|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 10, 2012 3:29:39 GMT -8
The point I'm making is that just because it's a company with an IP doesn't mean we cannot and should not complain or criticise. Perhaps more should have been said about the banks prior to economic collapse because looking back there were people who saw it coming and said so many many times but they were marginalised in the press or not printed at all . . . Bit late now though . . . I had a devil of a time explaining this, this raison d'etre of professional public relations practice, to potential clients like WotC. Even my trade only gives it lip service. No one wants to listen. And few want to upset the apple cart or rock the boat. (It is not a given that investors today know the business they invest in.) I have met a few of these mavericks and I can sense their authenticity of character in their presence. It's like meeting an angel on the road, or Kevin from Sin City. l But most are people with whom I do not want to associate myself or my talent or my children. They are about apathy, inertia and politics. They call a song we dance that Warren Zevon or Frank Zappa could have done justice. Exactly . . . ah a fellow Warren Zevon fan - did you ever get the stuff he did with 3/4 of REM (as Hindu Love Gods). Perhaps what we should be looking at is a collective purchase of shares (like many pension investments) then an agreed agenda and the sending of representation to AGM's to request an either an accounting or to suggest more profitable directions. One can only dream I suppose . . . Though if anyone is serious I'll stake £500-£1000 in shares . . . More if burn my credit cards a bit (not sure of the current exchange rate) . . . PS: I'm a fan of The Zappa too (Joe's Garage especially)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jul 10, 2012 4:30:41 GMT -8
Exactly . . . ah a fellow Warren Zevon fan - did you ever get the stuff he did with 3/4 of REM (as Hindu Love Gods). Perhaps what we should be looking at is a collective purchase of shares (like many pension investments) then an agreed agenda and the sending of representation to AGM's to request an either an accounting or to suggest more profitable directions. One can only dream I suppose . . . Though if anyone is serious I'll stake £500-£1000 in shares . . . More if burn my credit cards a bit (not sure of the current exchange rate) . . . PS: I'm a fan of The Zappa too (Joe's Garage especially) I can never think of Lawyers, Guns and Money without thinking about my career. The trick with shares is that they are so very diluted. The first time I bought shares, Barrack Gold a month before they tanked in 1990, I went to my broker at the time and said: I want to put 500 on Series B (I think it was - common investing not voting stock). He thought I wanted to buy 500 shares. That's how he sold: by numbers of shares. My $500 was a meaningless 25 shares with a bazillion outstanding shares: a drop of piss in an ever expanding, and unregulated bucket of piss. It also informs how the rich just play with themselves like some of us used to play post office. Only they do it with money in an exclusive club where you need money AND access to be invited. Consumers do not really factor in with some of these larger companies because it is all movement on paper. Without consumers, when all the customers are part of the circle jerk, public relations is not really needed. In one very real way, now that I have the understanding of that aspect of my career, I am glad I am retired. Still passionate about my field and not glad about having been retired, of course. What would Zappa say: Don't eat the yellow snow? (I got into Valley Girl back in the day and didn't pick up on Zappa or Warren until I was a college DJ playing the 50s, 60s, 70s & some 80's)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 10, 2012 5:15:00 GMT -8
The trick with shares is that they are so very diluted. The first time I bought shares, Barrack Gold a month before they tanked in 1990, I went to my broker at the time and said: I want to put 500 on Series B (I think it was - common investing not voting stock). He thought I wanted to buy 500 shares. That's how he sold: by numbers of shares. My $500 was a meaningless 25 shares with a bazillion outstanding shares: a drop of piss in an ever expanding, and unregulated bucket of piss. That's why you form a cooperative to purchase the shares. A group of like minded investors pooling their resources - this is exactly how pension funds in the uk work, except the investors are more often than not uninterested and the investment is not one of interest or familiarity . . . Rather they just follow the money (again a sobering lesson of modern times . . . With many pension funds in the uk struggling because of this complacency - personally I think, like politics, if you don't take an active interest then you can't bitch about the outcome eg consciously voting).
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jul 10, 2012 6:08:11 GMT -8
Cliche maxims survive for a reason, because they're truisms. Mock them at your peril, hipsters.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jul 10, 2012 18:25:31 GMT -8
The point I'm making is that just because it's a company with an IP doesn't mean we cannot and should not complain or criticise. Perhaps more should have been said about the banks prior to economic collapse because looking back there were people who saw it coming and said so many many times but they were marginalised in the press or not printed at all . . . Bit late now though . . . I never said that you shouldn't criticize them. Hell, if you'll notice, I've been criticizing them throughout this thread. I'm just saying that your specific criticisms are short sighted. The market has proved that if WotC had followed your advice, then they wouldn't be in business today. Has WotC made a LOT of bad choices? Abso-friggin-lutely. Is discontinuing older lines and bringing out newer editions of the rules one of them? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 10, 2012 22:24:42 GMT -8
The point I'm making is that just because it's a company with an IP doesn't mean we cannot and should not complain or criticise. Perhaps more should have been said about the banks prior to economic collapse because looking back there were people who saw it coming and said so many many times but they were marginalised in the press or not printed at all . . . Bit late now though . . . I never said that you shouldn't criticize them. Hell, if you'll notice, I've been criticizing them throughout this thread. I'm just saying that your specific criticisms are short sighted. The market has proved that if WotC had followed your advice, then they wouldn't be in business today. Has WotC made a LOT of bad choices? Abso-friggin-lutely. Is discontinuing older lines and bringing out newer editions of the rules one of them? Nope. How do you know??? They haven't done it so that is evidence of nothing??? They are however struggling to maintain market share and satisfy the financial overheads demanded by Hasbro. Again . . . who remembers SPI games??? a fuck tonne of IP that won't have aged because they were not (except Dragon Quest) RPG's. WOTC suddenly announce a limited release of AD&D 1st edition . . . I doubt I'll get a copy (because I'd like to contribute to the GG memorial) because it has generated a lot of internet buzz and interest and I doubt enough copies will be printed to satisfy demand outside of the US. They've announced a release of D&D 3.5 and again a lot of interest. You cannot apply market models that relate to hardware based products or software based products to games . . . that is an established understanding of the niche. How many times has classic monopoly been re-released?. Discontinuing support for software is different . . . due to the nature of IT. But I can still but old software as new . . . especially games. Even XP received continuing support and patches from an authorized third party . . . WOTC have shrunk not grown . . . so ignoring the advice of the consumers has proved . . . ? The final point is people wished to buy discontinued lines as PDF's and now they cannot . . . that's market share lost, money lost and good will lost As to support for old systems being counterintuitive all I can say is : Swords&Wizardry, OSRIC, White Wolf Old WOD and Pathfinder, Pathfinder, oh and Pathfinder. I imagine waving a Pathfinder product at a WOTC staffer is a bit like a Holy Cross to the undead . . . sends them yelping and scuttling back into the shadows. WOTC as a better business model should be considered a book publisher NOT a software giant . . . did they stop printing Dune when the revised history was published? No; have they stopped publishing Lord of Rings since Children of Hurin was released? No . . . In fact they regularly re-release the original covers, I know because I was able to replace my old beaten up inherited from one of my mums boys friends 1960's versions with a new exact copy recently . . . It was on sale next to the newer edition covers. I can't help suspecting a bit of edition warring when people believe that WOTC was right in dropping support for previous editions. I'm not against 4th ed for the record, I just don't use it because I don't like the fluff rather than the mechanic . . . It's to do with personal taste. The fact that WOTC with D&D Next promise to support all editions etc is proof that the demand is there . . . But how can it support materials it no longer publishes. That's the key . . . Making stuff available cheaply in both outlay and cost. . . . Like PDF's . . . Again the software model is not relevant because we aren't talking support as in further development we are talking support as in being able to get hold of previous material as published warts and all . . .
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jul 11, 2012 8:11:13 GMT -8
I'm not extrapolating market trends here. I'm not assuming that one market's model will apply here either.
These are trends and models that come from the RPG industry. Each successive book released in an edition sells less than the one previous. As the games gain more and more options, people feel less and less need to have access to all of them.
Which means, if you want to keep up your sales, you either need to reboot the game ("forcing" people to repurchase books) or you need to release more and more books, at a faster rate. And just an FYI, that last route was the one that White Wolf tried to follow, and it did a number on them. It was part of the reason they switched to the current model they're following.
Also, I obviously can't speak for others here, but there is no edition warring on my part. I love all four. The reason I support their decision to drop support of older editions is that I understand the reality of the situation. Publishing companies are like sharks. If they aren't always moving forward, they die.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 11, 2012 9:00:37 GMT -8
But then you're stuck with the WOTC dichotomy. D&D next will support ALL editions . . . Especially material sourced from them like The Caves of Chaos . . . How do new RPGers who decide to plug in modules that emulate AD&D get that material. I'm not saying they should reprint but we are talking about PDF's . . . What's the outlay what's the loss when a quick search of RPG now gives me access to the back catalogue of many superseded systems by other successful brands. Judge Dredd d20 by mongoose , I own both the old and new traveller flavour - I can still get the supplements for d20 despite mongoose no longer developing that line . . . A fine line of difference in the semantics of support vs development. I don't want new AD&D supplements but I want the opportunity to replace the ones I have and the opportunity to use them with my new group because it's history that predates their RPG experience (nb they've heard of GreyHawk and the Temple of Elemental Evil and they want to play a piece if history).
Despite protests about it being a good move to block access to past material it just doesn't make sense. Books wear out and need to replaced, new people often want to discover the past . . . The whole OSR movement testifies to that . . . Why is it a wise market decision to cut yourself off from that base? The fact that RPGnow exists with a huge back catalogue is evidence of demand. What makes WOTC different or wiser than the other publishers? Again I imagine WOTC wishes it had pathfinder as well as 4e and the OSR retro clones together, that would have changed WOTC's market position significantly.
The best advise I ever heard for any business is diversify diversify diversify - put all your eggs in one basket and you risk too much. What the people on this thread have bemoaned is a decision by WOTC that is flawed, a decision that if they hadn't have made it would have translated into continued sales . . . How would that damage the WOTC business model or lead to its ruination.?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 11, 2012 9:18:21 GMT -8
As final rejoinder: it comes down to which market model you believe in ( as identified by curiouscowboy): A) profit by hobby growth and new players investing in it (curiouscowboy's preferred model?) Or B) profit by making existing consumers continue to commit further investment (WOTC's apparent model?) Or C) a comfortable mixture of both (which I would hazard would be he preferred model for everyone?)
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jul 11, 2012 16:11:33 GMT -8
OK... First, D&D Next is supporting the play styles of all four editions, not necessarily supporting all the existing materials. The idea is that fans of all four editions will be able to take what they want from Next.
Second, I never said that it was a good idea to block access to the older material. In point of fact, if you'll review my posts, you'll notice that I've said that pulling the pdfs was, IMO, not a good idea. I'm just saying that it's not the great evil that some people seem to be implying it is.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 12, 2012 1:30:22 GMT -8
OK... First, D&D Next is supporting the play styles of all four editions, not necessarily supporting all the existing materials. The idea is that fans of all four editions will be able to take what they want from Next. Second, I never said that it was a good idea to block access to the older material. In point of fact, if you'll review my posts, you'll notice that I've said that pulling the pdfs was, IMO, not a good idea. I'm just saying that it's not the great evil that some people seem to be implying it is. But we're not saying its a great evil . . . We're saying it was and is a bad marketing move which is where we seem to disagree. It depends on how you believe the business should be run . . . You clearly stated that if WOTC had done as myself and others had suggested it would have lead down the road to ruin, that was a very bold statement which I have countered. Simply put WOTC are struggling for market share, struggling for mainstream support from their parent company and struggling to maintain consumer loyalty - there is evidence of that in a) quarterly returns b) Hasbro not supporting WOTC as a mainstream line because of its perceived failure to perform (Hasbro itself changing the rules of engagement due to a change in directorship and ethos) c) numerous complaints of dissatisfaction across the likes of the Internet d) people on our own fab podcast publicly stating " that's it I'll never buy another WOTC product again" (on announcement of the 4e collectible powerup cards) e) WOTC being forced to shelve its 4e marketing strategy by announcing D&D next ahead of schedule and sacking the 4e development team (yep they're all gone, anyone involved with the creation of 4e went the way of the dodo). Right now I suspect that WOTC is actually undergoing a transition of sorts, we are still seeing the final marketing decisions and ideas of the previous R&D staffers being played out . . . As there was already a business commitment (that D&D movie the 3rd being an example . . . Too late it's already been made). Cancelling VTT is a symptom of an internal tidy up . . . Perhaps they might return to it once the rest of the mess is rectified. The fact is that D&Dnext will support use of previous materials because that's what the head developer said it would do on the D&D podcast (with minor tweaking) noting that the packet has the Caves of Chaos as the test module for a reason . . . Not just to test combat but prove that it will be supporting all play styles and previous material. Again 'support' is not being used a software developer might by implying continued work and development and patches it means what it originally meant in the time before IT - the ability to 'use' it. As a final indicator in WOTC's possible change in direction, and acceptance of 'the third way', they announce the re-release of D&D 3.5 - this is an open challenge to Pathfinder and the creation of company that is now supporting (by providing access to) 3 generations of a system (AD&D 1st, D&D 3.5 and 4 e) while developing D&D next. I'm sure that eventually WOTC will re-engage with the PDF market, if it can a) save face due to its previously stated rationale and b) satisfy itself that DRM is either sufficient as the tech currently stands or realise that it's actually a self perpetuating circus of smoke and mirrors (ie: 'you need this to protect your IP', pirates break DRM, 'see you need this because they broke our faulty product BUT you'll have to pay for the new improved DRM, pirates break DRM in less time than it took the 1st time PLUS new DRM fucks up legit users who get pissed off find the nearest software jockey responsible for it beat him/her to death with their laptops, gouge out the eyes out of the head and skull fuck the still twitching corpse then piss on it while it's on fire afterwards . . . And the cycle repeats. All my legally bought mp3's have had the DRM stripped to make my life easier because of the different platforms scattered around the house that are all capable of playing the music I own and if I get it off Amazon UK it doesn't have DRM to start with) To sum up . . . What I have objected to is the broad statement implying that my opinions would have led down the road of ruination for WOTC and that they have been following a marketing strategy of 'no choice'. They were and are my opinions and just that opinions . . . Though not unconsidered musings. What you cannot say is that had WOTC conducted itself as I believe they should have they would be in worse shape today . . . Because there is a total lack of evidence from a real world application (golden rule of research, always take it out of the lab and test it 'in the wild' and always expect it to do the opposite of what you predict - that's not an opinion that's a hard and fast golden rule in social science research). Finally WOTC do have a choice, any business has . . . Following the models of the past as rigid constraints leads to ruin . . . A prime example being my home country's approach to banking - Australia bucked the trend in Europe, the US and the UK in the 80's and 90's to deregulate certain sectors of the banking industry, Australia was criticised and doom predicted for one and all . . . When the collapse came Australia weathered it much better than most, why? Because we hadn't followed the market model of 'no choice' and deregulated wholesale. At the time it was a matter of opinion and opinion cannot move beyond being just that without both a real world application and a test veracity. I respect your opinion (because I wouldn't be trying to engage and counter it reasonably if I didn't*) that WOTC have done what they have done to survive and to continue to prosper but please respect mine that I believe that what they have actually done is damage themselves because of their conduct . . . the withdrawal of PDF's being but one small aspect of the much broader context that has been discussed across this thread. * if I don't respect someone's opinion I just go straight to the use of profanity and graphically describing what I think their mothers did in the most entertaining manner possible at the time.
|
|