| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this thread is really getting off in a bad way. The OP asked people for there opinion on if they trust Wotc anymore and why. If you want to say you trust wotc that is ok but attacking other community members for stating their opinions and beliefs of what they think is being a jerk. Please state you opinion and then read what everyone else thinks there is no reason to post again in response to another persons opinion.
This is a discussion forum. It's okay to have opinions on other people's opinions. If you find someone having an opinion about your opinion difficult to handle (or difficult to handle without resorting to personal insults), it might be time to take a step back. There are a number of people posting here who are able to have a discussion - including disagreement! - without resorting to personal attack, but there are many others who are not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me ask, you find a product you like. Do you instantly trust them to continue to make the exact same product forever?
No. Not normally. I can count on one hand the times I did so on one hand, probably. It does put plusses on my chance of picking something up from the producers again, though. After enough plusses, I start buying without checking it up first. Now, sometimes that gets me a crap book, one I would not have bought if I had checked up first. That is okay. What I gain from it is familiarity, cozying down to read something I know I will probably like, looking forward to the next one, discussing it on the net with boneheads like me, and so on. There is a name for this: Brand loyalty. It is what gets money rolling in year in and year out for producers. It is what people WANT. It is why, for example, Forgotten Realms sold well. People knew what getting a new FR book meant. In reading that book, they knew they would be reminded of years and years of good emotions.
The price of that for the producers is that you really have to be a bit careful when making new branded products. Coca Cola learned this when they tried New Coke. It is an often-taught lesson to companies that if they have brand loyalty, it IS NOT JUST THEIR POTATO ANYMORE. Change it too much, particularly if you do it in an insensitive and heavy-handed way, and you LOSE brand loyalty, something that took years and decades to build up.
It's all well and good to say "It is their property, they can do with it as they please", and "You can't expect people not to change things in their IP", and so on, but fact is, it doesn't matter one whit. They did all they could to cash in (Forgotten Realms being the foremost such money grab during 4E to my mind), and they have realized there was a pretty significant price tag attached to doing so. And while 5E sounds far better... not every mistake can be easily smoothed over. Sometimes you really need to build up your trust again. There is a limit to what people will overlook.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly guys (Steve, Sissyl, Wraithstrike, et al longtimers), there's not any reason to engage Scott in these arguments. He's been on these boards for 6 years now, defending WotC against any and every slight, real or perceived. Continuing to argue with him and let him get under your skin only serves to ruin everyone's good mood and get blood pressures up.
4E is dead and he may literally be the only person left on this board defending 4e and WotC's action leading up to its release (and some of their other actions, like yanking the PDFs willed to no warning). At this point, his comments on WotC/4e can safely be ignored.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly guys (Steve, Sissyl, Wraithstrike, et al longtimers), there's not any reason to engage Scott in these arguments. He's been on these boards for 6 years now, defending WotC against any and every slight, real or perceived. Continuing to argue with him and let him get under your skin only serves to ruin everyone's good mood and get blood pressures up.
Nice.
4E is dead and he may literally be the only person left on this board defending 4e and WotC's action leading up to its release (and some of their other actions, like yanking the PDFs willed to no warning). At this point, his comments on WotC/4e can safely be ignored.
-Skeld
Let's ignore, for right now, the fact that there are multiple other people in this thread saying things very similar to what I'm saying. Is it your opinion that these forums (and this sub-forum in particular) should make a point of ignoring anyone who disagrees with this community's prevailing opinion of a particular game or the company that made it?
This isn't the only tabletop gaming community that I frequent. It is, however, the only one that seems to be unable to handle disagreement with civility. I post with the same "tone" here and elsewhere, but where I'm met with reasonable discussion elsewhere I'm met with insult here. Again, not particularly flattering for this community.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.
Your posts are in-effect telling people how they should feel and that they were not wronged and that they are incorrect or misguided in their feelings that they were betrayed. When they feel betrayed.
As long as you take that approach while posting here the acrimony isn't going to go away.
That being said I don't think this should become a "turn Scott Betts into a Wotc pinata" thread where people can project their anger at Wotc/4e on one poster. It's not right and it isn't fair.
--------------
People who supported Wotc during the 3e/4e transition are going to be biased to defend, while people who didn't transition (for various reasons: ogl, pdfs, didn't like the new game) are going to be biased against.
Since this is a subjective issue maybe instead of bickering about feelings people should instead state how they feel (without restriction), give their reasons why and then leave it at that.
Just a suggestion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good point, Skeld!
That said, what was the breaking point for most people in regards to trust for WotC, since that seems to be a fair topic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.
It's difficult (for me, at least) to be particularly empathetic to the sort of person who refers to an entire company (a number of employees of which I have met, gamed with, and shared drinks with, and who struck me as genuinely cool people) in a hostile or insulting manner. You can call the decision shortsighted or whatever, that's fine, but "savages"? You may view a lack of empathy on my part as the root cause of hostility in this thread, but I don't - this thread's tone was hostile well before I started posting in it. The only difference is that the hostility became personal, rather than simply being directed at a company people don't like, once people realized it could be directed at people disagreeing with them instead.
That said, I appreciate the support, as it were.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.It's difficult (for me, at least) to be particularly empathetic to the sort of person who refers to an entire company (a number of employees of which I have met, gamed with, and shared drinks with, and who struck me as genuinely cool people) in a hostile or insulting manner. You can call the decision shortsighted or whatever, that's fine, but "savages"? You may view a lack of empathy on my part as the root cause of hostility in this thread, but I don't - this thread's tone was hostile well before I started posting in it. The only difference is that the hostility became personal, rather than simply being directed at a company people don't like, once people realized it could be directed at people disagreeing with them instead.
That said, I appreciate the support, as it were.
Fair enough - I think that this being paizo's forums with many people initially coming here during the early edition wars may factor into the bias against Wotc and any of their post 4e offerings. So it was probably hostile coming in - and I don't think you should be blamed for the actions and slights (real or imagined) of a company.
You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.
But I agree - the edition warring and excessive bashing/rhetoric need to stop or this thread is going to get shut down. People can express how they feel but the guidelines of this specific sub-forum dictates that people need to make sure their feelings are not veiled attacks. It's just counter productive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.
I certainly do understand that. But people get upset at a wide range of things. It's not always reasonable or fair to get upset (or worse, hostile) at a given person/event/company, but I feel like that idea isn't given the time of day in the gaming community. When someone questions whether a certain hostile reaction is reasonable, it tends to be met with additional hostility. I'm not surprised by this, but that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate. It's unpleasant, and it makes actual discussion very difficult (if not outright impossible). I don't feel like the gaming community tends to have stronger emotional reactions than other communities, but I do feel like the gaming community tends to react with those strong emotions to relatively minor issues. It's a matter of proportion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
people get upset at a wide range of things. It's not always reasonable or fair to get upset (or worse, hostile) at a given person/event/company, but I feel like that idea isn't given the time of day in the gaming community.
Emotions are a funny thing... It might not be reasonable or fair, but not everyone rationalizes their emotional responses to things; they just... React (and Lord knows that I have been guilty of this at times).
It's just human nature, so this tendency is certainly not limited to the gaming community.
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?
It's not that I dont trust WOTC anymore it's that
1)There's another company that is making a game that I'd rather support and pay money for.
2)They no longer make a product that I'm interested in supporting.
Was how thay handled the transition to 4E part of that? I'd be lying if I said no. But overall after actually trying 4E and really not liking it I'd just as soon as play and support something else.
Is Paizo the ONLY company I support? No. Green Ronin, Frog God Games, Fantasy Flight, Kobold Press are companies that I also support.
WOTC like I said before no. I'm not interested in 5E as a game that I would play. I've looked at the free PDF and it's in no way a game that I would pay money for or support. For about half a minute I considered purchasing the the Kobold Press adventures though because...you know KOBOLD PRESS? But then I realized that the adventures are heavily tied into the Realms and so that killed that idea.
|
I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.It's difficult (for me, at least) to be particularly empathetic to the sort of person who refers to an entire company (a number of employees of which I have met, gamed with, and shared drinks with, and who struck me as genuinely cool people) in a hostile or insulting manner. You can call the decision shortsighted or whatever, that's fine, but "savages"? You may view a lack of empathy on my part as the root cause of hostility in this thread, but I don't - this thread's tone was hostile well before I started posting in it. The only difference is that the hostility became personal, rather than simply being directed at a company people don't like, once people realized it could be directed at people disagreeing with them instead.
That said, I appreciate the support, as it were.
Hey, so it's not fine to consider TOZ a great, cool and nice guy but also to consider the U.S. Government he used to work for as a soldier to be an imperialist, oppressive fascist force of evil?
Daaamn.
|
While I don't agree with Scott on everything. I do think unlike many posters on the boards he tends to be more rational and logical than most. Like it or not he is correct. Legally Wotc were in the right. Drivethru had no business selling the PDFs if they were not allowed. Morally not that much. Except morals don't pay the bills at the end of the day. Nor a accepted form of currency at any bank.
Business is not FAIR. That's why we have the 995 vs the 1%. Do I wish it were different yes. I don't think it's ever going to change. I would have done the same thing with the PDFs. I would have given a week at most three days. Then pulled the pdfs.
I have to say more time passes the more the same members of the community do their best to behave like they don't want to hear anyone disagree with them. It's like they want a validation echo chamber. Then get offended when people disagree with them. While 4E is no longer my D&D of choice I can at least talk about without attacking Wotc nor those who defend it. And really trying to dismiss Scott posts by saying they are hostile in nature. Why for his simple disagreeing and defending 4E. Saying emotions can be volatile is only a defence for so long. Were not animals that react on instinct. We don't have to edition war. No one is forced to do so. Emotions or not. So to me that is a cop-out. Quite simply posters and gamers outside of these forums edition war because they can and want to.
I had two players in my game who wanted to join the forums. Considering what they saw in this thread they won't join if you pay them a million dollars. Your not doing the Paizo community any favors. If it was not for the fact that they are some more level headed and interesting posters to discuss topics with. Even I would be leaving these forums.
|
|
And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.
True but good luck trying to get them to behave unless one has the money to do so. Boycotts only work if a majority participate. Not to mention does that mean that because Drivethru made the mistake of selling Wotc pdfs without their permission. That you will no longer give them your money either. Wotc pulled the pdfs yet Drivethru where the ones that started the entire mess in the first place.
And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.While I don't agree with Scott on everything. I do think unlike many posters on the boards he tends to be more rational and logical than most. Like it or not he is correct. Legally Wotc were in the right. Drivethru had no business selling the PDFs if they were not allowed. Morally not that much. Except morals don't pay the bills at the end of the day. Nor a accepted form of currency at any bank.
Business is not FAIR. That's why we have the 995 vs the 1%. Do I wish it were different yes. I don't think it's ever going to change. I would have done the same thing with the PDFs. I would have given a week at most three days. Then pulled the pdfs.
I don't disagree with any of that, Jeff, but I don't think emotional conditions like trust and betrayal enter into informed consumer behavior. I mean, you can support whoever you choose, but giving a corporation enough trust that they're even in a position where betrayal is possible is playing with fire, y'know? I'm saying all the reason you might or might not trust a human being aren't how a business functions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is, Scott, concepts such as "trust" or "betrayal" are inherently emotional phenomena. Any sort of rational argument against a feeling is going to be seen as dismissive towards those feelings. You can argue that WoTC was completely in their right to do what they did, and DtRPG should have put up legal disclaimers about downloading. All of that is ENTIRELY correct. But that isn't going to be how people perceive things.
I mean, PR firms exist for a reason. To make sure any company decision or change in direction maximizes profit and generates the maximum amount of goodwill towards a company. On that basis alone, you could consider that WoTC should have perhaps expected negative fallout and gone about their decision in another way. In business and marketing, the perception of a product or it's producers is far far more important many times than any sort of abstract "value" the product has.
Brand loyalty and trust also isn't just about insurance and airlines. Hobbies and entertainment attractive passionate audiences, who are even more likely to developer trust in a product maker. I have never ever heard a passionate debate between a Geico and Allstate user. I have seen way way too many passionate debates between DC and Marvel fans, or fans of different video game companies, or between fans of different authors/genres. If gamers to you seem more argumentative...it's just because you spend more time in gaming communities.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.I certainly do understand that. But people get upset at a wide range of things. It's not always reasonable or fair to get upset (or worse, hostile) at a given person/event/company, but I feel like that idea isn't given the time of day in the gaming community. When someone questions whether a certain hostile reaction is reasonable, it tends to be met with additional hostility. I'm not surprised by this, but that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate. It's unpleasant, and it makes actual discussion very difficult (if not outright impossible). I don't feel like the gaming community tends to have stronger emotional reactions than other communities, but I do feel like the gaming community tends to react with those strong emotions to relatively minor issues. It's a matter of proportion.
I agree it isn't fair because it isn't based in rational thought.
Gamers take an edition of what they like very personally, maybe even as a reflection of who they are, how they like to play, what gaming means to them in their lives - when in reality the games are just a sum of rules to guide us in an experience. We are after all talking about a game here - but again, it's more. That game and collection of rules, numbers and design in various incarnations is what we do to pass the time away. I remember many a tough day - losing someone I love, having some kind of life crisis - so much so that I don't want to game..and then a week or two later while the problem is on my mind I DM and for a few hours I forget my problem - or I give my mind a break to get perspective.
Gaming is our lives. I know it's my life and I'm not ashamed to say that.
That's the reality - so you are going to get very human (re: irrational) responses when aspects of it/our lives are being perceived as being attacked, slighted, challenged or changed. Involve an investment of money (all those edition books I paid for) or a perceived loss of money (I was cut off from my pdfs by X) and you are going to get some very agitated and opinionated people.
I get your motivation in trying to scale this back to a like/dislike format sans attacks, rage and rhetoric. I just think you might not realize that these games are a integral part of our lives and the way some people may feel about their game and the parent company is on par with a sports fan and his support of his team and their owners (love/hate). I wish people could step away from the emotional approach - but I also see the source and reason why it's such an emotional and irrational subject.
Trying to fight the irrational with appeals to rationality is both admirable and futile effort. The more emotional investment people have, the greater the bias they are going to have - I just don't see this having a positive or productive outcome for such a charged subject - if you agree or disagree with how "charged" it actually is not going to matter to those who do. Asking people why they are so upset may force some introspection or questioning, but if they source it as X, Y and Z reason they are probably not going to go much further than that because they already have their answer and now they see you as challenging their X, Y and Z experience and reasons.
Anyway - had a better post that got et by the boards. Need to get to work.
|
|
Here the thing when a company is in the right they don't have to do good PR. They should but they don't. Palladium books sent a lot of cease and desist letters to fan who converted anything with their rules. Were they right to do so. Yes. Did it also create a lot of negative feelings towards them. You better beleive it. They never apologized for doing so. Notr hired a pr person ot generate goodwill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some of the things WotC has done that ticked me off.
Removing access to the large number of PDFs I bought from WotC through the WotC store. Some of the Planescape files no longer work and I can't redownload them.
The initial release of 3e PDFs as expensive and DRM heavy PDFs. DRM was eventually removed but I didn't buy any at all until they removed it, and even then the high prices still annoyed me and discouraged me from obtaining WotC 3e PDFs.
The d20 license revision then logo removal nonsense.
Switching from the 3e OGL model to a no ogl, no free online rules model at 4e's release. This delayed my actually checking out 4e. The Shadowfell PDF with basic core rules came out much later and was my entry to the game.
The even higher price of the WotC 4e supplement book PDFs while they were available.
The blatant screwing over of 3pp's I like on promised but delayed licensing at the beginning of 4e and then the resulting crappy license.
Removing access to the few PDFs I bought from WotC through rpgnow for years.
Removing access to the large number of PDFs I bought from WotC through paizo.
Spouting nonsense reasons for removing access to the rpgnow and paizo PDFs.
Not allowing any of their 3e licensee's (Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Gamma World) to anounce the end of availability of download or purchase of those PDFs. I was particularly annoyed at having bought the entire run of 3e Dragonlance PDFs and having them gone a few days later before I had downloaded them.
Not giving Paizo enough time to turn all the Dragon and Dungeon issues into PDFs. I really wanted Savage Tide in PDF.
Once I got into 4e and was a DDI subscriber turning it from a downloadable resource I owned to a temporary access only resouce.
Those are the things that stick out in my mind.
Compared to the run-up to 4e, I think WotC has been busting their butts to rebuild their relationship with the market and the trust people place in them. The broad public play test, the constant surveys on monster lore, the solicitations for feedback on what constitutes the essential D&D experience.
When WotC bought TSR, they turned TSR's old internet-unfriendly policies on their head. They started encouraging people to participate online with the same things TSR slapped down with C&D letters. They started really engaging players online. They released some products for free download (quite a few, actually). Basically, they acted like a forward-thinking company jockeying for real leadership in the industry - and by that I don't just mean having the most popular or widest sold product - but really standing as a company to emulate. That lasted a while into the Hasbro years and the release of 3e under the OGL, but as 3e went on, they retreated from that position on the cutting edge and into conventionality. The withdrawal of the PDFs shortly after 4e's release was the final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned. They may have engaged in risky R&D with 4e, a gutsy move if not exactly one well-respected by large segments of their market, but they were no longer exhibiting real behavioral leadership in customer service - and that's how they lost my trust as a customer.
I am liking their moves with 5e, though. I think they learned some important lessons about involvement of the hobbyists in the design of the products they are trying to sell to said hobbyists.
|
|
But nothing of the above was an abuse of my 'trust'. I was a customer, not a friend or a boon companion. I gave money, they gave material. I stopped liking the material they gave, so I stopped giving money. No big.
While I bought the 2E reprints I agree that the price for them was expensive. Mind you I have seen lgs sell used copies at 30$ of the original print run.
I do wish more of the fanbase thought like you. In the end unless your a owner or know people in the company personally. We are not their friends or their boon companions. They don't owe me anything. Nor I to them.
|
|
If your willing to give me the exact factual number of fans that did boycott 4E then all you have is opinion. Like I do. So yeah your "evidence" is hardly factual or unbiased.
Store owners unless they work directly with Wotc won't convince me of that. They are not exactly unbaised. One store owner tried to blame Wotc switch to 4E for his 3E/3.5. no longer selling. Yet he ignored any advice to not buy every third edition book under the sun. I tried to stop him a whole bunch of other customers tried. He would not listen. So they are hardly unbiased. Another owner loves 13th Age. He pushes the game whenever he can. Last I spoke to him three months. he sold 10 copies. Between now and then he may have sold 15-20 copies. Which would change the above sales figures. Another lgs owner sells only comics book of all kinds. Some popular card games like magic. A small row of rpgs. Again change the sales figures above. Every store is different imo.
For all we know 4E may have still been profitable. Just not enough for Hasbro. Or it could have been that their is a mandate from the higher ups that a new edition must be released every x number of years.
Mac fans did their best boycott PC. Yet PC was and is still for the most part popular than mac. All because of pc open source vs mac closed source approach. I will never buy a mac because I don't want to lock myself out of all the option that I can get with pc. Macs look so much better than a pc. I don't care about that truly. To me ultilty vs appearence will always be important.
|
|
I was pretty burned when they ended 4th edition. I loved 4th edition and it would have been nice if it had stuck around for a few more years.
I'm also tired of WotC discontinuing their products shortly after its release-
-Dungeon Command
-Adventure System Board Games (Wrath of Ashardalon, etc)
-Prepainted Miniatures
That is a annoying move on Wotc part imo. I never played any of the above much. Yet some of my players do and they feel the same way.
For me, it's no longer an issue of trust.
It's an issue of having limited funds for gaming, and being a Paizo subscriber. To buy into 5E in a big way, I'd have to cancel those subscriptions - and I'm not doing that just to buy into a new game unless I have a really good reason to do so (I may end having to cancel one or two at some point just for financial reasons, however.)
I switched to Pathfinder because I disliked 4E and liked the idea of continuing to expand my 3E material. Since then, the original 3E material has been boxed up and I'm now switched completely to "native" Pathfinder. If I ever switch again, the biggest selling point for me would be "uses all of your existing Pathfinder material with very little modification needed."
I actually like 5E. I even prefer it as a ruleset to 3E/PF due to being far less intrusive and complex - but I like the Paizo APs enough to continue with Pathfinder instead.
My 5E starter set arrived today, and I have the three core books on preorder, but I just can't afford to buy into the stream of adventures and settings books that are likely to follow afterwards.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
