Not to mention a huge disrespect for other people in the same hobby. . .
I'd like to add -- and I'm sure you'd agree -- that criticism is not necessarily the same thing as disrespect. At least to the extent that "disrespect" is analogous to "insulting".
However, I am losing patience with the retort "MGT is selling well", at least to the extent that this is used to rebut complaints about quality*.
("Quality" in this post = editing, writing, layout, logic, the elegance/suitability of game sequences, etc.)
As a practical matter, this retort tells us very little about the game's quality, even assuming the accuracy of the claim (and since the actual financial statements are not public knowledge, that's what we have to do). After all, by that standard, D&D is the epitome of superb game design.
Indeed, it is well-known in business that quality does *not* necessarily increase the number of items sold. If there's a correlation, it's probably in the opposite direction : Higher Quality = Higher Price = Lower Demand = (hopefully) higher net profit.
Therefore, I don't think that one can effectively answer a criticism about quality by pointing to a large number of units sold. As an aside, I am pleased that the line is doing well. The hobby is not helped by yet another game company going under. I am also personally gratified that Marc is presumably doing well with the license. And at the end of the day, I play the game I want to play, so continued MGT success does not threaten me.
My design skills seem to be competent enough that I can modify a system into something acceptible for me and my friends. And my personal stubborness is high enough that I'll usually make the effort. That said, it normally doesn't take much to make me buy a gaming product.
But you have lost me as a consumer for several reasons:
1. Biggest reason is that the writing and editing was poor -- excruitiating, in the case of Mercenary. I've posted on this here in the past; see them for examples.
2. MGT has not respected established Traveller canon. In many cases, I struggle to avoid the conclusion that it has intentionally disrespected Traveller. Perhaps it isn't realistic to expect the foresight and attention to detail that GDW gave us, but that IS the standard that we're used to. Adding things like shuriken catapults to Traveller is ridiculous...and insulting. And if this kind of tripe is to be excused by the lame "it's optional" excuse, then why not mark it as "optional/non-canonical/silly-but-fun/etc." in the rules? The absence of such an indicator causes me to conclude that the designer, in fact, was ignorant of the source material and that this excuse is a post-hoc rationalization.
3. MGT's design team has failed to impress with the game mechanics (with the notable exception of the character generation system, which is mechanically good, though rather dubious statistically) or with their grasp of weaponry and likely future trends. Or even with established Traveller canon on weapon trends (most of which have not been invalidated by real world tech). Again, Traveller players are accustomed to more informed designers than this. (See other threads for examples).
IMHO "the game sells well" fails to adequately respond to any of these criticisms.
Now, for what it's worth, I think that it's gotta be pretty hard to match CT and MegaTraveller on the things that they got right. But that came with the territory, seems to me.
