I hate that company so much, because they won't let me give more money to them! Damn them!By your logic discrimination (refusing to sell something to a specific ethnicity or gender) is no biggie - you just do not let them give money to you.
It's, of course, not the same, but yes, knowing WotC could sell me the pdfs I want, but refuses to do so for no logical reason other than to promote a game system I don't like, is reason enough to dislike them.
No, by my logic, if you haven't eaten at McDonald's, because you don't like their business practices for years, but you suddenly get a craving for a McRib and go there only to find they had just stopped serving the previous week, it seems pretty silly to get upset that you didn't get a chance to give a company money that you didn't really want to. Yes, you don't get your McRib, but you can always find something else somewhere else that will work.
No, by my logic, if you haven't eaten at McDonald's, because you don't like their business practices for years, but you suddenly get a craving for a McRib and go there only to find they had just stopped serving the previous week, it seems pretty silly to get upset that you didn't get a chance to give a company money that you did really want to. Yes, you don't get your McRib, but you can always find something else somewhere else that will work.I hate that company so much, because they won't let me give more money to them! Damn them!By your logic discrimination (refusing to sell something to a specific ethnicity or gender) is no biggie - you just do not let them give money to you.
It's, of course, not the same, but yes, knowing WotC could sell me the pdfs I want, but refuses to do so for no logical reason other than to promote a game system I don't like, is reason enough to dislike them.
Leaving aside the McDonalds metaphore, it just seems a bit odd for a games company to not want to make easy pdf money off of it's own old back catalogue.
It's symptomatic imo of a strangely doctrinal and illogical seeming philosophy apparently guiding wotc these days.
EDIT - I still say wotc could have released 4e (with all it's faults) and have avoided creating the yawning chasm like schism that now exists between gamers that like/play 4e and many/most (?) of those that don't.
DOUBLE EDIT - 'chasm like schism'? Is that a mixed metaphore?
No, by my logic, if you haven't eaten at McDonald's, because you don't like their business practices for years, but you suddenly get a craving for a McRib and go there only to find they had just stopped serving the previous week, it seems pretty silly to get upset that you didn't get a chance to give a company money that you did really want to. Yes, you don't get your McRib, but you can always find something else somewhere else that will work.I hate that company so much, because they won't let me give more money to them! Damn them!By your logic discrimination (refusing to sell something to a specific ethnicity or gender) is no biggie - you just do not let them give money to you.
It's, of course, not the same, but yes, knowing WotC could sell me the pdfs I want, but refuses to do so for no logical reason other than to promote a game system I don't like, is reason enough to dislike them.
Leaving aside the McDonalds metaphore, it just seems a bit odd for a games company to not want to make easy pdf money off of it's own old back catalogue.
It's symptomatic imo of a strangely doctrinal and illogical seeming philosophy apparently guiding wotc these days.
Or do you think wotc are great at handling PR?
Various companies do lots of things that seem silly to others. For whatever reason, they choose it wasn't worth it to them. Just as McDonald's chooses not to have the McRib on the menu all the time or why Disney puts movies in the Vault.
*snort* I don't trust *any* company. I've my Paizo PDFs on my hard drive and on a couple of DVDs. Same goes for any PDF I've bought. I'm irritated at Catalyst because Strat Ops is *still* at the printer (oooh, they flew a few copies to Origins, how nice) and it is 3-6 months late at this point. I use all their services, but 'Trust then Verify' is a watchword anymore.
The things is, I want to be able to trust a company to live up to its obligations. I understand companies have a responsibility to maximize return on investment, etc., etc., but to me that doesn't absolve them of their responsibilities to their customers.
Unfortunately, I can't trust the vast majority of companies; they simply act pathologically in what they perceive to be their own (often very short-term) self interest. There was a time when I trusted WotC; not anymore. They've simply said one thing, then done another too many times. I trust Paizo. Perhaps that trust is foolish, but so far they have proven worthy of my trust. Further, I believe a smaller entity, one that isn't beholden to a public corporation, has the capability to make decisions with an eye toward all of its stakeholders. The bottom line will, of course, remain the foremost concern, but not the *only* concern.
Various companies do lots of things that seem silly to others. For whatever reason, they choose it wasn't worth it to them. Just as McDonald's chooses not to have the McRib on the menu all the time or why Disney puts movies in the Vault.
Without commenting on the wisdom of those particular decisions (I haven't really paid attention to either), I just want to interject that companies can (and often do) make bad decisions. First, there is often a strong incentive to maximize short-term profits at the expense of all else. Second, once organizations get to a certain size, most seem to muddle along in a thoroughly mediocre fashion, making too many decisions by comittee. Finally, there is no shortage of plain mistakes; after spending over a decade working in large corporations, I don't have nearly the faith in the competence of management that I once did.
So while I agree that some decisions are actually good ones that only appear odd to outsiders, quite often they are just truly bad for everyone.
The things is, I want to be able to trust a company to live up to its obligations. I understand companies have a responsibility to maximize return on investment, etc., etc., but to me that doesn't absolve them of their responsibilities to their customers.
I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself (and here I mean you in the general sense, not specifically bugleyman). The very idea of trust, in the sense you might use it to refer to a person, is completely misplaced with corporate entities. You can certainly "trust" their products after they have been proven, and you can "trust" a track record of solid performance, but "trusting" that they will never abandon you, or that they won't take advantage of you should never enter the equation. This isn't really a failing on the part of companies; it's just the reality of how business works. The best you might be able to do is to trust some of the individuals working at the company, but as long as they can be fired or pulled from projects that doesn't translate to any kind of trust in the company itself.
I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself (and here I mean you in the general sense, not specifically bugleyman). The very idea of trust, in the sense you might use it to refer to a person, is completely misplaced with corporate entities. You can certainly "trust" their products after they have been proven, and you can "trust" a track record of solid performance, but "trusting" that they will never abandon you, or that they won't take advantage of you should never enter the equation. This isn't really a failing on the part of companies; it's just the reality of how business works. The best you might be able to do is to trust some of the individuals working at the company, but as long as they can be fired or pulled from projects that doesn't translate to any kind of trust in the company itself.
As someone who has been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated in the idea of the corporation (My undergrad degree is in CIS, which is a business degree) I see your point; practically speaking, the reality is that corporations can't be trusted to do anything except act in a pathologically selfish fashion.
However, I don't think Paizo fits that bill, at least not as long as Lisa is CEO. I'm not saying Paizo will do what I think is best, merely that I don't think they'll suddenly do something stupid, like pull all PDFs without warning. In that sense, I trust them, but perhaps you're right, in that I really trust Lisa. I would certainly have to re-evaluate my position if Paizo got a new CEO, or if it were acquired, for example.
In a larger sense, I'm not sure our society is really better off allowing corporations the benefits of legal personhood without the attendant responsiblities, but that's a whole other discussion.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I want to buy a PDF of Planes of Chaos. I can't. I'm unhappy.I suppose it would be tactless to point out that I just got a near-mint copy through the post, for the cost of postage only?
I didn't get much done last night.
Oh, those diTerlizzi succubi, tieflings and lillends, oh my!:)
Thanks, Fray!
Once you get your hands on a copy of Planes of Conflict in mint condition, then I will be jealous.
Afterwards, I will hunt you down and steal it.
Various companies do lots of things that seem silly to others. For whatever reason, they choose it wasn't worth it to them. Just as McDonald's chooses not to have the McRib on the menu all the time or why Disney puts movies in the Vault.No, by my logic, if you haven't eaten at McDonald's, because you don't like their business practices for years, but you suddenly get a craving for a McRib and go there only to find they had just stopped serving the previous week, it seems pretty silly to get upset that you didn't get a chance to give a company money that you did really want to. Yes, you don't get your McRib, but you can always find something else somewhere else that will work.I hate that company so much, because they won't let me give more money to them! Damn them!By your logic discrimination (refusing to sell something to a specific ethnicity or gender) is no biggie - you just do not let them give money to you.
It's, of course, not the same, but yes, knowing WotC could sell me the pdfs I want, but refuses to do so for no logical reason other than to promote a game system I don't like, is reason enough to dislike them.
Leaving aside the McDonalds metaphore, it just seems a bit odd for a games company to not want to make easy pdf money off of it's own old back catalogue.
It's symptomatic imo of a strangely doctrinal and illogical seeming philosophy apparently guiding wotc these days.
Or do you think wotc are great at handling PR?
Hm, but in the case of wotc since it's announcement of 4e, it's decisions have actively driven away an arguable percentage of it's customers, with apparently a (debateable imo) hope of finding new customers to replace those it has consciously p'd off.
I just don't see that the many bad decisions they have made, I mean bad from a PR point of view there, have done wotc any good at all. They often seem to me to be the kind of decision that is either made by a suit far up the corporate ladder who has no idea about the realities of the customer base, OR decisions made by people who have an almost doctrinal belief their way is right and the only other option is the highway.
EDIT- The only other example of this kind of attitude and atmosphere in the gaming community I can personally recall (and this may be more a UK thing than a US) is way back when Games Workshop turned away from rpgs and went wholly wargame. There was a build up period where it became clear to gamers like myself and my friends there were a split inside the company between those who favoured role playing and those who wanted only the tabletop. Eventually there some kind of murky coup (okay emotive language I know) and seemingly overnight White Dwarf turned into an advertising catalogue for minis etc, with no rpg articles any more. The wargamers inside the company always seemed to act from a nearly religious distaste for rpgs, with their final crushing of ANY rpg product being their final victory. I know this isn't entirely analogous to the present day events, but sometimes I am reminded of this.
|
|
I just don't see that the many bad decisions they have made, I mean bad from a PR point of view there, have done wotc any good at all.
I think, it's also worth mentioning that not all of us have a great disdain for WotC solely on the basis of 4E.
d20 Modern being dumped without even a word to its fanbase. The complete and utter bastardation of their custody of the Avalon Hill line of games. Magic ... well, that's a larger argument for another time.
WotC lost me as a customer because they were a poor custodian for what was, at the time, a large part of my hobby dollars across a number of their lines. I now rely on a handful of other companies for those dollars.
...anti-3E propaganda...
To be fair, the so-called "anti-3E propaganda" was merely a reflection of widespread customer sentiment toward the end of the 3E life-cycle. To lay it all at Wizards' feet is disingenuous.
I just don't see that the many bad decisions they have made, I mean bad from a PR point of view there, have done wotc any good at all.I think, it's also worth mentioning that not all of us have a great disdain for WotC solely on the basis of 4E.
d20 Modern being dumped without even a word to its fanbase. The complete and utter bastardation of their custody of the Avalon Hill line of games. Magic ... well, that's a larger argument for another time.
WotC lost me as a customer because they were a poor custodian for what was, at the time, a large part of my hobby dollars across a number of their lines. I now rely on a handful of other companies for those dollars.
See, that's what I mean. Isn't it wonderful that now there is no temptation to purchase pdfs from this company and give them some of your money? That isn't something to be upset about, but something to be happy about.
I want to buy a PDF of Planes of Chaos. I can't. I'm unhappy.I suppose it would be tactless to point out that I just got a near-mint copy through the post, for the cost of postage only?
I didn't get much done last night.
Oh, those diTerlizzi succubi, tieflings and lillends, oh my!:)
Thanks, Fray!
Once you get your hands on a copy of Planes of Conflict in mint condition, then I will be jealous.
Afterwards, I will hunt you down and steal it.
Hah! there was one of those on sale at GenCon UK last year. You almost tempt me to go hunt for the business card of the traders that had it on their bookshelf, to see if I can't still snaffle it to be better able to taunt you.... ;)
Edit:
Hmmph. Tracked the site down and they seem to have sold it. Ah well. Taunting opportunity missed. Smurf.
I've played the game. I like the rules set, as a super heroes game or maybe a dystopian psionics dark future type thing, but I abhor it as a fantasy game that calls itself "D&D". Killed too many sacred cows and put a bullet in the head of a campaign setting I've loved since Greenwood started writing articles for The Dragon way back when. Sorry, but no amount of strident whining on your part is going to change my opinion there.
Cool. You have an opinion and have developed it through your game play. My goal isn't to change YOUR opinion but to counter your negative opinion with positive reinforcement for when someone with no play experience comes along trying to find out what 4E is about they may ultimately decide to give it a try instead of going on what you had to say about it. Call it strident whining all you want which frankly is just offensive and insulting but hey we can't all be adults someone has to revert back to childhood name-calling first.
And I'm still waiting for all the links of you and Scott and a few others going on the WotC forums, EnWorld or RPGNet and telling them to behave. I know in your perception, the posters there are oh so mature and even handed, but, frankly, I find them 10 times as annoying and rude as anything I've seen here. Which is why I don't POST THERE. It isn't my job or my mission in life to make them like/respect/say nice things about Paizo. I don't really care what they think.
Maybe you should go over there with a bunch of Pathfinder supporters and make a rally call for equal treatment of Pathfinder. I would support you but I don't use those forums which consequently makes it alittle hard for me to provide links of my interacting with them. I must admit that I been having serious thoughts about looking EnWorld over to get away from the Paizo hostility but I just can't bring myself to it yet. Maybe I am just a gluten for punishment.
And, who cares if some people have misconceptions about the freaking game? Or if they "ever played it"? What difference does it make? How does that effect YOUR enjoyment of it? If you have so much time on your hands that you can run around the internet "correcting" everyone who thinks 4e is "based on an MMO" or "doesn't support role playing", I really think you need a hobby. Seriously.
I have a hobby which is called Gaming. If someone chooses not to play because of misconceptions about the "freaking" game then I lose out on a potential player or DM. If my available players were cosigned to my immediate local area then I may never even notice the effect but I play most of my games acrossed the internet as opposed to tabletop which means I notice it when people that have never played have sworn it off because of all the negativity they read about it.
In closing though... yeah, umm... Kettle, Pot, Black.
Well said, houstonderek.
In fact, why is there even a 4e subforum here? Paizo doesn't publish anything 4e. They never have. 4e has nothing to do with anything Paizo does.
I'm a L5R fan, a Serenety fan, a WoD fan. Are there subforums for those games? No, there's just "other RPGs" to lump everything together. 4e fans get a huge concession.
I guess there was a time when Paizo wasn't sure which way they'd go, but that time is over. Maybe it's time to stop giving that game preferred treatment. Paizo doesn't work with wotc. It would make more sense to have a Dark Eye section, because Paizo does work with the creators of that game.
Oh oh! L5R Section, yes please! WoD, uh huh, please! And while we are at it can we get a Savage Worlds section going as well!
<Stomps through thread, enjoying the flames>
RAWR!
<Stomps through thread, enjoying the flames>
RAWR!
Oh do be quiet. This isn't the OTD RPG, you know.
I mean not yet it isn't.
I hear that some of the aliases are pretty unhappy about being moved to the PbP section...
And HEY! Why have I 'reverted'?
Glares at Charles Evans 25.
Hmmph. That's better.
Rounds up Flame Troll of Doom and drives it off out of thread.
|
Right on both counts. And 3.5 gets ripped to shreds as well.Still, if 4e crowd wants a nice sandbox where moderators will run after everybody who disapproves of their game / company you have gleemax, enworld, rpg.net. And more.
And you want a place where 4e and pf are both treated with equal respect and dignity, there's the Den. Paizil fael and 4e fael are both fael and get smacked equally, right down to "who is a bigger fael: Buhlman or Mearls ?" threads. That's equality ! ;)
As it should the game just plain good old fashioned sucked at higher levels. It was a shocker, we played 3 Paizo AP's that were meant to go from 1st - 20th but most we stopped at 16th as the rules just did not support sensible high level play. Even Paizo's excellent stories couldn't save the fundamental brokeness of high level 3.5e play.
Thinking that both 3.5e & 4e aren't as good as AD&D in equal proportions... That's fair.
S.
|
|
I'm within my rights to wage a holy war against WotC, 4ed, and anybody who supports that debacle which led to my current inability to legally obtain that PDF. And before somebody mentions eBay, go and check the prices for rare books/boxes.It was a bad decision, yes. In fact I agree it was stupid, short sighted, narrow, and damaging to their reputation with a significant customer base with disposable income.
Games Workshop does however exactly the same thing everytime it releases a new edition of WH40k or WHFB. The gaming stores are required to return all unsold stock of the older edition to GW (for destruction I guess). So this isn't a crazy weird twilight zone event, WotC want you to buy their new edition - go figure. What this does mean however is that the prices of printed copies on eBay and the like will skyrocket.
S.
|
|
See, that's what I mean. Isn't it wonderful that now there is no temptation to purchase pdfs from this company and give them some of your money? That isn't something to be upset about, but something to be happy about.
Me? I couldn't be happier now, frankly.
I feel like I finally found some golden apples out there that I always knew about, but never took the chance to taste.
As far the PDFs themselves, I kind of feel bad for WotC. As more companies come onboard; including Palladium Books and just the other day the first batch of Warhammer Fantasy, with PDFs the more antiquated WotC's online initiative looks.
It's always kind of sad to see a Titan of a respective industry flounder, but personally, I'm celebrating the companies coming up through the remains. WotC will likely not fail because of this, but in the same vein as iTunes vs. the Record Labels, I'm glad of what it did to the market.
It's an Alliance plot!
Gorram feds!
|
|
Games Workshop does however exactly the same thing everytime it releases a new edition of WH40k or WHFB. The gaming stores are required to return all unsold stock of the older edition to GW (for destruction I guess). So this isn't a crazy weird twilight zone event, WotC want you to buy their new edition - go figure. What this does mean however is that the prices of printed copies on eBay and the like will skyrocket.S.
Umm ... that was a long, long time ago.
With the release of 5th 40K and 7th Warhammer all (within reason) of the codices are backwards compatible as are the majority of the models. With the apocalypse rule expansion you can play any model you want, in any configuration.
5th Edition 40K supports everything back to 3rd edition codex, and some of the molds for things like Terminators are over 7 years old.
They do however require you to buy a certain amount of stock at certain levels to maintain a distinct reseller status in certain banded tiers.
I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself (and here I mean you in the general sense, not specifically bugleyman). The very idea of trust, in the sense you might use it to refer to a person, is completely misplaced with corporate entities.
You know what? You keep thinking that and acting on your conviction.
I'll keep buying Paizo products.
"Never blame on malice, what can be explained by stupidity."
Hey Matt where did you grab that quote?
I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself (and here I mean you in the general sense, not specifically bugleyman). The very idea of trust, in the sense you might use it to refer to a person, is completely misplaced with corporate entities.You know what? You keep thinking that and acting on your conviction.
I'll keep buying Paizo products.
For now. Someday down the road it may change because Paizo does something that you don't like. Example being the fact that I don't buy Paizo products anymore because I was forced to choose between 3.x modules that I would have to do all the work on conversions or the 4E DDI. It was a tough choice but ultimately the 4E stuff was more useful to me.
For now. Someday down the road it may change because Paizo does something that you don't like. Example being the fact that I don't buy Paizo products anymore because I was forced to choose between 3.x modules that I would have to do all the work on conversions or the 4E DDI. It was a tough choice but ultimately the 4E stuff was more useful to me.
I hear you. But for me, there is a difference between going down a path I don't prefer (which Paizo has done), and behaving dishonorably (which, imho, WotC has done). Though disappointed, I can live with the former, but I consider the latter a betrayal of trust.
...I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself...
The way I see it, nothing you ever said was truer.
*cough* doesn't mean they're gonna listen *cough*
I hear you. But for me, there is a difference between going down a path I don't prefer (which Paizo has done), and behaving dishonorably (which, imho, WotC has done). Though disappointed, I can live with the former, but I consider the latter a betrayal of trust.
For now. Someday down the road it may change because Paizo does something that you don't like. Example being the fact that I don't buy Paizo products anymore because I was forced to choose between 3.x modules that I would have to do all the work on conversions or the 4E DDI. It was a tough choice but ultimately the 4E stuff was more useful to me.
Personally I believe in mutual self-interest. A company makes products I want, even if they kick puppies down the streets, I will purchase their products. A company doesn't make products I want, then I won't purchase their products, no matter how many puppies they adopt.
I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself (and here I mean you in the general sense, not specifically bugleyman). The very idea of trust, in the sense you might use it to refer to a person, is completely misplaced with corporate entities.You know what? You keep thinking that and acting on your conviction.
I'll keep buying Paizo products.
What a coincidence! Me too! :D
Personally I believe in mutual self-interest. A company makes products I want, even if they kick puppies down the streets, I will purchase their products. A company doesn't make products I want, then I won't purchase their products, no matter how many puppies they adopt.I hear you. But for me, there is a difference between going down a path I don't prefer (which Paizo has done), and behaving dishonorably (which, imho, WotC has done). Though disappointed, I can live with the former, but I consider the latter a betrayal of trust.
For now. Someday down the road it may change because Paizo does something that you don't like. Example being the fact that I don't buy Paizo products anymore because I was forced to choose between 3.x modules that I would have to do all the work on conversions or the 4E DDI. It was a tough choice but ultimately the 4E stuff was more useful to me.
This is pretty much what it boils down to with all things. A lot of people talk about how they love what a company's done in terms of PR, or how they hate what a company's done in terms of PR, but when it comes down to it the customer will buy what they desire, and won't buy what they don't desire. Furthermore, their desire for the company's products very strongly influences how they perceive that company's PR.
That is "Hanlon's Razor" named after Robert J Hanlon. There is an earlier quote attributed questionably to Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."Hey Matt where did you grab that quote?
"Never blame on malice, what can be explained by stupidity."
Hm... I've never read anything by Hanlon, and hadn't seen that in regards to Napoleon either. I had taken to using it myself a while back and didn't realise it was actually attributable to someone.
A company makes products I want, even if they kick puppies down the streets, I will purchase their products.
Really? Not me. I don't go as far as organizing (Or participating in organized) boycotts, but most of the capitalist models I've seen assume the it is the public that serves to rein in extremes in corporate behavior. While I do realize that it is practically impossible to truly understand where everything we buy comes from, or how it was produced, when I do become aware of a company behaving in a manner I feel is unethical, it does make me hesitate to buy from them.
This is pretty much what it boils down to with all things. A lot of people talk about how they love what a company's done in terms of PR, or how they hate what a company's done in terms of PR, but when it comes down to it the customer will buy what they desire, and won't buy what they don't desire. Furthermore, their desire for the company's products very strongly influences how they perceive that company's PR.
I'm not sure the cause-and-effect is as straightforward as you're saying, Scott, because I think you're ignoring that what a customer "desires" is influenced by their perception of the company. Acts that are seen are irresponsible or undesirable can damage a company's brand(s), making that company's products less desirable.
For now. Someday down the road it may change because Paizo does something that you don't like. Example being the fact that I don't buy Paizo products anymore because I was forced to choose between 3.x modules that I would have to do all the work on conversions or the 4E DDI. It was a tough choice but ultimately the 4E stuff was more useful to me.
I think that giving up the notion that a company is somehow analogous to a human being is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself (and here I mean you in the general sense, not specifically bugleyman). The very idea of trust, in the sense you might use it to refer to a person, is completely misplaced with corporate entities.You know what? You keep thinking that and acting on your conviction.
I'll keep buying Paizo products.
That's a different thing, I don't think anyone can honestly question the good business sense of Paizo's actions since they announced their big moves. Anyone sane that is. Just because a company makes clearly good business judgements that lead them in directions away from your own personal tastes doesn't necessarily engender ill feeling.
On the other hand even generally pro-wotc folks have trouble justifying some of wotc's actions over the last year or two.
As I say, no matter the PR spin I would never like 4e, having said that I could have been less ... what's the word? ... offended.
Eh anyway, I can't be bothered harping on this point. All I'll say is I didn't use to play 3e and 3.5 either, but I bought masses of supplements and books, but you'd have to mug me to get any money out of my wallet now to pay to wotc.
I almost feel obliged to buy Paizo's books, (great as most of them are), partly because each one feels like a slap back.
Wotc isn't just like a company that has admitted to running over dogs, it's pretty much a company that has run over YOUR dog, then laughed in your face about it.
But hey, I'm sure certain people here will disagree. ;-)
|
|
Wotc isn't just like a company that has admitted to running over dogs, it's pretty much a company that has run over YOUR dog, then laughed in your face about it.
Actually, it wasn't puppies. They ran over the gnomes, laughed about it, laughed at us about it, told us we were dumb for not laughing with them, and then pandered to the public by putting them back into the PHB2 like they were always meant to be there in the first place :)
Really? Not me. I don't go as far as organizing (Or participating in organized) boycotts, but most of the capitalist models I've seen assume the it is the public that serves to rein in extremes in corporate behavior. While I do realize that it is practically impossible to truly understand where everything we buy comes from, or how it was produced, when I do become aware of a company behaving in a manner I feel is unethical, it does make me hesitate to buy from them.
Well it depends on degrees perhaps. Also if their "unethical" behavior is "effecting" me. For example, when I was in high school and learned that Nike was using cheap labor in other countries to make their shoes, that didn't cause me to give them up. When I realized they weren't bothering to pass that savings on to me the customer, that is when I stopped buying their shoes.
That's a different thing, I don't think anyone can honestly question the good business sense of Paizo's actions since they announced their big moves. Anyone sane that is. Just because a company makes clearly good business judgements that lead them in directions away from your own personal tastes doesn't necessarily engender ill feeling.
I think a sane person could question if splitting away from the 3.5 crew and hoping to take some with you might not be the best decision. It might be a good decision, time will tell, but I don't think one has to be insane to question the wisdom of the decision especially based on the continued support they have gotten from 3.5 fans.
I almost feel obliged to buy Paizo's books, (great as most of them are), partly because each one feels like a slap back.
Each to his own, I will wait for a Paizo church (cue the creation of new aliases) to worry about giving money to roleplaying charity. Make products I want, I'll give you money. Heck, just sell products I want and I spend money in your online store.
Wotc isn't just like a company that has admitted to running over dogs, it's pretty much a company that has run over YOUR dog, then laughed in your face about it.
More like the choice breed has been changed making purchasing the old choice breed more affordable (half off these 3.5 modules? awesome!) I spend more in the last two years (since the announcement) since 3.5 hasn't be official support on products then I did all together for the years when it was.
Actually, it wasn't puppies. They ran over the gnomes, laughed about it, laughed at us about it, told us we were dumb for not laughing with them, and then pandered to the public by putting them back into the PHB2 like they were always meant to be there in the first place :)
You know, I sat down one day and thought about what races I felt really defined D&D. And I honestly can say that gnome was not one of them. Neither was tielfing by the way, but human, halfling, dwarf, and elf as player races and orcs as enemies really felt to me like the races that defined D&D. Of course maybe I am mixing my feelings for Tolkien with D&D (there are good reasons for that), but when I think of the fantasy books that were influenced, gnomes just don't jump out at me. Even in Dragonlance, the kender guy could have just as well been a halfling.
|
|
You know, I sat down one day and thought about what races I felt really defined D&D. And I honestly can say that gnome was not one of them. Neither was tielfing by the way, but human, halfling, dwarf, and elf as player races and orcs as enemies really felt to me like the races that defined D&D. Of course maybe I am mixing my feelings for Tolkien with D&D (there are good reasons for that), but when I think of the fantasy books that were influenced, gnomes just don't jump out at me. Even in Dragonlance, the kender guy could have just as well been a halfling.
Ya, I'm not a Gnome lover myself; never played one, and all that.
I just found it ironic that they made such a big deal, showed so much conviction, about how much of a design need it was to remove the Gnome, amongst other things.
The conviction behind that design requirement now seems misplaced.
"Oh ya, all that Gnome stuff we were being petulant and insulting about? Just a joke, really. We didn't mean it. Honest."
Meh. Whatever.
|
|
I have a hobby which is called Gaming. If someone chooses not to play because of misconceptions about the "freaking" game then I lose out on a potential player or DM. If my available players were cosigned to my immediate local area then I may never even notice the effect but I play most of my games acrossed the internet as opposed to tabletop which means I notice it when people that have never played have sworn it off because of all the negativity they read about it.
Honestly, I don't see a lot of non-gamers hanging out on gaming forums, for one. Second, maybe if someone IS exposed to that sort of rhetoric, they'll try the game the guy complaining DOES like. Net + one gamer. Just maybe not one for [insert edition/game]'s "side".
Or, maybe, they'll be so turned off by two geeks b*%$+ing back and forth over a stupid game that they'll just assume all the stereotypes they hear about gamers are true *cough* comicbookguy *cough* and never want to associate with any of us.
By the way, if you read my posts VERY carefully, I'm calling BOTH sides out on it. I'm just suggesting (in perhaps a caustic, obnoxious way) to 4e guy the high road may be more attractive, and more productive to the recruiting cause, you seem concerned about.
Just sayin'
Personally I believe in mutual self-interest. A company makes products I want, even if they kick puppies down the streets, I will purchase their products. A company doesn't make products I want, then I won't purchase their products, no matter how many puppies they adopt.
Kicking puppies is a crime. Contrary to some, I would not support criminals, or make deals with them.
If a company treats me like an idiot - feeding me hare-brained lies about the reasons they pull PDFs from the market, and expecting me to believe them - that's enough for me to stop buying from them since at the very least hints strongly at what kind of mental capacity they expect in their target audience.
If a company treats me like an idiot - feeding me hare-brained lies about the reasons they pull PDFs from the market, and expecting me to believe them - that's enough for me to stop buying from them since at the very least hints strongly at what kind of mental capacity they expect in their target audience.
Thanks for spreading the love around. Backhanded compliments are the best sort...
If a company treats me like an idiot - feeding me hare-brained lies about the reasons they pull PDFs from the market, and expecting me to believe them - that's enough for me to stop buying from them since at the very least hints strongly at what kind of mental capacity they expect in their target audience.Thanks for spreading the love around. Backhanded compliments are the best sort...
If anyone believes that WotC pulled the old PDFs for piracy reasons, then they are so gullible that I assume they'll fall for any attempt to con them, and will lose their last shirt to the next e-mail scam.
If a company treats me like an idiot - feeding me hare-brained lies about the reasons they pull PDFs from the market, and expecting me to believe them - that's enough for me to stop buying from them since at the very least hints strongly at what kind of mental capacity they expect in their target audience.
Perhaps bolding the bit where you imply that anyone who likes 4E has a diminished mental capacity might make it a bit clearer what I was responding to. I originally quoted the whole paragraph to avoid taking the "offending" portion out of context.
If anyone believes that WotC pulled the old PDFs for piracy reasons, then they are so gullible that I assume they'll fall for any attempt to con them, and will lose their last shirt to the next e-mail scam.
Whether or not I believe WotC pulled their old PDFs for piracy reasons isn't the issue, but insulting part of the community here (even if done subtly) just isn't cool.
Whether or not I believe WotC pulled their old PDFs for piracy reasons isn't the issue, but insulting part of the community here (even if done subtly) just isn't cool.
I am not saying everyone who likes 4E is a fool - I am saying WotC probably thinks their customers are fools or they'd not have tried to feed them their stupid "reasons" for pulling 3.X PDFs. That's a fine difference.
I do say that anyone who believes WotC's reasons for pulling the PDFs is gullible, so if you believe them you're gullible. If you defend them using the stated reasons you're either gullible or dishonest.