audience of your question, since the WotC brand never lost my trust (it never had it in the first place). But the literal answer would be that to gain my trust, the WotC brand would need to convince me it was a human:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

The PDF thing sucks, but, and this has become acutely important of late, no company is going out of their way to ensure your individual, personal best interest. Not even Paizo does that. You bought the product and got your copy. To keep that copy in the same place and expect nothing to happen ever is, as I said, untenable. The folks who bought them were responsible for their upkeep. Get a thumb drive, keep a zip file locally, and since I'm doing timelines, Dropbox became a thing in 2008: use it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

The PDF thing sucks, but, and this has become acutely important of late, no company is going out of their way to ensure your individual, personal best interest. Not even Paizo does that. You bought the product and got your copy. To keep that copy in the same place and expect nothing to happen ever is, as I said, untenable. The folks who bought them were responsible for their upkeep. Get a thumb drive, keep a zip file locally, and since I'm doing timelines, Dropbox became a thing in 2008: use it.

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Many folks have mentioned being turned off/away by WOTC products and/or decisions in the past 5-10 years. Many folks mention that they don’t trust WOTC any longer it’s quite evident that WOTC lost much of its social capitol. My question is for folks who say they no longer trust WOTC, is there a way for WOTC to repair their rep with you and what could they do to make that happen? Is it possible?

No, it's not possible (unless they somehow become a private company). Too many personnel changes mean that what they say today could be totally thrown out the window tomorrow.

Scott Rouse said that 4E would have an 8-10 year run. It lasted 4 before they stopped making products for it, and Scott is long gone.

So, if you bought into 4E thinking you'd have 10 years of new product support - surprise! No game for you!

(Now, all this said, I think they are doing everything right with 5E. The question is, will it last?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.

So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
thejeff wrote:

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.
So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.

How about you buy it, go to bed, and look to download it after work the next day only to find it not available? Still wouldn't feel wronged?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

4th edition came out in 2008, so 3rd edition died after 8 years, and 4th edition died after 6. And it was TSR whose editions lasted over a decade, after the pre-AD&D edition. So, it should read like this:

D&D: 1974 (3 years)
AD&D 1e: 1977 (12 years)
AD&D 2e (TSR): 1989 (8 years)
AD&D 2e (WotC): 1997 (3 years)
D&D 3e: 2000 (3 years)
D&D 3.5e: 2003 (5 years)
D&D 4e: 2008 (6 years)
D&D 5e: 2014

PFRPG: 2009 (5 years and counting)

AD&D lasted the longest, each edition living for 10+ years, while the editions under WotC have only lasted years in the single digits.

Is this WotC fault? Yes and no. The fault isn't solely on WotC's shoulders, but also with the consumers. The audience of D&D changed, and people get tired of the same thing quicker than they used to (as a whole).

My only guess is close to the ends of the edition lives, sales dropped to an unacceptable level for Hasbro, and WotC were told to come up with something new or else. I don't know how much truth is in that, but I am fairly certain that money had something to do with the quicker introduction of D&D editions.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

Where do you get 6.7 from?

You only get to count 2000 and up as full editions which Wotc controlled. Prior to that it was TSR.

And when did full product support end for 4e, last month or 2012?
Also again, Essentials should be considered a .5 since it requires a transition doc. That breaks that edition down even more.

d&d3e: 2000 (3 years) (last product in 2003)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (5 years) (last product in 2008)
d&d4e: 2008 (4 years) (last product in 2012)

Using these ranges on average its 4 years, It you're counting Essentials as a .5 to 4e it's much closer to 3 years per new edition/.5/half step.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
thejeff wrote:

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.
So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.

As I said before, it was perfectly within WotC's legal rights.

It was still a jerk move and it's understandable that people were (and still are) upset about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rathendar wrote:
How about you buy it, go to bed, and look to download it after work the next day only to find it not available? Still wouldn't feel wronged?

Nope; I had my opportunity. That'd be when I contact customer service for a refund. Failing that, because the transaction is super fresh, I can call my bank and tell them it was a fraudulent charge because I was denied the product so the business transaction was incomplete and the merchant was unwilling/able to complete it. Like magic I have my money back. I've done this before. It's a matter of understanding who actually works for you and putting that to use.

To the point, as a matter of principle I download my products right away because I don't trust a business. Being a programmer, I'm well aware that business decisions change daily which has sweeping repercussions on tech. I literally see it all the time in emails, in code that I have to ask questions about to find out base assumption has changed, etc. On top of that the random issues that can crop up in tech can also deny you access. Basically, get it while the getting is good.

The concept of trust in business is a PR scam even with Paizo. If they found it expedient to do so, their PDFs would be down in a matter of moments. That's just the reality of business. The only thing in business of import is what you have legal obligations to do so, period. Everything else is secondary. You don't trust companies, or, rather, you shouldn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Rathendar wrote:
How about you buy it, go to bed, and look to download it after work the next day only to find it not available? Still wouldn't feel wronged?

Nope; I had my opportunity. That'd be when I contact customer service for a refund. Failing that, because the transaction is super fresh, I can call my bank and tell them it was a fraudulent charge because I was denied the product so the business transaction was incomplete and the merchant was unwilling/able to complete it. Like magic I have my money back. I've done this before. It's a matter of understanding who actually works for you and putting that to use.

To the point, as a matter of principle I download my products right away because I don't trust a business. Being a programmer, I'm well aware that business decisions change daily which has sweeping repercussions on tech. I literally see it all the time in emails, in code that I have to ask questions about to find out base assumption has changed, etc. On top of that the random issues that can crop up in tech can also deny you access. Basically, get it while the getting is good.

The concept of trust in business is a PR scam even with Paizo. If they found it expedient to do so, their PDFs would be down in a matter of moments. That's just the reality of business. The only thing in business of import is what you have legal obligations to do so, period. Everything else is secondary. You don't trust companies, or, rather, you shouldn't.

Well, that is a fairly well said reply, and i respect your view stated in it. I however still feel differently from you on this. Appreciate the perspective however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rathendar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.

And yet the "decisions" you paraphrased are basically your negative opinions of the edition and less to do with actual reasons for those changes.

Second, how does ANY of that constitute a trust violation? From my perspective the only thing WotC is at fault for is the taking away of PDFs people bought (though why they weren't saved and stored on a device is beyond me) and falling through with their promises on a VTT and on-line tools. Everything else, no it wasn't a breach of trust. They didnt go in a direction people like and they got mad and complained.

If a company i purchase from goes in a direction i do not wish for or desire, then i can no longer trust them to make what i like. How many things have to diverge from a person's preferences for them to be able to say they have no trust in the company's actions to satisfy your personal definition?

Let me ask, you find a product you like. Do you instantly trust them to continue to make the exact same product forever? I don't think it's about trust, something I generally associate with actual people, I think it's about expectations and disappointment. For some, the direction the game took was a disappointment to them. I severely doubt "trust" was broken. Perhaps people might be more cautious about purchasing products from them OR take a longer in-depth look to what their products do before purchase but that's a stance every consumer should be taking.

Further, 4E had LOADS of changes to try the product before buying it. And the same is true with NEXT. You can easily see the game's direction their taking and either that A) suits your needs or B) it doesn't. It has absolutely zip to do with gaining trust back.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

Let me ask, you find a product you like. Do you instantly trust them to continue to make the exact same product forever? I don't think it's about trust, something I generally associate with actual people, I think it's about expectations and disappointment. For some, the direction the game took was a disappointment to them. I severely doubt "trust" was broken. Perhaps people might be more cautious about purchasing products from them OR take a longer in-depth look to what their products do before purchase but that's a stance every consumer should be taking.

Further, 4E had LOADS of changes to try the product before buying it. And the same is true with NEXT. You can easily see the game's direction their taking and either that A)...

I don't see the same dividing line that you do, i'm afraid.

Let's take for example, one part of sissyl's paraphrasing of factors that you are referring to above.

Forgotten Realms 'updated' to 4th edition.
I bought FR stuff in 1e. (i did. i can see it on my shelf from here.)
2e comes out.

FR 2.0 transitions mostly intact without much of a shakeup. FR continues to release stuff, more places are developed.

I buy 2e FR stuff.

3e comes out.

FR 3.0 transitions with the Avatar saga, several core deities are deposed, and the novel trilogy/module trilogy to bridge the events are a bit (to me) lackluster but even the dead deities don't actually stay gone. It's also only a transient speedbump timeline wise, the Time of Troubles only lasted a couple years in the world timeline. Most of the regions just used it to add an extra angle to their 'various subplots happening here' and things would eventually settle back into what i liked and enjoyed.(i believe this was due to feedback from the customer base, but i don't have citations)

I'm not particularly happy with this myself, definitely less so then the previous transition, so my faith in the company making what i want goes down a bit. Regardless i buy 3e FR stuff because i like how the world still fits together.

3.5e comes out.

FR 3.5 incorporated the delve format into adventures and left me with the impression that more space was wasted in setting up mini grid skirmish map and rules that i believ could have been better used to develope the adventures further. My trust was further diminished, and my purchases dwindled. Where before i'd get almost everything for the setting, i was picking up less then 20%.

4e comes out.

FR 4.0 has sweeping changes, that wipe out previous regions completely. Points of Light cherry picks several recognizable name locations and throws them into a mashup with every other setting they had as well. Deities get the same treatment. Then they drop the spellplague, and timeline advance 100 years to 'start fresh' because the existing world was too complicated to learn quickly to new players.

However. I have spent the previous 14+ years buying product for, and learning that world they just swept under the table. I liked how much of it fit together. That was the FR i collected. 4e publishes almost nothing to support the FR world setting. I purchase nothing. 0%.(i did peruse and give it a chance to hook me.)

This to me, was an example of the end of my trust in that company to make what i want. Loss of faith in them to provide for MY desired niche. Feeling of disappointment. I don't think the terms are as separate as you are listing them off to be. It's all wrapped up together in my opinion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
thejeff wrote:

We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.

Hope you got the warning email.
So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.

It's really not about the legality.

When I buy a Paizo AP instalment, I trust that I'll get full color pictures. To the point that I dont check each time, just in case. If they suddenly release a product in black and white, it would be a violation of trust because they've set it up as a reasonable expectation.

They're not legally bound to continue as they have in the past, of course. Nonetheless, if they're going to make a change which I regard as significant, I'm going to feel let down unless it's telegraphed well in advance. Whether it's legal, justified, a good idea or anything else doesnt really enter into it. Trust is an emotive thing, based on previous dealings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Did I trust WotC: Yes, once upon a time. I felt that the folks in charge of the company were headed in a good direction, and were worthy of a certain level of trust - the trust was in the people that were in charge at the time.

Did WotC destroy that trust: Yes, in a long campaign of actions that I felt inconsiderate of their fans and supporters.

Were there reasons beyond the failing of trust that I do not like 4e: Yes - I cannot stand the game. They effectively turned what had been a roleplaying game into a tactical boardgame.

Were there reasons beyond the rules that I do not like 4e: Yes, in the lead up to 4e WotC decided to annoy me at every step, downplaying the parts of the game that I liked best and insulting me into the bargain.

Do I trust WotC now: No.

Will I buy 5e: No.

Will I buy anything from WotC ever again: Unlikely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Velvet Tiger wrote:
Ok, I see this conversation is getting nowhere because, apparently, you miss the salient point. You're too tied up in all the legalities and other nonsense to get that's it's not all bout the business model and what they CAN get away with, it's about what was a series d-bag moves on their part that showed a blatant disregard for their customers.

Those "legalities" and "nonsense" are the terms of the purchase that you made on the site. Do you believe those to be unimportant? Do you consider PDFs a product or a licensed service? That's an important question, and one that you seem eager to avoid answering (because it would force you into one of two positions, neither of which aligns well with your take on the situation).

No, they didn't have to make the decision that they did. On the other hand, making the decision that they did doesn't make them a bad company. If DTRPG had never made that promise, and consumers had never been provided the ability to re-download PDFs (without WotC's consent!), the outrage (or most of it) would have vanished because people's expectations would not have been elevated past what DTRPG was capable of providing.

You want WotC's business decisions to be constrained by a promise that DTRPG made to you. That isn't fair to them, and it doesn't make them "d-bags" (nice) to make those decisions. Giving one day's notice? Yeah, not a brilliant move, but at worst simply discourteous (and, again, never would have been an issue if DTRPG hadn't purposefully deceived its customers).

Quote:
It's also apparent that a civilized conversation cannot be had with you, so I see no point in continuing and have this turn into a flame war.

Red Velvet Tiger, this is the 4e (and other) sub-forum, and has some special rules. One of those rules is that attacks on other companies in the industry (including - but not limited to! - calling them "savages") are not acceptable (I believe it's a site-wide rule, but it's particularly harped-upon here and mentioned in this sub-forum's description because of its repeated problems with anti-WotC hostility). I have made a concerted effort to remain civil, and you are free to report any insulting comments you feel I may have made, but you don't get to lay the blame for a less-than-civilized conversation at my feet here. Your first post in this thread was hostile, uncivil, and broke the rules.

Quote:
I will respectfully leave this thread with a suggestion: apply for politics, Scott, because THAT'S where all of what you are speaking of belongs. I really believe you would excel at it. Good day, sir!

This, for example - a less-than-civil comment; a thinly-veiled insinuation that I lie or twist words. Not a particularly mature response, and certainly not constructive in any way. I normally don't mind when people get testy, but I do mind when they accuse me of hostility and then in the very same breath spout off crap like the above.

You can be better than this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
So a business shouldn't have the ability to determine who gets to distribute their product? That's wrong, to you?
That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. From the view of WotC - and, I'll be frank, the view of any reasonable company in a similar position (i.e., one which had no agreement with the distributor to provide re-downloads in perpetuity) - the customer had already received what they had paid for. At best, the ability to re-download previously purchased PDFs was a courtesy provided by DTRPG, one that WotC did not license them to provide and one which took advantage of WotC (placing them in a really uncomfortable position in the event that they every decided to, for example, switch or drop distributors, which is probably why it was not a provision of their license).

Again, there are two reasonable ways to treat a digital product - either it works the same as a physical product, in which case you (the consumer) are responsible for it once purchased (absent warranty), or it works as a service, in which case it is subject to the terms of the license under which it was purchased.

So, choose. In the former situation, the "legalese" doesn't matter because you aren't entitled to have it replaced, ever. What you download is what you get, and you have to purchase it a second time if you want a second copy.

In the latter situation, the "legalese" is of critical importance because it lays out what you get for your money. You, as the consumer, do not get to unilaterally dictate what your purchase entails. There are a number of people operating under the mistaken belief that giving an arbitrary amount of money to the company does give them the right to dictate what they get from that company, but they are wrong, and we call that gamer entitlement.

You cannot pick and choose. And, equally importantly, it's simply not fair to shackle WotC's entire digital distribution business to a set of terms they never agreed to. If someone tried to do that to you, you'd be (justifiably) furious. You got shafted because WotC wanted to change their digital model, and DTRPG's deception resulted in you having something that you thought you had access to stripped from you. Place the blame where it belongs.

I will note that the single day's notice thing was shady, but that doesn't obviate DTRPG of blame (and, I suspect, this decision was one borne more out of ignorance of the level of outcry it would generate). Don't attribute to malice what can be equally well-explained as a dumb choice.

Quote:
Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

Noooope, I really don't think that it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I get what you are saying, but it was still a poor move to make. I might not tell my gf that I will never cheat on her, but it is just assumed to be that way until otherwise stated.

I really don't think that the nearly-universal idea of relationship exclusivity is analogous to the idea that tabletop PDFs would remain re-downloadable in perpetuity. There are a number of digital products available today, all over the internet, that do not allow for re-download after a given window has expired. Not a safe assumption to make; in this case, it does make sense that users would believe that they could re-download those PDFs in the future, because that's what DTRPG deliberately led them to believe in order to make their service sound more attractive, despite them not actually having the ability to follow through on that promise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Scott's white knighting for WotC always blows up a thread.

That doesn't speak very highly of this community.

Of course, hostile, personal attack posts like yours above don't help matters at all. (I wonder if, perhaps, there is another term you could have used besides "white knighting" that describes it in a less offensive way?)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Prior to WotC purchasing TSR & acquiring all of TSR's IP, not just D&D, but Gamma World & several others as well; WotC had purchased another RPG a couple years earlier called Ars Magica. WotC stated that they would be publishing a new edition of Ars Magica, four book, slipcovers, maps, new sourcebooks, etc...
They published three books, two of which were updates of previously printed material & one completely new book. All the books were on par with the material published by the previous IP owner. Then they sold the IP and shut down their RPG subset, citing 'RPG's were not 'cost effective''.
Consequently, when I hear a couple years later that WotC has purchased TSR, the first thought that goes through my head is 'Well, guess I can kiss Dungeons & Dragons goodbye...'
I was agreeably surprised by Third Ed. I was agreeably surprised by 3.5. I was, unfortunately, not surprised by WotC's business practices, from which their treatment of their customer base stems.
As far as I am concerned, the brand is the same as it ever was, which was not that great.
For much the same reason I will never play another MMORPG owned by NCSoft, I will never play an RPG put out by WotC. The game may be great, but sooner or later, the company will screw you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rathendar wrote:
If a company i purchase from goes in a direction i do not wish for or desire, then i can no longer trust them to make what i like.

But you don't need that "trust" to continue to purchase from them. You can simply wait and see what they come out with. If you like the base game (which, again, you can try out without investing, so no need for "trust" there), you will probably continue to enjoy the supplements they release (or, at least, enough of the supplements that you won't feel left in the dark).

There's trust in a company, which is the surety that your investment in their product will not be devalued (or will cause you suffering) over time (through security breach, damage, etc.), and then there's "trust" in a company, which is simply the likelihood that they will make things you find worth buying. You're not at any point locked into purchasing their products blindly, so the latter isn't a concern with D&D. You can simply buy as you see fit, no "trust" required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
When I buy a Paizo AP instalment, I trust that I'll get full color pictures. To the point that I dont check each time, just in case. If they suddenly release a product in black and white, it would be a violation of trust because they've set it up as a reasonable expectation.

A fairly minor violation of trust, but absolutely!

Except that WotC never set that expectation up in the first place.

DTRPG did, and they didn't have the ability to follow through on it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure they did - they allowed third parties to offer multiple downloads over an extended period. The fact that they were acting in a certain way and then stopped means that they violated (some people's) trust.

It doesnt matter that other sites offered something they werent allowed to. WotC still took an unexpected action suddenly - that's where some people lost trust.

It's not a question of liability or legality, it's a question of actions. Even people who understood they didnt have rights in perpetuity didnt think WotC would tell the other sites to pull the PDFs - that just wasnt the done thing. WotC were allowed to change their minds, but without warning everyone they were about to, they were breaking that trust.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
I will note that the single day's notice thing was shady...

In my view, this was the only part that makes me level the accusation against WotC. If they'd given "fair" notice (whatever that is) I would be agreeing with you completely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Sure they did - they allowed third parties to offer multiple downloads over an extended period. They're not legally responsible, but the fact that they were acting in a certain way and then stopped means that they violated (some people's) trust.

It's not a question of liability or legality, it's a question of actions. Even people who understood they didnt have rights in perpetuity didnt think WotC would tell the other sites to pull the PDFs - that just wasnt the done thing. WotC were allowed to change their minds, but without warning everyone they were about to, they were breaking that trust.

It doesnt matter that other sites offered something they werent allowed to. WotC still took an unexpected action suddenly - that's where some people lost trust.

I understand that some people felt that their trust was betrayed. What you and I are going to have to simply disagree on is whether feeling betrayed by WotC was reasonable (and, by extension, whether holding a grudge for it four years later is reasonable). I don't feel that it is, because WotC had no obligation (legal or moral) to their customers to constrain their business decisions for the sake of a distributor's broken promise. Again, it was discourteous to do it as swiftly as they did, but that simply means that they didn't provide their distributor's customers a courtesy. That doesn't make them awful, or "d-bags", or any number of other choice insults. It just makes them not particularly good at customer service. And let's be honest, customer service has never been WotC's forte.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I will note that the single day's notice thing was shady...
In my view, this was the only part that makes me level the accusation against WotC. If they'd given "fair" notice (whatever that is) I would be agreeing with you completely.

Then you and I essentially agree; we're merely quibbling over how whether pulling them in one day makes them untrustworthy or merely bad at customer service (or, perhaps, untrustworthy when it comes to customer service?).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My first post in this thread was to sum up the poorly thought out actions of 4E. I am sure I forgot some. Much of it is, as you say, that I did not care for the game as it was. The focus was entirely wrong for me with a myopic focus on combat. But when I think about what of these decisions made me realize that I wanted nothing to do with it, that honour lies with nuking the Forgotten Realms. Now, it COULD still have been a good thing. Not every irradiated wasteland is uninteresting. The problem was that it was deeply and truly incompetently done. They killed off every NPC that wasn't an elf with the time jump. They cut out whole areas of map, usually into bottomless pits. They messed up several of the deities for no sensible reason (forced marriages, really???). They even killed Mystra despite releasing a trilogy of hardback adventures recently that let the PCs learn that plot! They put in new stuff too! Dragonborn! Yay... A whole new continent of dragon stuff. I never understood why they wanted to add Krynn to the setting. Everything was turned into points of light. And yet... The areas not destroyed into gaping chasms were virtually unchanged. The towns were in the same place. The roads, rivers and lakes were too, after a hundred years of chaos. So, they sold a campaign guide and a player guide and a single adventure, then didn't touch it for years. I have a seriously difficult time imagining a more incompetent handling of it. They make much about IP and branding... But part of that work is UNDERSTANDING THE BRAND. Trust? Yes, it does become an issue of trust when you release a campaign guide and a player guide for something. Part of why they sell so well is because people assume you intend to keep making products for it. If you do not, all you wanted was a short term money grab.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Blah, blah, blah
Someone Else wrote:
Blah, blah, blah

I repeat, it boils down to this:

Lots of stuff is legal and not the least bit right or long-term business friendly.

WOTC boffed big time with 4th Edition.

I'm Not slamming those who liked it.

Merely pointing out that they - WOTC - misread the market in a BIG BIG way.

If the partnership with Kobold and the team Mike Mearls is heading can't turn this around for D&D in the next two years then D&D will either be dead or owned by someone other than WOTC/Hasbro.

Businesses are in business to make money.

I have no idea how much WOTC lost on 4th Edition but the fact that they took ~3 years to test the waters with DnD Next and a slow roll out of 5th tells me this is their last hurrah unless this carefully orchestrated gamble pays off.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Scott Betts, I came back to see what's going on as far as discussion and what do I see? I see YOU being uncivil in the tone of your comments, then getting offended when people return the snideness. Your comments seem intended to belittle people who do not share your views. I find that to be a rather dubious strategy for proving your point, to be honest. And let's be honest, RVT was well within her rights to be angry at WotC after getting screwed over on the PDF situation. Who are you to tell her she shouldn't feel that way? Did YOU lose money on pulled PDFs because of WotCs decision to suddenly remove all PDFs? If you did, then you have a right to disagree with her point and have it mean something. If not, then you don't. Plain and simple, no sort of argument can change that fact.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, so after reading halfway through this thread I've noticed something. I'm not going to get into a debate because, in particular, and who will remain nameless, -coughcough- , Scott Betts, I won't be put to task and go round and round because your brain can't seem to register we have a voice that will not be walked over by your inconsistent and belittling tone. You're like a playground bully who won't take an opposing logical voice and let it stand. To the contrary, yours is the right one and all others are at fault. You are faulty. Hit your reset button, dude, and listen for a change.

Therefore, all I will say is that I don't trust WotC, not one bit. I may try 5th edition, I admitted as much a couple days ago. However, that doesn't mean I'll pay out hundreds and hundreds of dollars for the next, let's say, 6-8 years then push the reset button and have to do it all over again. I despise the 4e debacle and I especially loathe WotC by pulling PDF's. You see, I don't collect physical copies any longer. I use my iPad and store PDF's of so many different game systems in order to be remotely active and unencumbered. Yes, I was screwed over by WotC, regardless of what DTRPG said about availability. It is all summed up by this: THERE WAS NO FAIR NOTICE OF PULLING PDF ACCESS.

So this is why I'm with Paizo. I see the care and trust-building with these people. My trust, regardless of positive or negative, and also in whom that trust lies with or against, is not anyone else's business to dissect and be considered logical. Voicing our response to the OP is the point, not to be taken to task and made to seem faulty in where OUR trust resides.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vhayjen speaks truly! I honestly applaud you for a point well said, sir! You got a favorite + from me lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Silver Prince wrote:
Scott Betts, I came back to see what's going on as far as discussion and what do I see? I see YOU being uncivil in the tone of your comments, then getting offended when people return the snideness.

How is that even possible? I hadn't even posted in this thread until at least two other participants made hostile comments directed towards another company in the industry. I haven't been anything close to hostile myself, but even if I had I certainly wouldn't have been the one to introduce hostility to this thread.

If you see it, you are free to report it. I think I've done a decent job of remaining civil despite the - at times - overtly hostile tone of other posters.

Would you like to continue to make this personal, The Silver Prince?

Quote:
Who are you to tell her she shouldn't feel that way? Did YOU lose money on pulled PDFs because of WotCs decision to suddenly remove all PDFs?

Yes, I did! Though I wouldn't characterize it as "losing money". I paid for PDFs, and I received PDFs.

Quote:
If you did, then you have a right to disagree with her point and have it mean something.

I didn't realize that I had to buy my way into this thread! My bad!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vhayjen wrote:
OK, so after reading halfway through this thread I've noticed something. I'm not going to get into a debate because, in particular, and who will remain nameless, -coughcough- , Scott Betts, I won't be put to task and go round and round because your brain can't seem to register we have a voice that will not be walked over by your inconsistent and belittling tone. You're like a playground bully who won't take an opposing logical voice and let it stand. To the contrary, yours is the right one and all others are at fault. You are faulty. Hit your reset button, dude, and listen for a change.

This is what hostility sounds like. For those watching, if you want to accuse me of a lack of civility, go through this thread and find all the places where I called someone (not their reasoning, but the person themselves) faulty, a playground bully, belittling, etc. You won't, because I don't use personal attacks (precisely because I like to be able to draw a contrast between myself and those who do).

You can continue to act like this, Vhayjen. I typically don't report posts for hostility. But I don't feel it reflects well on you. You can make your points without resorting to insult, and if you feel you can't, then maybe your position ought to be reconsidered.

This thread is a really solid example of a long-running trend in this sub-forum: It's considered acceptable by this community (even though it's against the rules) to direct hostility at WotC, but it is considered unacceptable to defend those companies in the face of that hostility - and, worse, the community considers that defense hostility, no matter how civil, and reacts with additional hostility because it cannot bear to be disagreed with.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of this thread is really getting off in a bad way. The OP asked people for there opinion on if they trust Wotc anymore and why. If you want to say you trust wotc that is ok but attacking other community members for stating their opinions and beliefs of what they think is being a jerk. Please state you opinion and then read what everyone else thinks there is no reason to post again in response to another persons opinion.

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / WOTC and trust All Messageboards