|
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?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for those who say WotC lost their trust, and can only speak for myself.
They never lost any trust with me. I didn't view 4th Edition as some giant slap in the face directed at me or the entire tabletop gaming world. I think (and I am just pulling this from my butt) that this lost trust has something to do with how quick they toss out editions?
3rd edition lasted 2000-2003, in which they released the revised edition, which people refer to as 3.5. This lasted from 2003-2008. And people felt forced to purchase new PHB/DMG/MM for this revised edition.
4th edition was released in 2008, and was revised in 2010, and then "died" in 2012 when 5th edition was announced and playtest released, and officially ended 2014.
Sometimes, to me, it does feel like they release editions too quickly. Their first edition lasted 8 years, which isn't too bad. And depending on your viewpoint, their second version of D&D lasted either 4 years (way too few) or 6 years (not as bad, but still too few).
They lost me with 4th edition, as I didn't care for what I saw. They got me back with 5th edition, as I like what I see. I don't hate the company, though I do wish they could remove themselves from Hasbro. Things might go better. While I plan to buy into 5th edition, I do so somewhat reluctantly. I don't know if 5th edition will last a reasonable time, or be killed off rather shortly like 4th edition. I also hope they don't come out with a revised edition in 2-3 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.
|
|
That is one product Buri, but folks often have beef with several of the decisions that WOTC has made on a number of their products. Its not one event but a series that has some saying they have no trust in WOTC. Though some of the info on 5E you state might count towards trying to rebuild lost trust with some of their customers. So thank you for that. However, I dont want to focus on whether or not individuals reason for trust or mistrust is reasonable or not. I'd prefer folks stick to their own perpective and not try and assume other people's positions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.
I don't think a free pdf of the basic game is the be-all-end-all of gaining trust back from customers. How they manage the brand over the run of this edition and how they treat their clientele is going to be the factor. The free pdf was a good idea and a good gesture, but also I have concerns about wotc that isn't directly tied to the D&D brand.
For me right now it's just a wait and see thing.
If they provide more options for me as a DM to run the game I want to run and they try to stick with some levels of modularity (as they have pitched) than I will buy some of their releases. If they pull the rug out/make a direction change/producing crud early on or mid-way .5 during the life cycle of the edition then I will not "deal with it" or ride it out like I did for 3.5......I will just be gone.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is a major trust issue that I do not believe WotC will follow through with there new version of the game. My group and I bought a lot of 3.0 and 3.5 books then they decided to completely abandon the system. The way I see Wotc is that they are a big company with lots of IP and if one does not work they can just scrap it. That is one reason I like paizo, all they have is one IP; pathfinder. They can scrap pathfinder with out loosing most of there business.
I did check out 5th edition and was not all that impressed. I also did not care for how magic worked. But I really won't know how it plays unless I play it. I will not be playing it because mainly of the distrust I have for Wotc.
|
|
I think the trust issues come more from things like dropping the OGL and cutting online access to PDF libraries than from actual game mechanics.
Putting out good game mechanics won't help with those issues.
The ogl is a big deal, pdfs is are just about practicality and ease of play (for those of us who use a laptop).
People tend to get upset primarily for the mechanical reasons, i.e - edition changes.
So changing mechanics/systems around with regularity is probably the most damaging thing they can do. Not talking about "good" mechanics - that's subjective, talking about the existing mechanics you're using being changed or dropped. That tends to burn some bridges and bring about the distrust.
The .5 is the running joke for D&D and even PF, that's because that is where some of the fan base gets left behind = rage, distrust in the company, edition grudges, etc
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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 even better than the old stuff, almost no matter what we do."
"What about the website?"
"It still has old pdfs, right? Those will just get pirated, cut them."
"But people have paid for them..."
"Nevermind, we can't let people access old stuff. Bad to compete against yourself."
"You really think the people who paid for the pdfs we are going to cut their access to are the ones who will pirate?"
"You're fired. Pirating is illegal and needs to be punished harshly! What else?"
"Advertising?"
"Just make a number of clips and tell people how stupid they are for playing as they play now. I am sure that will go down well and shame them into trying our new stuff."
Trust? Yes, I trust them to be what they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Give me my 400 USD of PDFs back.
Yeah, but...
Ok, I've got nothing on this one.
My cousin Cletus doesn't understand anything more.
I don't suppose there is any way you'd cut that out?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking primarily for myself, it would take WotC doing for Pathfinder what Pathfinder did for 3.X, then making their books cheaper, then keeping up quality, all the while having good customer service. AND REFUND THE PEOPLE YOU SCREWED OVER WITH PDFS, YOU SAVAGES!
I love WotC's Magic: The Gathering, liked 3.X to some degree when it was out, and am fond of 4.0's storyline and art even though I HATE the ruleset and all the BS surrounding 4.0 with all the Hell's Lawyer crap, but they have made some really bad, customer-unfriendly decisions.
The aforementioned edition-changing was nothing but a blatant money-grab, which I tend to despise. If a company is going for a money-grab, make an exciting NEW book for an EXISTING ruleset people love, don't discard an old one and expect people to but a new one (The books of which are a bit thinner in most cases but cost just as much or more... WUT?!). That's why a lot of people like Pathfinder, myself included, because they don't edition change every few years and act like 'update or screw you, because you aren't giving us moneyz'. As much as I love Magic: The Gathering, that's what irritates me about that as well... every few years, all the hundreds of dollars you spent on the previous sets of cards is now standard-illegal for play. I mean seriously WotC, stop being greedy and actually CARE about your CUSTOMER base and what THEY want, not what your financial advisers say!
I apologize for the rant above, but that kind of crap just ticks me off. That's why I am boycotting the X-Box One, because of all the 'how can we make more money off of people' mentality with their 'game license' and other ideas they came up with. Please, don't derail the thread over this comment, I'm just enforcing my above point.
SISSYL, WE COULD BE SISTERS! YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH UNTO THE MASSES! ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. =) It would help if you cut some too...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edition changes happen. I find getting upset about them silly.
Cutting off people's access to their PDFs, on the other hand, was unacceptable. And abandoning the OGL? That was a self-inflicted gunshot wound...which they seem on the verge of repeating. *boggle*
Okay. =)
Thank you. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunshot wound? If only... =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, I think WotC made some legitimately bad choices during the 4E era. Personally, I liked the rules, but they made it increasingly difficult to support them as a company through what I believe were increasingly customer-hostile actions.
As for 5E -- Once again I like the rules, but I harbor some doubts about WotC. I do think it is worth noting that many of the people behind D&D have changed, and so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they have learned their lesson. However, the silence on PDFs and the OGL do not bode well.
I'm buying the 5E core. Beyond that? Wait and see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone forgetting that DTRPG made an unlicensed promise to its customers that PDFs would remain available that it legally was not in a position to be able to keep?
Everyone went for WotC's throat when it happened, and almost no one acknowledged that DTRPG was in the wrong.
Yeah, no one likes that WotC pulled PDF support for a few years. But that's just a disappointing business decision, not a breach of trust. Stripping people of access to PDFs they thought they owned? That is a breach of trust, but it's not WotC that breached it. It's DTRPG, for making a promise to its customers it knew it was incapable of keeping.
|
At first I was resistant to Pathfinder, because I have played D&D for a long time. At a local convention, I played several D&D 4E events, and a few Pathfinder events (just to try it). I found that I enjoyed the Pathfinder games much more. I have ordered the new D&D Player's Handbook. I'm hoping it's good. But it would have to be REALLY good for me to stop playing Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of trust with respect to a tabletop RPG company seems like it's thrown around far more often than it ought to be. There is precious little reason for such a company to require you to place any trust in them - especially since 3e, when every edition of the game has featured ways to enjoy it at either no cost or at very little cost. There is no need to invest huge sums of money up front and then cross your fingers that the game will suit you.
I don't have much patience for people who say that 4e's release cost them their trust in WotC, because I don't think anything happened during 4e's initial release that could be credibly called a breach in trust by anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why a lot of people like Pathfinder, myself included, because they don't edition change every few years and act like 'update or screw you, because you aren't giving us moneyz'.
Pathfinder has literally existed for less than five years. How would you even know?
I feel like your entire rant was based on a really superficial understanding of the market and the events surrounding it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Scott, is this a matter of your definition "during 4e's initial release" as the very day it was released, then claiming "the business decisions that people are upset about didn't happen during precisely that day"? The breach of trust was a slow affair, over what I would say amounts to a year or so. It was not just one item, one foot bullet, rather it was an operation foot autofire for months.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott Betts, I respectfully disagree on this matter. Why did WotC allow them to sell them in the first place if they were going to reneg and snatch them away? THAT is the salient issue. I don't care about all the legalese, because it's for Asmodeans and Anuses (Which sounds like a fun card game though!), I care about what's right. WotC should have NEVER allowed other companies to sell PDFs of their if they were not prepared to leave them up. THAT is the breach of trust.
As for your comment regarding 4.0's release not having anything that breached trust by itself, I agree, but only because it was the culmination of several years of trust breaking that made people finally say 'fufu it' and walk away from WotC. The things AFTER 4.0's release, however, were MAJOR trust-breakers though!
As for your comment of me only having superficial understanding of the market, I respectfully think you should tone down the accusations there. There has been little to no discussion of a new edition of Pathfinder and Paizo has proven that they are more about customer service than WotC, so if you took that into account, you would know where I'm coming from.
Really? Scott, is this a matter of your definition "during 4e's initial release" as the very day it was released, then claiming "the business decisions that people are upset about didn't happen during precisely that day"? The breach of trust was a slow affair, over what I would say amounts to a year or so. It was not just one item, one fot bullet, rather it was an operation foot autofire for months.
I just got finished reading posts by people who decided not to try 4e because they felt that their trust was violated upon its initial release.
I get that you have a list of grievances, Sissyl, but this isn't aimed at you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell you what, let us check the first post of the thread:
Many folks have mentioned being turned off/away by WOTC products and/or decisions in the past 5-10 years.
Anything else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott Betts, I respectfully disagree on this matter. Why did WotC allow them to sell them in the first place if they were going to reneg and snatch them away?
Because they wanted people to be able to buy PDFs? They didn't freaking delete them from people's hard drives. They simply removed the license for DTRPG to distribute them, which forced DTRPG to stop allowing customers to re-download the PDFs - again, because they made a promise they knew they weren't licensed to keep.
THAT is the salient issue. I don't care about all the legalese, because it's for Asmodeans and Anuses (Which sounds like a fun card game though!), I care about what's right.
So a business shouldn't have the ability to determine who gets to distribute their product? That's wrong, to you?
WotC should have NEVER allowed other companies to sell PDFs of their if they were not prepared to leave them up. THAT is the breach of trust.
No, it's not. WotC never made you a promise that you would be able to re-download the PDFs in perpetuity. That's sort of a ridiculous thing to believe, in fact! This is the internet! Distribution channels change all the time.
You can continue to be an apologist for DTRPG and continue to hate on WotC (yaaaaaaay!) but that take on the situation doesn't reflect a reasonable understanding of the issue.
As for your comment regarding 4.0's release not having anything that breached trust by itself, I agree, but only because it was the culmination of several years of trust breaking that made people finally say 'fufu it' and walk away from WotC. The things AFTER 4.0's release, however, were MAJOR trust-breakers though!
Liiiiiiiiike...
As for your comment of me only having superficial understanding of the market, I respectfully think you should tone down the accusations there. There has been little to no discussion of a new edition of Pathfinder
That's not the point. You made the claim that Pathfinder is somehow the shining savior of tabletop RPGs because it doesn't engage in the edition treadmill, which is an absurd thing to say because Pathfinder hasn't even been out for five years and a typical edition of D&D lasts somewhere in the neighborhood of eight.
and Paizo has proven that they are more about customer service than WotC, so if you took that into account, you would know where I'm coming from.
Edition releases are not a reflection of poor customer service. They are a reflection of the realities of the tabletop RPG business model, wherein initial sales for an edition are very high, and sales for each subsequent same-edition product drop off (on average) until they become untenable. Are you unfamiliar with this model?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If only they'd never gone to 2nd Edition and just kept putting out exciting new books for AD&D!!
Oh wait. If only they'd never put out AD&D (or BECMI) and kept putting out exciting new books for the original Chainmail version.
Funny thing is that for the most part BECMI, OE, 1st and 2nd are mechanically all the same and I can run any module from those systems for any of those rule sets on the fly. Chainmail is a different animal.
Poor comparison/false analogy. Those editions were more like variations of the Call of Cthulhu editions than the big system change over from 2nd to 3rd.
Tell you what, let us check the first post of the thread:
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I TRIED 4.0, Scott, and I lost a great deal of money on the PDFs, so I believe I have a right to be angry.
It seems WotC doesn't care about customers, only about revenue, which is MY grievance with them.
If they had refunded those who purchased the PDFs, or just gave them access to the links to what they bought, that would have assuaged quite a bit of hurt feelings.
But they DIDN'T. Instead, they chose to compound customer-unfriendly decision on top of customer-unfriendly decision until people just threw up their arms in disgust and walked away from WotC.
And, as I said, this was already AFTER they swapped editions rapidly with the whole 3.0/3.5 farce, essentially forcing people to buy new books that had, what 20 changes in the whole thing (Yes, I know there was more than this, so don't play technicalities,).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
1. They can reopen those pdfs they shut down a few years back. It is not like anyone that is not paying is not going to find a way to get them anyway.
2. They have ToB errata listed on the site, but it is really for another book. I am sure they knew about that. Now assuming the file actually ever existed pushing it to the site would help, but I am sure they knew it never existed and figured it would look like a mistake which is a better than doing nothing.
3. If they change the forums again people should get a warning. Logging onto the forums one day and not being able to find my old post was annoying, to put it mildly. Some of them(post) were still there the last time I checked, which was over a year ago, but most of them were gone. I would have downloaded them had I known that was going to happen.
4. Stop pushing out a new book every month that has no time to be playtested.<----I don't know if they still do this or not.
5. I should have to pay for errata or rules updates to the core rules----->I am looking directly at you, rules compendium.
I am sure there are other examples here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I TRIED 4.0, Scott, and I lost a great deal of money on the PDFs, so I believe I have a right to be angry.
You absolutely do. At DTRPG. The company that made you a promise and then broke that promise.
It seems WotC doesn't care about customers, only about revenue, which is MY grievance with them.
They care about both, because customers are the source of their revenue.
If they had refunded those who purchased the PDFs, or just gave them access to the links to what they bought, that would have assuaged quite a bit of hurt feelings.
That sounds like the distributor's responsibility. You didn't buy your PDFs from WotC.
But they DIDN'T. Instead, they chose to compound customer-unfriendly decision on top of customer-unfriendly decision until people just threw up their arms in disgust and walked away from WotC.
Some people.
And, as I said, this was already AFTER they swapped editions rapidly with the whole 3.0/3.5 farce, essentially forcing people to buy new books that had, what 20 changes in the whole thing (Yes, I know there was more than this, so don't play technicalities,).
You weren't forced to do anything of the sort. Your old 3e books remained compatible, and all of the rules changes were available for free.
To say nothing of how ridiculous it is to decry WotC for releasing a slightly-revised version of a game, and then praise Pathfinder for doing exactly the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone forgetting that DTRPG made an unlicensed promise to its customers that PDFs would remain available that it legally was not in a position to be able to keep?
Everyone went for WotC's throat when it happened, and almost no one acknowledged that DTRPG was in the wrong.
Yeah, no one likes that WotC pulled PDF support for a few years. But that's just a disappointing business decision, not a breach of trust. Stripping people of access to PDFs they thought they owned? That is a breach of trust, but it's not WotC that breached it. It's DTRPG, for making a promise to its customers it knew it was incapable of keeping.
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. Many people just assume a pdf will always be there so they never really blamed DRRPG since the promise was never heard of to them. EVERYONE however notices when the toys are gone, and they notice who took them. This topic has come up before, an he known instigator of the action will be blamed. It also did not help that the pirating reasoning was not excepted by many in the community. It was seen as a lie from what I remember on many forums.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of trust with respect to a tabletop RPG company seems like it's thrown around far more often than it ought to be. There is precious little reason for such a company to require you to place any trust in them - especially since 3e, when every edition of the game has featured ways to enjoy it at either no cost or at very little cost. There is no need to invest huge sums of money up front and then cross your fingers that the game will suit you.
I don't have much patience for people who say that 4e's release cost them their trust in WotC, because I don't think anything happened during 4e's initial release that could be credibly called a breach in trust by anyone.
I do agree that expecting for 3E to never end was not exactly a realistic outlook, and it is not always possible to keep things backwards compatible forever. As a company they(any RPG company) have to make money so having a new ruleset may be the best answer in the longrun.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying, so let me rephrase it for you.
Because they wanted people to be able to buy PDFs? They didn't freaking delete them from people's hard drives. They simply removed the license for DTRPG to distribute them, which forced DTRPG to stop allowing customers to re-download the PDFs - again, because they made a promise they knew they weren't licensed to keep.
You should know, if you own a computer and I assume you do, that computers break down. They may not have deleted them from people's hard drives, but they DID keep them from redownloading the files if the computer crashed, which is what happened to me. And I asked WotC if they could get me a download link to the files I purchased and they said no, that I would have to buy it again.
So a business shouldn't have the ability to determine who gets to distribute their product? That's wrong, to you?
No, but giving them permission to sell it THEN choosing to remove it just so they could make more money is a total d-bag move to anyone with a moral compass. And no, I don't care about the legalese, so feel free to keep that to yourself.
No, it's not. WotC never made you a promise that you would be able to re-download the PDFs in perpetuity. That's sort of a ridiculous thing to believe, in fact! This is the internet! Distribution channels change all the time.
You can continue to be an apologist for DTRPG and continue to hate on WotC (yaaaaaaay!) but that take on the situation doesn't reflect a reasonable understanding of the issue.
I'm not being an apologist, I just believe in KEEPING WHAT I PAY FOR! You may be rich enough to buy hundreds of dollars of PDFs twice, but most gamers are not. And the only thing ridiculous here is the fact that you support such an inherently customer-unfriendly move.
Liiiiiiiiike...
Do you really want the list of grievances? Sissyl wrote most of them quite clearly above. If you were reading along, you could see them, yes?
That's not the point. You made the claim that Pathfinder is somehow the shining savior of tabletop RPGs because it doesn't engage in the edition treadmill, which is an absurd thing to say because Pathfinder hasn't even been out for five years and a typical edition of D&D lasts somewhere in the neighborhood of eight.
Is it absurd? If you have been on the messageboards, Paizo has not even really talked that much about new editions and, if I remember correctly, said it would be years off if it happened at all.
Edition releases are not a reflection of poor customer service. They are a reflection of the realities of the tabletop RPG business model, wherein initial sales for an edition are very high, and sales for each subsequent same-edition product drop off (on average) until they become untenable. Are you unfamiliar with this model?
No, I'm quite familiar with the model thanks to WotC. A better question: are you unfamiliar with 'the customer is always right'? Companies stay open at the pleasure of their respective customers and not caring what they want shows gauche and unsightly levels of greed. And, quite obviously, is bad for business. Do you see how much Pathfinder has grown from the legions of angered WotC refugees? What has THAT done to WotC's business model? A lot, given that they are releasing a new edition.
You weren't forced to do anything of the sort. Your old 3e books remained compatible, and all of the rules changes were available for free.
To say nothing of how ridiculous it is to decry WotC for releasing a slightly-revised version of a game, and then praise Pathfinder for doing exactly the same.
There's a difference: WotC released an edition solely to make more money with a few revisions... Paizo released Pathfinder for all the people that were interested in the 3.X system that WotC abandoned and simply chose to improve on it as they did so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm talking about the subset of those people who said that their trust was broken by the release of 4e.Tell you what, let us check the first post of the thread:
Many folks have mentioned being turned off/away by WOTC products and/or decisions in the past 5-10 years.Anything else?
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should know, if you own a computer and I assume you do, that computers break down. They may not have deleted them from people's hard drives, but they DID keep them from redownloading the files if the computer crashed, which is what happened to me. And I asked WotC if they could get me a download link to the files I purchased and they said no, that I would have to buy it again.
Maybe next time, back your files up? If you were under the impression that DTRPG was your backup, because they'd promised you that your files would be available there forever despite them not being able to make that promise, why aren't you upset at them for making a promise they can't keep?
No, but giving them permission to sell it THEN choosing to remove it just so they could make more money is a total d-bag move to anyone with a moral compass. And no, I don't care about the legalese, so feel free to keep that to yourself.
"Spare me the legalese" is, in this case, just another way for you to say, "I don't care about the factors that actually make this DTRPG's fault, I only want to hear about the things that allow me to continue to believe that WotC is solely to blame!"
I'm not being an apologist, I just believe in KEEPING WHAT I PAY FOR!
You paid for a PDF. You got to keep it. Your computer's hard drive failed and was utterly unrecoverable? That sounds like the sort of thing that could happen to an actual possession!
Are PDFs real products that you own, giving you the rights of ownership? If yes, then you have to accept responsibility for their loss! Or are PDFs licenses for a service? If yes, then that legalese suddenly becomes critically important, because the terms of the license (not what you believe in your heart of hearts!) dictate what you're entitled to!
You don't get to have it both ways.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. 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. 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!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
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."
Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.