How is asking how people feel about their products NOT customer happiness?
mellored wrote:
You said you wanted a survey about customer happiness.
They put out a survey asking how people felt about the races and classes.
What's the difference?
Edit: Never mind, i miss read your statement.
The surveys provided thus far have been entirely dedicated to assessing how happy the customers are with the products overall.
As for a survey asking about how happy people are with the release schedule... the information such a question would gain them is of no use.
Since the customer base is not in possession of information such as exactly how many products, of what types, and by which company, are going to be released in the near future the only question they could possibly ask is "How satisfied are you that we are not releasing information about upcoming releases until we are fully confident in that information not changing afterward?" and the answers that they would get are highly probable to end up exactly as they appear to have done now from previous questsions asked: WotC gives customer base what customer base claimed to want, results in upset customers (because a lot of them either don't know what they want, or didn't realize that what they wanted isn't what they asked for).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
sandvirm wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
sandvirm wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
CCS wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
As if I needed any more evidence that shows the customer base doesn't have the information necessary to make comments regarding the release schedule: there's this all of a sudden, and while "many gamers" are still sure that there aren't any plans to bring back Dragon in any capacity.
sandvirm wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
But... but... but... I specifically recall multiple posters stating matter-of-factly that "magazine style support" (i.e., Dragon and Dungeon) was a thing of the past, never to be seen again. And that WotC was evil for having killed them.
Now I'm confused. I was so certain they knew what they were talking about. I mean, they sounded so sure of themselves.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
As has been pointed out, asking how players feel about the upcoming release schedule is pointless because we do not know any details about the upcoming release schedule. Asking people how they feel about the release schedule from launch to the present is also of limited use, because they can get similar information from sales numbers. Furthermore, that question is too general because people can not agree on what actually constitutes a "release". Some people include everything -- Unearthed Arcana, Dungeon Master's Screen, EE Player's Compedium, APs, etc -- while others only include printed supplements, and still others only include printed supplements that are splat / crunch because they make up all their own homebrew campaigns. So yes, that question is too general even as a starting point.
Of course, WotC could ask more specific questions that define exactly what they are talking about and ask how people would feel about a hypothetical rather than the unknown release schedule. For example, "Would you prefer 2 big adventures a year, or 1 adventure and 1 campaign setting?" Even that has some ambiguity: are we talking books, box sets, loads of articles in Dragon+, etc.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Kravell wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Here is the probem as I see it:
The OP created a thread implying that the surveys being done are not important, then followed it up by presenting a subject matter he would prefer was addressed in the surveys.
Mello misunderstood, and said so in the fourth post, but (probably) unintentionally set the tone of the thread. It really doesn't take much to send a thread down-hill. Aaron just loved to debate about pretty much anything - since the OP wasn't very clear and Mello set a combative tone, Aaron came. Aaron enjoys a good debate, and he's good at it. For some reason, Xun decided to bring up blocking people... usually this is a hint that the ORCs are about to raid us. Chris, BI, CCS... most of the other folks are just being funny.
Anyway... Hasbro/WotC has done a lot of fan feedback, scheduling and market analysis. The reason they don't publish more books is because the market for those D&D books isn't as great as it once was. They have streamlined their processes, narrowed their focus and are trying to publish new-player friendly campaigns to maximize their profitability rather than maximizing revenue. This will lead to less rules at the table and more play, hopefully. I believe what they are "banking" on is more tables meaning more visibility and easier access for new players - expand the market for maximum growth rather than maximum revenue from a limited market.
Honestly, I'm okay with this plan... expand the market and bring in new customers. Make yourself the easiest and most available game system by *not* intimidating new players with a shelf full of rule books. more players means more games... and to be honest, I can have fun playing Munchkin every Sunday at 1 PM as long as I'm there hanging out with my friends. Bring in new players and make it easy to join! Become one of us. You know you want to.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
CCS wrote:
I think asking what people believe about the release schedule is pointless, but asking if people would prefer 2 AP's vs 3 short adventures and an AP a year is useful. That being said, there may be business reasons why they can't correct course in the near term (maybe the development budget is tied up in contracts this year), so there is no use providing people with a rallying point for something they can't have soon. I suspect we will see questions like how many adventures per year right before WotC's budget is due to Hasbro (probably a couple of months before Hasbro's fiscal year [whenever that is] is over).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CCS wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Been on since 2003 and doesn't know the ignore button? I'm relatively new and already have people on ignore 
Classic case of having been around a long time doesn't always equate to knowing much.
Kangodo wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
As others have pointed out the surveys have gathered data about customer satisfaction with products. There's even been some discussion and questions that can be used to base on release schedule questions. We do know they have a smaller staff and most content as far as APs is outsourced and as seen with Fantasy Grounds we'll likely see more licensed products in both print and digital.
The new edition isn't even a year old and most editions start out with a slow release and depending on community feedback and sales will decide what kinds of new products to put out and how frequently. We've gotten more options right out of the first book than in older editions first books, though 4th and 3rd editions were close.
I started with Red Box Basic and there were no subclasses, and race and class were one choice and a lot less of them: fighter, cleric, thief, mage, elf, dwarf, halfling and it only covered levels 1-3 and had no rules for adventuring outdoors. Of course things expanded as other boxed sets came out, and yes some of it was fast but this was a second run of the original boxed sets of OD&D. Most of the modules from them through 2e were short and could be finished in 1-2 sessions. They were much shorter and covered less level ranges than the current APs. The Gazetteers were nice but thin and only covered a small kingdom and was mostly fluff.
It wasn't until 3.5e that I really felt like there was too much bloat/content in a D&D edition and it's why I stopped playing until 4th which also started to see bloat and a wide variation in quality of content. I can understand why 5e is going slow and trying to make sure they put out quality over quantity, and that's why they likely aren't showing off much information on their release schedule as they'd rather put out a quality product than push out items on a fixed schedule that may suffer in quality. They've already seen the backlash from pushing back a release date to improve quality with the 5e DMG.
I think that while they probably do have an interest in what people think about the release schedule they're more interested in feedback on what's already out to give them a better idea of what needs adjusting and what type of content to release in the future.
I highly doubt that the results of the surveys are that the majority of D&D fans wants severely diminished release schedule. As a publicly traded company Wizards needs to pump profits and products out- within reason.
The fact that there is so little released, and a lot of it outsourced, just shows they don't have the money to increase their releases.
If there is not a campaign book released every year then there is something amiss going on. At least a Forgotten Realms campaign book- the flagship campaign setting.
Overall- I like what has been released so far but it's too little. I'll give them until the end of 2015 to see what's been released.
The surveys DID NOT request this small of a release schedule.
I don't think the money is the problem they do not have the staff. Indirectly that might be money as stuff was cut to a bare minimum. I think they need to rebuild the brand after the beatings they took but thats just me. Even if they wanted to crank out more stuff that would take a year or 2 to get up and running, 1 year if they started tomorrow. I don't think they would have known how good or bad 5E would do pre launch.
hunterian7 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So basically you are correcting me because you think he's a different kind of elitist than one I painted him as?
Well, thanks I guess?
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Whoo boy. Those last two posts by Xun reeked of so much more elitist BS, my eyes are starting to burn from the fumes.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
We were also led to 5th edition because of the Sundering. They promised that lots of things would be put back to the way they were, we had all these novels leading up to it and so far we have nothing.
There are "tons" of FR fans right now, including myself, who are waiting for a Campaign Guide. I know for a fact that there are loads who will abandon 5th edition if we don't get said guide.
We keep being told to use old material and a lot do that, but a lot just end up breaking out their old 1st and 2nd edition system books and playing those editions instead.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
If someone has been posting hereabouts for more than 10 years and WotC still aren't doing what they want, maybe they are wanting the wrong thing.
Wanting something that isn't going to happen is setting oneself up for disappointment. Keeping that up for more than 10 years begins to look like a pattern,
Flaw: I repeatedly contrive to be disappointed.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
BI, now you aren't being quite fair. He did pluralize both "tons" and "loads". So it might as easily be 12 of 30.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I want to someone to attempt to explain how a bare bones release schedule is supposed to actually work.
Orethalion wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
This whole idea about being afraid to release something because of the backlash if certain circumstances arose that it couldn't be made is laughable at best.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I agree, the release schedule is too thin. I was onboard for a slower release schedule and this is coming from someone who owns every 3.0/3.5 book WotC put out (minus adventures, I only own Red Hand of Doom) because I wanted "more, more, more!", but where 3.5 and 4e was on the extreme end of bloat, 5e has gone to the extrememe end of a paltry release schedule. That's not what I expected. Where's the middle ground between barebones and bloat? I'm sorry but 1-2 APs is not enough, even if I value in APs because of my limited time schedule. Idealy I would love to see some non-adventure books. Maybe a setting once per year (Planescape please!), and something else like a player options book, or a DM book, a rules varient book, or another MM - just something!
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Painful. Irony. Harshing. My. Mellow.
Orethalion wrote:
As this thread started out discussing surveys and we're now talking about release schedules, perhaps we should discuss the release schedule for surveys?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
I think they are going for the evergreen deal (Clue, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, etc).
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Um... in regards to Adventurer's League content, isn't it entirely possible to run AL games in your home?
I mean, if you look at the AL FAQ it says that home games do not get reported so you don't need to bother with DCI numbers when playing them - which is a very different statement from that you can't play AL materials as a home game.
I haven't tried it out because I am not wanting for adventure content, but I think all you have to do to get the download password is sign up on the AL website linked above in the thread.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
What get's me is the fact that it took this long, and a survey, for them to know that not everyone plays AL and not everyone has an AL that is available.
I mean it is claimed they have all this data and yet this is going on. Even Pathfinder Society adventures are available for people outside of organized play, even though Paizo already puts out tons of short term adventures.
The more I see this, the more I am convinced Wizards don't have a clue.
Azzy1974 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Also WotC is now working more with outsourced material so they can't always make a statement on release date as they don't employ (just contract the company that does employ) the people writing the material. Also the edition is less than a year old and as has been seen with Dungeonscape they are still feeling out the new model for product creation, both print and digital.
Many companies don't announce a release schedule for their products until they have the product near ready to release. Movies are probably the longest lead other than leaked rumors about new OS versions. As 5th edition matures I'm sure we'll see more information. OD&D, 1e, and 2e didn't suffer for lack of a release schedule as back then we got whatever showed up on shelves often with no more than a week or so notice assuming we were friendly enough with the store owners to get a heads up on what they were ordering.
As for current content with what's out now:
Classes: 12
- Sub-classes: 45
Races: 16
- Sub-races: 33
Spells: 407
Monsters: 517
Feats: 44
Magic Items: 443
This comes from a total of 15 sources (16 if you consider each book of the Starter Set as a separate source), only 7 of which have to be purchased.
We also have at least some campaign information on Greyhawk, Krynn/Dragonlance, Faerun/Toril/Forgotten Realms, Athas/Dark Sun, Eberron, Mystara, Spelljammer, Planescape, Birthright, and Nentir Vale all from those various sources. Sure none of it is a full campaign setting but it does talk about each location and how to adapt the published adventures into them (FR just being the default) and as more sources come out we'll see more details. They're still building the core of the game and once the core is set up then we'll likely see more optional and edge content. Campaign settings are always edge content as each only appeals to a small subset of the purchasing, and playing, community and are best handled primarily as fluff books with the only crunch being campaign specific options so that people don't feel they have to buy a campaign guide to get useful options that aren't campaign specific.
Grazel wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Wait, the DMG was released after all? And I've been waiting all this time? 
Farmer42 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote: