|
thanks Darrin Drader, that was an excellent exposition of the topic, we will see what happen in this 2 years
Of course, all this could be more a symptom of this this more
than anything else.
as a friend likes to say
"i think it's a little from column A, a lot from column B"
|
The experiment for marketing D&D as an electronic product traces back to when Pool of Radiance was made. The biggest info point Hasbro has on that can go is how much Infrogrames paid for Hasbro Interactive and the D&D game rights. Note, that sale caused more than a bit of disruption with Master Tools, and is still a reason why the DDI cannot be designed to do certain things. (As opposed to it not being designed except for a very small part so far.)
I was aware that the Infogrames (Atari) license deal caused Master Tools to be abandoned. I was not aware that the repercussions of the licensing arrangement left DDI constrained. Can you elaborate?
As for whether D&D can be leveraged as a brand for an MMO, possibly it cannot. That does not mean it cannot be managed with console games. Also keep in mind that just because DDO also failed does not change the simple numbers of TRPG sales compared to electonic products sales. Ultimately the money is with electronics, not tabletop...
DDO may not be a success on the order of WoW, but it has not failed either. The game is still live and development of new features continues (which is more than many other MMOs can say *cough*TabulaRasa*cough*).
|
|
Let me begin by saying this is a well written post and some very good thinking. There are a couple of points I want to discuss further, however, and a couple of points I disagree with. All in all though, a very good post and a pleasure to read as well as to respond to.
I would argue that due to a good number of the people they cut, and the fact that they cited DDI as performing below expectations, WotC might have been experimenting with the idea of converting D&D to a purely digital product, but that this experiment is failing fast.
You may be right in this. However, I imagine we will see a digital tabletop before the towel gets thrown in. Something must be brought to market. You may have deeper insight than I do, but I would expect the people at the top of the org chart to get nuked if the product line and the entire division failed to perform. If the level of investment is sufficient, then I imagine there will be a drive to replace the folks who failed to execute and re-staff with individuals who will be able to deliver. That’s how I run things and I have 1,182 folks in my command chain.
And why wouldn't it? People already have enough MMOs to choose from, including one called D&D that people have pretty well rejected already. You can't make D&D into WoW and expect it to be wildly successful. Besides, WotC has never been particularly good at creating electronic products. They aren't a software company. As someone who used to work alongside the Dev team, I know that they were experienced programmers and developers who were constantly frustrated because the business side knew paper based games, not electronic ones, and as a result, didn't give them what they needed to be successful.
The trick in fully mining the digital niche is coming up with a mechanism that replicates the tabletop XP as much as possible. There are people using all sorts of online programs all the time to play D&D. Most of these solutions are cobbled together. I have seen Skype and Excel used to create a tabletop and simulate people's presence around a table. Many people want this still of play. This is especially true of "living games." There is fair potential using this medium.
For the record, I think Paizo could do this very well by forming a partnership with someone like D20 Pro or Battlegrounds. This site is a fine portal and generates fair traffic. Likewise, Paizo content is stellar and in RPGs, content is King.
D&D as a player acquisition product? Give me a break. D&D has always been niche. It just happens to be niche with a wide fan base that enjoyed fad status for a while and otherwise has been built up over thirty years. And that fan base is turning their back on it faster now than ever before. 4E is competing not only with 3E, but also with 2e and 1E, and 4E isn't doing so well. People like the sacred cows they're so fond of killing off, and while younger players will filter in as always, you shouldn't change the entire flavor of your product just to try to bring them in. That's New Coke. It failed. Evidence is surfacing that 4E is failing too.
No other RPG product line has the presence and strength of brand that D&D has. None. Pull or kill D&D and other RPGs will be hard pressed to get into book stores. Hasbro provides the brand reach and penetration that it would not have, otherwise. Having used 4E to teach all the neighborhood kids D&D, I can tell you it is a simple and efficient tool for introducing kids to the game. That is really a strength of the edition. It is much simpler to run. I oversaw the administration of Blackmoor for two years for Dave Arneson. We built our first four episodes as 3.5 training episodes. Teaching 3.5 to newbies or folks who hadn't played since 1.0 was rough. I've been doing the same thing with 4E at my FLGS. It's just easier to use and simpler to teach. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of 3.5 and still play it. However, 4E is a great recruitment platform.
As to evidence that 4E is failing, please elaborate. I am not disputing this, and am not surprised by that. I'd just like more detail.
I know numerous gamers personally. These aren't people who hang out on message boards or are names on products. These are people who have doctorates and work at universities, and are project managers for companies you've likely never heard of, and are librarians, and restaurant workers, and engineers, and military personnel. Of the whole lot of them, many own the 4E books. Of them, I know one guy who actually likes the game and plays it. Everyone else is either playing 3rd edition, a D20 derivative, or some other game entirely.
My own personal survey in Atlanta shows a three way split. 1/3 playing 3.5. A 1/3 playing 4E and a 1/3 going both ways.
The success of 4E ultimately doesn't come down to the total number of core books you sell in the first few months, but in whether or not you can continue selling supplements for years after the edition has been released. So far, based on the people I know in the real world, and on the reports I've read from the retailers, and from the simple fact that I can review the game honestly and impartially and come away feeling that it's sorely lacking that I think 4E and the D&D brand in general is in deep, deep trouble.
I don't dispute this. I am not finding the new books at Barnes and Nobles anymore.
I'm not a fan of WotC's business practices, but I genuinely like a lot of the people who still work there. I don't want to see them lose their jobs. Chris Perkins, James Wyatt, Bruce Cordell, Rich Baker, Bill Slavicsek, Rob Heinsoo, Kim Mohan, and others - all very cool, very intelligent guys who really do have the best interests of the game and its fans at heart. They just happen to have made a game I don't care for - kind of like the Beatles' White Album, and yes, I did just compare them to the Beatles.
What's wrong with the White album?
Ultimately I don't know if the D&D brand will survive this. My gut instinct is that the edition will fail within two years and the brand will be shelved for five to ten years, then brought back out once they feel there is demand for it again. If that happens, my prediction is that rather than have one company with one huge RPG brand out there, the vacuum would be filled with numerous smaller companies. The demand for roleplaying games will not simply disappear because the giant has fallen. There's a pretty sizable fan base out there that likes spending money on new RPG products. That won't go away just because D&D does. In the process, these currently small companies, like Paizo, will have a chance to grow like never before because they will no longer be living in the shadow of D&D.
The hazard for Paizo and all these groups is that they will find themselves in the old media trap that newspapers and TV are in. More and more these mediums serve an aging demographic cohort, the boomers, and are unable to acquire new consumers in a significant and meaningful way. For D&D the reach is a little deeper back into GenX (my cohort). Serving these two groups until the end of their buying and life cycle will get you 20 years worth of declining market penetration and is like riding a dinosaur into the ground. Can a company prosper in that niche? SURE. Will Paizo, etc. have a Renaissance? As they say in the south, "Might could." Is their long term hazard without the weight of a durable corporate body and infrastructure behind RPGs? Yes, there is some.
I very much agree with your analysis of how D&D will be handled if 4E chokes.
So the point of this long rambling post is that I don't think that the failure of D&D would be the death of the industry. Maybe some of those guys I mentioned earlier could reform a new company that will make a new RPG that will be good enough to keep them and a few others employed full time. I do think that getting D&D, or at least the roleplaying industry in general, out from under the weight of a huge corporate entity would be a good thing for everybody involved - the customers and the professionals. I just think that getting there will be a painful process.
Well said.
|
|
I was aware that the Infogrames (Atari) license deal caused Master Tools to be abandoned. I was not aware that the repercussions of the licensing arrangement left DDI constrained. Can you elaborate?
The same factors that restricted development of aspects of Master Tools still exist. WotC cannot make a game platform for D&D. There are certain things they simply cannot automate in any supporting software.
It has been some time so I cannot remember where I saw the references, but this has been confirmed by WotC people. They cannot set the virtual tabletop (which does not exist of course) to have little activator buttons like in WoW that trigger powers, roll the dice to see if they hit, roll the damage, and apply the damage, or that automatically remind you of a continuing effect, apply the damage, and roll the save. They cannot make it a "game", only a series of "tools".DDO may not be a success on the order of WoW, but it has not failed either. The game is still live and development of new features continues (which is more than many other MMOs can say *cough*TabulaRasa*cough*).
Heh. At some levels of a corporate hierarchy, failing to displace WoW means it failed.
Still, you are correct. The game is still live, and still taking in monthly fees, something D&DI is not doing. Again, that merely highlights that the "experiment" is not the marketing of D&D as an electronic product, but letting a "pack of gamers" produce said electronic product.And again, I am not saying any of that as a put down on anyone recently laid off. I am looking at the corpspeak that has appeared. From that notice on ICv2:
Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in. “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said. “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms. The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”
(Hightlighting mine.)
They are going out of house.
They have more plans for digital products.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Wikipedia says the same from James Ernest... but i would take inside information from insiders than from other sourcesWait. I though Ms Stevens left voluntarily to form Paizo.
There have been quite a few layoffs since then—ones of note to Paizo include our CEO Lisa Stevens in 2000,...
Well, the way James put it in one interview, "There was a round of layoffs in 1995 and I volunteered to be among them."
As for Lisa, her employment with Wizards ended in 2000; we started Paizo in 2002.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I was aware that the Infogrames (Atari) license deal caused Master Tools to be abandoned. I was not aware that the repercussions of the licensing arrangement left DDI constrained. Can you elaborate?
Infogrames has the exclusive interactive electronic rights for D&D, so the DDI has to remain "non-interactive."
ya mean people still think the GSL will improve greatly...I am shocked
I was aware that the Infogrames (Atari) license deal caused Master Tools to be abandoned. I was not aware that the repercussions of the licensing arrangement left DDI constrained. Can you elaborate?Infogrames has the exclusive interactive electronic rights for D&D, so the DDI has to remain "non-interactive."
Uh....what's the definition of "interactive?"
Cuz, it seems to me that a character generator is "interactive". If you input anything and get a result, that would seem to be "interactive". Unlike, say, the compendium, which simply stores data available for viewing.
|
|
Uh....what's the definition of "interactive?"
Cuz, it seems to me that a character generator is "interactive". If you input anything and get a result, that would seem to be "interactive". Unlike, say, the compendium, which simply stores data available for viewing.
Among computerati, 'interactive' usually means that the software operates continuously in response to user inputs (as opposed to the old submitted-job-queue model of computing, where software ran on its own and then returned a response). The user's input becomes part of the software's state machine model.
Apparently WOTC and Infogrames have agreed on another working definition for DDI. Either that, or there are lawsuits a-brewin'...
|
|
As to evidence that 4E is failing, please elaborate. I am not disputing this, and am not surprised by that. I'd just like more detail.
I'll dispute it. I want to know Darrin's source and proof, outside of anecdotes that is. Because I can provide an endless supply of anecdotes that support the opposite view. In the end, neither one of us would be proving anything.
I just don't see a dismal failure of 4e right now.
I am not trying to be a jerk here, even though I am sure it seems that way. I just want to see proof. Honestly, I don't think many of us really know what is going with 4e, not even those in the industry. But if there is "inside information", how reliable is that without all inclusive, hard numbers?
How's it doing in Germany?
|
As far as I know, the current holder of the D&D license (Feder & Schwert), that released the 4E core rules in late summer/autumn, ended the license or didn't renew it. I don't know about the official reasons, but one could speculate... The D&D-license was the main product of this publisher for years. I guess ending the license says a lot about 4E's state here in Germany.
|
|
As far as I know, the current holder of the D&D license (Feder & Schwert), that released the 4E core rules in late summer/autumn, ended the license or didn't renew it. I don't know about the official reasons, but one could speculate... The D&D-license was the main product of this publisher for years. I guess ending the license says a lot about 4E's state here in Germany.
Even that seems to be up for debate on ENWorld, which goes back to the anecdote problem. So, who knows? I would imagine the ending of the license would hinder things but, as far as I have heard, the translations were terrible in any case. So the decreased popularity might have just as much to do with that than any objections to game play.
|
|
Well, the way James put it in one interview, "There was a round of layoffs in 1995 and I volunteered to be among them."
As for Lisa, her employment with Wizards ended in 2000; we started Paizo in 2002.
thanks for the Intel Vic
|
As to evidence that 4E is failing, please elaborate. I am not disputing this, and am not surprised by that. I'd just like more detail.I'll dispute it. I want to know Darrin's source and proof, outside of anecdotes that is. Because I can provide an endless supply of anecdotes that support the opposite view. In the end, neither one of us would be proving anything.
I just don't see a dismal failure of 4e right now.
I am not trying to be a jerk here, even though I am sure it seems that way. I just want to see proof. Honestly, I don't think many of us really know what is going with 4e, not even those in the industry. But if there is "inside information", how reliable is that without all inclusive, hard numbers?
I've mentioned on the boards before, and I'll prolly mention again I might live in a small populated area, so the scope of the group is small.. but since 4E was released the gaming store I work at has sold 3x 4E player's handbooks, 2x 4E MM, 2x 4E DMG, 1X arms/equipment,(that is everything sold for 4E up to today) vs 12x 3.5 PHB, 5x 3.5 DMG and 8x 3.5 MM, and over $250 in 3PP 3.5 books which were 50% off at the time.
|
|
I've mentioned on the boards before, and I'll prolly mention again I might live in a small populated area, so the scope of the group is small.. but since 4E was released the gaming store I work at has sold 3x 4E player's handbooks, 2x 4E MM, 2x 4E DMG, 1X arms/equipment,(that is everything sold for 4E up to today) vs 12x 3.5 PHB, 5x 3.5 DMG and 8x 3.5 MM, and over $250 in 3PP 3.5 books which were 50% off at the time.
Whereas I have seen 4e sell very well. At a local store 4e is front and center while old 3.5 stuff is on the lowest shelf on the shelving unit that also holds Pathfinder. Pathfinder material has a good position in the store but the owner always stocks more 4e material. And it seems to sell through rather consistently. People in the store discuss 4e regularly.
Hence the problems with anecdotes. We all have stories that support differing points of view.
Hard, all-inclusive numbers are something (as far as I know) none of us have. I am willing to believe 4e isn't doing well, so long as someone says "look, the numbers say this." But I just don't see the evidence to support that belief.
In the end, even current sales data is difficult to gauge. We are in the middle of a recession and I would venture to say D&D had been losing its momentum for a while now. Though I admit the only thing that leads me to that conclusion is what the 3rd party publishers have said. So, take that as you will.
In addition, I don't think retailers are taking into account the internet purchasing habits of gamers when they say "4e is not selling well." In many ways that is an invisible horde of purchasers to any but those in the know. Only Wizards can say for certain how well the game is doing because they have the complete picture.
I also want to make it clear that I am not mindlessly supporting 4e. I am split on the game. There are things I really like about it and things I was not so sure about. But, I can say, the system seems to be filling out nicely with the supplements they are releasing. But I also don't think making statements like "4e is failing" is either completely true or entirely helpful.
This isn't contest. Everyone has the game they prefer and, for my part, I like Pathfinder and 4e enough to continue spending money on both.
I'll dispute it. I want to know Darrin's source and proof, outside of anecdotes that is. Because I can provide an endless supply of anecdotes that support the opposite view. In the end, neither one of us would be proving anything.
It really isn't my place to give up sources or discuss the specifics of things that are said privately. What I can say is that from my perspective, 4E looks like far less than the smashing success WotC was counting on and portraying in certain corners of the internet. Your perspective may be different, and you're entitled to believe what you want. Only time will make clear what the situation actually is.
Apparently there is a new Brand Manager over at WoTC too, called Kerin Chase. No word about what's happened to Rouse, or what impact this will have on the GSL.
I've heard this one as well. If this is true, I find it puzzling, as Kierin Chase used to be involved in Organized Play on the Magic side of things. I wasn't even aware that he did brand management.
|
|
Latest D&D podcast. He's introduced as the new Brand Manager.source?Apparently there is a new Brand Manager over at WoTC too, called Kerin Chase. No word about what's happened to Rouse, or what impact this will have on the GSL.
Excellent, thank you. I haven't had a chance to listen to that yet.
That is unfortunate. I actually liked Scott Rouse.
Very different. I am willing to allow that 4e is not selling as well. But some of that might not have anything to do with the game or Wizards as a company. I'm just curious if you actually have numbers to back this up.And, from what you said in your first post there really are no secret sources here. You said:
Again, my sources are both anecdotal and from within the industry and they're not public. If I had public information, I'd freely point you to it, though ousting a brand manager is usually not a sign that the brand is doing well. You can accept my word as someone who works in the industry or you can choose not to believe it. Either way, the situation is what it is.
|
|
It really isn't my place to give up sources or discuss the specifics of things that are said privately. What I can say is that from my perspective, 4E looks like far less than the smashing success WotC was counting on and portraying in certain corners of the internet. Your perspective may be different, and you're entitled to believe what you want. Only time will make clear what the situation actually is.
I'll dispute it. I want to know Darrin's source and proof, outside of anecdotes that is. Because I can provide an endless supply of anecdotes that support the opposite view. In the end, neither one of us would be proving anything.
Fine. I had typed something much more involved but it wasn't particularly productive.
I respect your opinion.
All I can say is, if you have numbers but can't share them, why even say anything to begin with? If you don't have numbers or anything to prove by making the statement, then why say anything that makes it sound like you do?
I am not attacking you here. At least I am not attempting that. I don't even know you so this isn't personal. I am just honestly curious where this idea comes from. I have heard both sides and both claim to have inside info. So, which is right?
|
|
Again, my sources are both anecdotal and from within the industry and they're not public. If I had public information, I'd freely point you to it, though ousting a brand manager is usually not a sign that the brand is doing well. You can accept my word as someone who works in the industry or you can choose not to believe it. Either way, the situation is what it is.
Very different. I am willing to allow that 4e is not selling as well. But some of that might not have anything to do with the game or Wizards as a company. I'm just curious if you actually have numbers to back this up.And, from what you said in your first post there really are no secret sources here. You said:
Okay. That quote comes from a statement I felt was more rude than it needed to be. I apologize for that.
I am willing to believe what you are saying. But I don't think questioning your sources is out of line considering the situation, do you?
We don't know if he was ousted. If he was, there was no formal announcement like all the other layoffs. Which seems odd no matter how you look at it. It also doesn't mean he was let go because of the brand. There is no way of knowing what happened there unless a public statement is made.
All I can say is, if you have numbers but can't share them, why even say anything to begin with? If you don't have numbers or anything to prove by making the statement, then why say anything that makes it sound like you do?I am not attacking you here. At least I am not attempting that. I don't even know you so this isn't personal. I am just honestly curious where this idea comes from. I have heard both sides and both claim to have inside info. So, which is right?
What I can say is that my information comes from the retail and distribution side. Beyond that, I can't get any more specific.
|
Latest D&D podcast. He's introduced as the new Brand Manager.source?Apparently there is a new Brand Manager over at WoTC too, called Kerin Chase. No word about what's happened to Rouse, or what impact this will have on the GSL.
They just identify Chase as the brand manager, don't they, rather than identify him as the 'new brand manager'? I thought that Rouse was a 'senior D&D brand manager', whatever that means.
|
|
They just identify Chase as the brand manager, don't they, rather than identify him as the 'new brand manager'? I thought that Rouse was a 'senior D&D brand manager', whatever that means.Latest D&D podcast. He's introduced as the new Brand Manager.source?Apparently there is a new Brand Manager over at WoTC too, called Kerin Chase. No word about what's happened to Rouse, or what impact this will have on the GSL.
That might explain it. I haven't been able to find any info that states Rouse was removed. But I am still looking.
However you feel about 4e, I thought Scott was a good guy. He took the time to talk to the fans on ENWorld. It would be sad if he was gone.
Maybe the Hasbro was angry about the GSL, and Scott's desire to see it re-written again (despite the Rebel Alliance ignoring it anyway).
RHODE ISLAND = R'lyeh
However you feel about 4e, I thought Scott was a good guy. He took the time to talk to the fans on ENWorld. It would be sad if he was gone.
I really don't know if Kierin is there alongside Scott, or if he's the new man in charge of the brand. If the axe fell on Scott, it did so quietly. I also really didn't know Scott when I worked for WotC either, but I agree with your assessment of his online presence. Scott is definitely personable and disarming, which always helps when you have thousands of screaming fans who are angry because you couldn't deliver to them exactly what they wanted (and no matter how hard they tried, they could never give everybody exactly what they wanted). I still feel as though Charles Ryan was a very, very good brand manager, and that he got the shaft because of the timing of his tenure in the lifecycle of the edition.
|
|
I've heard this one as well. If this is true, I find it puzzling, as Kierin Chase used to be involved in Organized Play on the Magic side of things. I wasn't even aware that he did brand management.
That was my thought too.
Not that OP people cannot move up the food chain like that, just the switch from CCGs to RPGs definitely raises an eyebrow.
I've heard this one as well. If this is true, I find it puzzling, as Kierin Chase used to be involved in Organized Play on the Magic side of things. I wasn't even aware that he did brand management.That was my thought too.
Not that OP people cannot move up the food chain like that, just the switch from CCGs to RPGs definitely raises an eyebrow.
Are they really that different from a branding point of view?
Wouldn't they appeal to a similar audience?
|
|
RHODE ISLAND = R'lyeh
Post of the day! You just made my day... :-)
alleynbard: The translations weren't that bad. The most german ppl that'll complain about bad translations on ENworld would prefer the english original even if the translations would be brilliant; just for being up to date. It's kinda "cool" in the german RPG scene to bash on local publishers. Don't ask me why; some freaky sort of elitism I believe. Most people probably couldn't even judge the quality of the translation, because only the most dedicated nerds and/or freaks would buy both versions. Of course, the translations aren't as good as the original. They can't be, because some terms are kinda awkward to translate into german. Well, I guess this is the case with most translations, no matter into which language it is translated.
I really can't believe, that the quality of translations are the reason for 4E's very limited success in Germany. 3.5 was a huge success and D&D is still among the most popular systems around here.
|
|
Wouldn't they appeal to a similar audience?
This first because it has a short answer.
No.
The major market research they have shows minimal cross-over play. People prefer one type of gaming (TRPGs, console games, MMORPGS, CCGs, boardgames, miniature games), and one game within the TRPG genre (D&D, Traveller, Vampire, and so forth).
The only significant cross-over effect is with people who buy minis for TRPGs. They will spend a relevant amount on miniatures. It does appear though that the CMG market is extremely marginal. (Basically, only one game has survived - HeroClix, and that likely because of the specific comic book cross-over.)
Are they really that different from a branding point of view?
Short form: yes.
Long form: where do I start?First, CCGs function on a 1 year cycle. The materials you buy function "fully" for 1 or 2 years, then become limited use. Imagine buying Complete Arcane then being told you cannot use it in general play when Complete Mage comes out the next year. That leads directly to the second major issue.
CCGs only function in a competitive, organized play environment. Without DCI, Magic the Gathering would be nothing. The mass sales from cycling releases, the mass sales at pre-releases, the continued sales from sealed events, the continued sale for series deck building, are all possible solely because there is an actual professional league for people to compete in using those products. It is beyond a captive market. When you get involved in sports, you can buy your sports equipment from any of several competing manufacturers. When you get involved in Magic, you can buy your cards from only one manufacturer.
Compared to that, an RPG has only limited benefit from a captive organized play program. Sure you can easily set up a "pay-for-access" scenario, where only those who can produce a book can use it in play. Unfortunately the sheer size and number of books required inevitably means copies of single pages must be accepted, and that simply empowers piracy. Likewise the costs and expectations of utility invalidate the yearly cycling model I noted above. The ultimate break of course is when people can just play the game at home.
Third is the reusability of considerable amounts of development in CCGs. Slap a new bit of artwork on the same text and you have a completely new product to sell people. Meanwhile TRPG people rebel at buying the same setting book for the fourth or fifth or sixth time. Expanding, enhancing, or evolving the material covered just makes it worse as you risk antagonizing those who liked things the way they were.
Trying to market a TRPG like a CCG is guaranteed to fail.
Trying to run a TRPG OP program like a CCG OP program is guaranteed to fail.
Thanks - that was helpful.
I don't play CCGs (obviously?), and the one time I tried playing Magic I lost overwhelmingly. :)
|
|
RHODE ISLAND = R'lyeh
Post of the day! You just made my day... :-)
alleynbard: The translations weren't that bad. The most german ppl that'll complain about bad translations on ENworld would prefer the english original even if the translations would be brilliant; just for being up to date. It's kinda "cool" in the german RPG scene to bash on local publishers. Don't ask me why; some freaky sort of elitism I believe. Most people probably couldn't even judge the quality of the translation, because only the most dedicated nerds and/or freaks would buy both versions. Of course, the translations aren't as good as the original. They can't be, because some terms are kinda awkward to translate into german. Well, I guess this is the case with most translations, no matter into which language it is translated.
I really can't believe, that the quality of translations are the reason for 4E's very limited success in Germany. 3.5 was a huge success and D&D is still among the most popular systems around here.
weird... this may be so... but i myself hate spanish translation, they don't feel right to the mood... not for elitism i could read any other thing in spanish... maybe is the fact that they are translated in spanin and i hate their modisms and some words they use instead of the ones used in Mexico
weird... but i feel like that... i just can't :S
I don't get this.I don't support the current ruleset and have no intention of supporting 4E. WOTC currently does not support an edition of the game that I play. As a result if they go under it doesnt effect the game that I play AT ALL. I'm playing Pathfinder / 3.5. As long as I can find players who are willing to play then we're cool.
So basically if WOTC goes under (which I dont believe it will mind you...) it doenst effect me at all as I wasnt using the present version of the game and I'm not putting any cash into thier coffers.
It still probably effects you. The basic Paizo marketing model probably works mostly on providing the best possible product and snagging in current DMs (who bring their groups along for the ride) into becoming Paizo loyalists.
Paizo, however, does little advertising and what it does do is mainly aimed at current role players.
WotC has, according to Eric on a Fear the Boot Podcaste, a million dollar marketing budget - thats enough to actually bring in new players at least potentially. If WotC goes under then there are no new players. That might still not effect you because you don't need new players, you have a stable group or you'll recruit yourself. However it effects Paizo since their marketing model is to take current DMs and convert them into Paizo loyalists. If WotC is not bringing in more players ('cause WotC does not exist) then relatively fewer DMs are coming into existence while attrition is still taking DMs off the market. If that continues for any length of time then Paizo's revenue starts to shrink - when your loosing customers faster then your gaining them then thats very bad.
At the end of the day WotCs million dollar marketing budget is being spent by WotC for WotC but once they bring in players they have no way of stopping those players from branching out to pick up Paizo products or Shadowrun and these companies and games make big bucks selling games and products to D&D players that are looking for something that WotC is not currently offering. So in a way that million dollar marketing budget is a big part of Paizo's marketing strategy too - and probably most of the RPG industries for that matter.
Its in the final stage that no WotC possibly effects you because it might lead to no Paizo.
weird... this may be so... but i myself hate spanish translation, they don't feel right to the mood... not for elitism i could read any other thing in spanish... maybe is the fact that they are translated in spanin and i hate their modisms and some words they use instead of the ones used in Mexico
weird... but i feel like that... i just can't :S
Nah! Montalve its just an Elitist from heart... He kicks half-orks and speaks only in elven... He also eats pizza using fork and knife... ;P
They just happen to have made a game I don't care for - kind of like the Beatles' White Album, and yes, I did just compare them to the Beatles.
You don't like the White Album? Wow. It's #10 on the Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time.
I mean, look at some of the songs:
Back in the USSR
Ob-la-di Ob-la-da
The continuing story of Bungalow Bill
While my guitar gently weeps
Blackbird
Rocky Raccoon
Birthday
Revolution 1
Ooops... didin't mean to side track.
As for 4e, I really tried to like it, but I'm still not on board. Maybe it's because the people here aren't playing it, or that there is no game store to promote it.
Who knows maybe in the next city I live in there'll be more people who are interested in it where I can get a chance to play.
|
|
Nah! Montalve its just an Elitist from heart... He kicks half-orks and speaks only in elven... He also eats pizza using fork and knife... ;Pweird... this may be so... but i myself hate spanish translation, they don't feel right to the mood... not for elitism i could read any other thing in spanish... maybe is the fact that they are translated in spanin and i hate their modisms and some words they use instead of the ones used in Mexico
weird... but i feel like that... i just can't :S
the last comment is half truth
also i can each chicken with such weapons with no troublealso i do not kick half-orcs... i gut them... i kick halflings for the fun :)
and sometimes i dignify myself to speak Azlanti... but only when i feel in the mood
You don't like the White Album? Wow. It's #10 on the Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time.I mean, look at some of the songs:
Back in the USSR
Ob-la-di Ob-la-da
The continuing story of Bungalow Bill
While my guitar gently weeps
Blackbird
Rocky Raccoon
Birthday
Revolution 1Ooops... didin't mean to side track
Of those songs, the only ones I actually like are Back in the USSR, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, and Birthday, that last one being memorable but high in semi-firm dairy content. The White Album has drawn criticism for offering quantity instead of quality, and many consider it overrated. In my opinion it is the weakest of their later albums, being fully eclipsed by Sergent Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and of course Abbey Road.
|
|
He's still there.
That might explain it. I haven't been able to find any info that states Rouse was removed. But I am still looking.
Excellent. Thank you.
The White Album has drawn criticism for offering quantity instead of quality, and many consider it overrated. In my opinion it is the weakest of their later albums, being fully eclipsed by Sergent Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and of course Abbey Road.
White Album divides opinions, considered by many as their best and many as worst of their later career. And personally I think their best songs are on other albums and the album itself is too long and too messy. And criminally overrated, as is Sgt Pepper which might have been revolutionary at its time but has not aged gracefully.
Rubber Soul, Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour are the underappreciated albums (as is arguably Please Please Me).
A threadjack, and I don't even have anecdotal evidence about sale of 4th edition. Shame on me.
|
|
The major market research they have shows minimal cross-over play. People prefer one type of gaming (TRPGs, console games, MMORPGS, CCGs, boardgames, miniature games), and one game within the TRPG genre (D&D, Traveller, Vampire, and so forth).
The only significant cross-over effect is with people who buy minis for TRPGs. They will spend a relevant amount on miniatures. It does appear though that the CMG market is extremely marginal. (Basically, only one game has survived - HeroClix, and that likely because of the specific comic book cross-over.)
Mmm, except that Topps just shut down WizKids. (Although the WizKids leaders are trying to form a new company and gain control of the HeroClix IP).
|
|
Mmm, except that Topps just shut down WizKids. (Although the WizKids leaders are trying to form a new company and gain control of the HeroClix IP).
Ouch.
I had not heard. I have not kept up on WizKids since they cancelled MageKnight several years ago.OK then, switch that to no CMGs being able to survive. People do like the pre-painted minis, but they just do not seem to be able to function in a collectible format. I wonder how the new WotC monsters minis line will manage.