Isnt Hasbro the one in charge of WOTC and D&D now?

[Scoundrel the Tiefling]

So if you're upset with 5th ed, perhaps you're aiming your hate in the wrong direction? It's Hasbro who is ruining D&D and treating it like it needs a new edition every few years isnt it?

[Jeraa]

Scoundrel the Tiefling wrote:

So if you're upset with 5th ed, perhaps you're aiming your hate in the wrong direction? It's Hasbro who is ruining D&D and treating it like it needs a new edition every few years isnt it?

Hasbro does own WotC, but that doesn't mean they are the ones calling the shots about when/if a new edition is released. Hasbro probably just wants WotC to make them X-amount of money with their RPG line, and Y-amount of money with their collectible card game lines, and its up to WotC to do what they need to to meet that requirement.

Either way it goes, WotC is definitely the ones responsible for the mechanics of said RPG. So if the problem is how the game plays, that is WotCs fault, not Hasbros.

[Scoundrel the Tiefling]

I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about how often they have put out a new edition. 3.5, 4th and now 5th ed so soon? I think that's Hasbro's doing.

[Steve Geddes]

Jeraa wrote:

Hasbro does own WotC, but that doesn't mean they are the ones calling the shots about when/if a new edition is released. Hasbro probably just wants WotC to make them X-amount of money with their RPG line, and Y-amount of money with their collectible card game lines, and its up to WotC to do what they need to to meet that requirement.

I suspect they want WotC to earn a certain amount from Magic and then not lose anything on....whatever else it is those guys do.

Hasbro could hardly spend much ongoing energy on properties as insignificant as D&D.

[Steve Geddes]

Scoundrel the Tiefling wrote:

I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about how often they have put out a new edition. 3.5, 4th and now 5th ed so soon? I think that's Hasbro's doing.

I could see Hasbro taking an interest in movie rights or computer game rights (since those might have earning potential to actually matter and would presumably require resources not available to a mere subsidiary). Possibly even book sales, although my understanding is that even those arent particularly valuable.

I'd be astonished if they take more than a passing interest in details around the RPG.

[Jeraa]

Scoundrel the Tiefling wrote:

I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about how often they have put out a new edition. 3.5, 4th and now 5th ed so soon? I think that's Hasbro's doing.

Unlikely. Hasbro probably doesn't really care about D&D, as long as it makes enough of a profit. They bought WotC to get hold of the Magic the Gathering and Pokemon card games. That is where most of WotCs profit comes from. (Well, M:TG now. WotC no longer makes Pokemon cards.)

I can't even find any D&D books, of any edition, on Hasbro.com. You would have to figure that, if Hasbro really cared about the D&D RPG, there would be something besides a Lego knockoff named KRE-O. Yet there is nothing.

(Side note: KRE-O Drizzt)

[LazarX]

Scoundrel the Tiefling wrote:

I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about how often they have put out a new edition. 3.5, 4th and now 5th ed so soon? I think that's Hasbro's doing.

It's not arbitrary. WOTC dumped 3.5 because they were 1) losing gamers to other systems entirely and 2) losing 3.5 gamers to OGL clones being put out by other companies including folks who were doing things such as playing Warcraft d20, and Everquest D20, and BESM d20, games that did not result in money going into WOTC's coffers.

They took a long hard look at why young gamers in particular were either not picking up 3.5 or leaving it altogether, including major issues involving character balance and so they created 4.0 in an effort to address those concerns. It was the largest redo of the game system, even more drastic than the switch from 2.X to 3.0. That switch caused many of the older gamers to become a fertile core market for Pathfinder who also found different ways to innovate the game for a crowed beyond the grognards who were looking for a 3.75.

4.0 was an attempt at making the most equal version of D+D to date. It tried to address power levels between martials and casters, and to eliminate the necessity to stick a player with "the cleric healer" role. However the changes involved getting there resulted in a bleed off of players that was not made up for by new players coming in.

5.0 is an attempt to bring back some of that old market while still expanding into the new. Time will tell how far they succeed in doing so.

[bugleyman]

I blame Hasbro for the movie Battleship.

[memorax]

bugleyman wrote:

I blame Hasbro for the movie Battleship.

Your not the only one. Not the worst movie ever. It could have been a hell of lot better IMO.

[Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal]

Yes, Hasbro owns WotC now. My issues with WotC however have their genesis significantly prior even to them purchasing TSR, much less the entire 3.5 to Fourth Edition...
Event.
From the point WotC first realized just how much of a cash cow CCG's were, RPG's became their red-headed step child. They published a number of solid, well developed source material, much of it cross-system useful...
Before they decided that CCG's were where their focus lay.
From that point on, RPG's were never going to be their focus, particularly not enough to shift their business model away from something that effectively requires a 'new edition' approximately twice a decade.
This is a business model that Hasbro has shown no sign of breaking WotC of. In fact, I would be surprised if Hasbro wasn't subtly or overtly requiring that they maintain this business model.
WotC has repeatedly shown they have no business being in the RPG market. Yes, they have published some quality product, even quality D&D product, even fourth ed. product. However, they also consistently show that they are primarily concerned with their quarterly market share & consequently they will screw not only their long-term RPG customers, but also their developers & creative property employees in favor of 'the next big thing'.

I'm done.

[MMCJawa]

memorax wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I blame Hasbro for the movie Battleship.

Your not the only one. Not the worst movie ever. It could have been a hell of lot better IMO.

Hasbro's management of Battleship and Transformers movies make me absolutely terrified on what they might do with a DnD movie.

[memorax]

MMCJawa wrote:

Hasbro's management of Battleship and Transformers movies make me absolutely terrified on what they might do with a DnD movie.

It's not like the first two movies let alone the Dragonlance animated movies were that good either. Decent movie to watch on a cheap night. Nothing to write home about. I do like the Transformers movies. As i REALLY did not want a carbon copy of the animated tv show.

[Gorbacz]

What's that?

Is that the ice princess?

The enchanter of Babylon?

The white knight?

No, it's Scott the Bold!

[LazarX]

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

However, they also consistently show that they are primarily concerned with their quarterly market share.

Wizards is in this game to make money. So is Paizo. You don't run a company any other way because rent needs to be paid, and people have to eat. Even Paizo answers to people who hold stock in the company and expect a return on investment. That's the American way. it's also been the way since we stopped expecting hunter gatherers to feed only themselves, and we entered into a goods and services exchange.

The only relevant question that's needed to ask about a company is do they make product you want to buy? All this BS about "trust", "commitment" and the other buzzwords is about a contract that never existed. WOTC would be making 3.5 products today if they had continued to sell well. Fact of the matter is that the gaming budget reached a saturation point with all of the player supplements the game was burdened down with, and module production virtually ceased because the longer lead times were cutting into the more profitable supplement lines, because in the end with a gaming group of 1 DM and 6 players, you could expect to sell 7 copies of a player splat book as opposed to 1 copy of a dm book or a module. The problem is that WOTC never learned to properly manage 3.5's success, a success which came close to killing the RPG division. Paizo, having had the benefit of both WOTC's experience, AND a fresh start, has managed to find a way to navigate that minefield.

The consequences however of those years means that the fan base instead of moving together from one edition to another is now permanently split. Split between, Paizo, 4th edition folks hoping for the kind of break that 3.5 players got (which unfortunately they're not going to get), and old style gamers who rejected everything after 2.0 and those who left for other gaming pastures long ago. That hold Humpty Dumpty of the early TSR days is not going to be put back together. And despite the recent flowering of alternative games and companies, it's now a crowd of players catering to a smaller and more heterogenous market.

I would say that just as computing is now solidly in the post-PC age, I think that we are now starting to enter the post-d20 age as well. Instead of trying to ride the coattails of D20, we're seeing more movement on alternative gaming systems such as Cubicle 7, and the revived Storyteller lineup.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

Wizards is in this game to make money. So is Paizo. You don't run a company any other way because rent needs to be paid, and people have to eat. Even Paizo answers to people who hold stock in the company and expect a return on investment. That's the American way. it's also been the way since we stopped expecting hunter gatherers to feed only themselves, and we entered into a goods and services exchange.

Paizo's privately held, isn't it? Is it venture capital or actually owned by Lisa (and the other founders?).

If it's just them, it's a very different setup with different responsibilities than WtoC.

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.

[memorax]

Well said LazarX I completely agree.

thejeff wrote:

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.

They are still in it to make a profit. Big or small. Privatly or publically owned. It does not matter. A person or group start a company to make a profit It should at least be one of the goals imo. Bills, staff, printing costs etc it all needs to be paid. No difference between a big or small company imo. Do you honestly think that the staff at Paizo is complains that they are not only in the black yet also make a profit. James Jacobs is not going to come on the forum and apologize for the company regretfully making too much money.

[thejeff]

memorax wrote:

Well said LazarX I completely agree.

thejeff wrote:

Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.

They are still in it to make a profit. Big or small. Privatly or publically owned. It does not matter. a person or group start a company to make a profit It should at least be one of the goals imo. Bills, staff, priting costs etc it all needs to be paid. No difference between a big or small company imo.

There's a difference between "Bills, staff, priting costs etc it all needs to be paid." and making a profit. In fact all of those things are expenses and come out before any profit.

As I said in every post I've made on this topic, "they need to bring in enough to pay the bills".
Beyond that though, smaller private companies are free to have concerns other than "maximising shareholder return". If the people running the private company are in the business because of their love of the hobby, they can make decisions based on that. Based on what they'd want to play and how they want to treat their customers, rather than on what the bottom line on the spreadsheet they have to show to the corporate headquarters at the quarterly meeting.
As long as they make enough to stay in business, of course. There's always that bottom line.

[Chris Lambertz]

Locking this one up. Baiting posts like this don't help.