You people are funny! You sound like Trekkies! I won't watch Voyager because everyone KNOWS that Deep Space Nine is true Star Trek....
People, the beauty of the system is that you can always pick and choose what YOU want for YOUR game! You want Bigby to walk Faerun? Do it! You want Warforged to walk around Greyhawk, do it! It's all up to you what you want your game to look like. Personally, I despise orcs. They don't occupy a place in my universe. Instead I have added Skaven, from another company's product line. It's my game.
AS far as WotC and whether or not they're "evil" for publishing this or producing that, as some posters have mentioned, let it go. Rightly noted, they are a business. They'll produce whatever sells. Their minis sell, because, guess what? There's a type of gamer out there who doesn't want to (Insert GASP here) play RPGs, but happen to like collectible mini games.
If you want them to produce something particular, you live in the age of the internet. Get together a campaign to have 1000 gamers send them letters requesting something.
As for them publishing too much or not the right stuff, I began gaming in 1980. I remember times in the past 25 years when the pickings were slim to non-existent. I'm thankful that WotC seems to feel there is enough business to want to produce a ton of product. Again, I'll buy what I like and ignore the rest.
It's my game.
|
I think there is a lot to this idea - but it is a relatively unusual business model for this sort of thing, so I wonder if the "suits" would go for it. The devil, of course, would be in the detail.....
I agree that the devil is in the details and of course its a really unusual system. Lots of refinements would inevitably be needed. Still it seems to me that this is one method of saving the game from the coming train wreck - and maybe I'm wrong about this whole thing ultimately destroying itself, but I really can't see how they can keep going the way they are going and survive - at some point I stop buying Monster Manuals - I just don't need Monster Manual XIV, nor am I all that interested in Magic of Icarnium III. One way or another we end up at 4th edition - which is the fall back position for when the hardbounds no longer sell however I don't see how a 4th edition can not but horribly fracture the community and cause a great deal of anger.
Well I was reaching with the comparison to MMORPGs. The various analogies I could come up with were MMORPGs; For their integrated rule set that changes over time, Crystal Keeps SRD which also has the rule set and its constantly updated, but it does not include all the content and it is a lousy format for a relaxing way to learn the game or even brush up on whole subsections of the rules - its great for spot checks of the rules however. Our subscriber fee would be well earned if they also worked to maintain a database akin to Crystal Keeps SRD but incorporating all the rules. That said it is no...
I think the comparison with MMORPGs is interesting, though there is a big difference - the rules for the computer games are effectively "invisible" - you wander through the gameworld and the computer does the hard work for you. The "talents" (to use WoW as an example) and other aspects may get updated, but apart from that the rules don't come very often into your game experience.
Jeremy - never, ever mention GAAP again. Ever. If you (gentle reader) don't know what it is - you don't want to.
Obviously you are a fan of paying monthly for MMORPGs. I refuse to play them due to the subscription and D&D ruleset would be the same in my book. I want to buy a finished product, in a book or box, that allows me to play a game. I don't mind buying an expansion pack or supplemental rulebook, but I will not pay monthly or yearly for a game. I think that WotC should stop making 9 million rulebooks and publish several of the different campaign settings, and focus on making large scale adventures and players guides for each setting that they publish. Greyhawk, Darksun, Planescape, Dragonlance, whatever, instead of me buying 4 books and the corebooks I would buy all the books associated with a couple of settings. I would buy every Greyhawk book made, every Dark Sun book made, and probably every book from 1 or 2 more settings depending on the groups overall preference. One of the coolest things about 80's D&D was if you started getting bored with a setting, you could change settings and It was like a whole new game, new world, new creatures, new magic, etc. Now its either Ebberron or The Realms unless you want to update older rulesets to 3.5. Making a homebrew world is extremely time consuming and I just don't have the time, so I need someone to make one for me. I don't like Ebberron and I am not too keen on Forgotten Realms either. I am s**t out of luck in WotC's eyes. I want a choice of settings, I don't want to be force fed something and told that its good. I don't need "Races of Stone" or "Stormwrack" types of books, even if they are good. I have rules to use, I need places to use those rules.
FH
Actually I'm not a fan of paying subscription fee's and don't play in any MMORPG. At the moment I don't actually have a credit card, so knowing me I'd find myself cut off once a year as my subscription ran out and then I'd be running around trying to dig up enough money to send a money order to pay my fee's for the next year. Each year I'd swear that I was not going to go through this again and that I am going to remember to pay them before my subscription runs out but I'd probably forget by the time a new year rolled around.
I don't actually love subscription fee's per se - I just like them better then all the other bad alternatives I can see. At least with a subscription fee I get some good points along the way. As it stands you have no choice but to love the 9 million rule books - by not loving them your cutting into WotCs bottom line and destroying the game maybe not today but soon - its inevitable, WotC are in the business, currently, of selling books endlessly. If they started pumping out Books for tons of different settings they hopelessly divide their market up into smaller and smaller components and even then they ultimately end up back at trying to sell you Monsters of Greyhawk VII but now they absolutely need to have every Greyhawk fan pick it up because the book will loose them money if they can't sell enough of them. TSR tried this and ended up 30 million in debt.
Essentially they can't afford to divide up the community like this it ends with them out of business. They can't just keep making endless new books - the end result is we stop buying and they are out of business. They can't stop making new books - because they end up out of business. Ultimately all they can do is make a 4th edition fracture the community and hope that enough of us get on board that they can start the gravy train up again by releasing all the complete books, stormwrack, Living Greyhawk etc. again but now for the new 4th edition - as it stands thats their only option, that I can see anyway, but it is a lousy option and its fraught with risk - what happens if enough of us don't get on board for the 4th edition? You guessed it, they are out of business.
Even if they do manage to make the 4th edition fly and they can run the gravy train once again it only delays things for 3 or 4 years - then they end up having to make a 5th edition and hope they can restart the gravy train yet again.
In the end the system must change - it has too or the game will not survive, or it survives in some kind of ghettoized shadow of itself with the community spread out playing 5 or more different versions of the game and the consumers getting product that is geared to be profitable when its bought by only a fraction of the hobby - meaning product that is even less responsive to the consumer base then what we currently have and substantially less well designed (you think playtesting is bad now - wait until after they fire all their playtestors).
So I'm offering what I think is a workable solution that meets our desires as a community of gamers and WotCs needs as a profit orientated business. If you have a better solution I'm all for it.
|
|
TSR divided their focus between ruleset, campaign settings, and adventures while trying to grasp at a ton of other markets. What I am saying is that WotC has some things going right but is headed down a bad road. The Minis line is doing well and with some tweaking could produce better. WotC made a decision to not produce much in the way of adventures, I hope with Red Hand they are testing the viability of producing more in that avenue. They made a decision to only support 2 campaign settings. They made a decision to produce a ton of rulebooks and have oversaturated the market with rules and errata. It is time to lay off of rulebooks and start producing other sources of income. Greyhawk campaign setting would be an excellent way to test the market for the viability of producing different campaign setting sourcebooks.
If WotC went with the subscription thing, no one would be able to keep up with all the changes to rules. Sure, everyone would have the changes, but who has time to reread whole sections of books to learn them. I don't reread my books every few weeks to see if anything has changed and I don't want to. 6 people around a table also need to be on the same page to minimize rules discussions. My group has spent many hours going over the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 and we still have things ingrained in us from 3.0 that changed and we forget about because it isn't something used every time we play.
And for the record if the choice was for a Subscription or nothing, I'd take nothing. I would have to find some people who wanted to run 3.5 or 2nd edition or make my own system from a hybrid of them. Or maybe I would have to check into other TABLETOP RPGS.
FH
Now I am curious!
What is GAAP ???
Jeremy, Aubrey, please explain!
That´s not the exciting answer I was looking for but..., nevertheless, thanks Sebastian!
Generally Accepted Accounting Principals. It's the standards that accountants have to follow when doing their work.Now I am curious!
What is GAAP ???
Jeremy, Aubrey, please explain!
I just looked for it on wikipedia, and it looks like complicated and dry, dull stuff - exactly the stuff you don´t want to know unless you absolutely have to.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't say that I would be a fan of a subscription model either. I'm also not sure how bad the structural flaws are in the current model. I know that I haven't purchased (and don't intend to purchase) any of the Races of X books, Incarnum, the Tome of Magic, or any of the weather books, but I can't say that I am the typical purchaser of D&D products. Maybe the rest of you love these products and snap them up.
What I do tend to buy is the Complete Books, the Monster Books, the occassional FR book (because they are generally very well written, even if I don't actually play the setting), and the DM specific books (i.e. Lords of Madness). I suppose that is about 50% of the product line being produced.
Are there signs that WotC is hitting rough financial straights at this time? It seems like Ebberon is one of the most successful campaign settings ever launched, even as we are leaving the honeymoon phase.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That´s not the exciting answer I was looking for but..., nevertheless, thanks Sebastian!
Heh. There isn't really an exciting answer. GAAP tells you how you book revenue/losses/etc. When you look a company lays off 50 people and paid them severance packages totaling $3 million, you need to know how to record that in your financial statements. Does it go on your income sheet or your balance sheet? Is it a cash or non-cash charge? Can you depreciate the expense over time? GAAP answers these questions, it tells you how to record financial data so that it makes sense to everyone looking at it.
I'm probably slaughtering the terminology, and hopefully a real accountant will pop up with a better answer. GAAP is the bread and butter of accounting.
|
|
That´s not the exciting answer I was looking for but..., nevertheless, thanks Sebastian!
Heh. There isn't really an exciting answer. GAAP tells you how you book revenue/losses/etc. When you look a company lays off 50 people and paid them severance packages totaling $3 million, you need to know how to record that in your financial statements. Does it go on your income sheet or your balance sheet? Is it a cash or non-cash charge? Can you depreciate the expense over time? GAAP answers these questions, it tells you how to record financial data so that it makes sense to everyone looking at it.
I'm probably slaughtering the terminology, and hopefully a real accountant will pop up with a better answer. GAAP is the bread and butter of accounting.
You are dead right - that is an excellent explanation of GAAP. For reference, it was mentioned as an example of rules which are regularly updated on an ongoing basis - sort of like the model that Jeremy is suggesting for the D&D rules. (Though changes to GAAP are normally fraught with angst, politics and vested interests - yup, quite a good analogy!)
TO FH - I have to say that, while you are entitled to your view and obviously entitled to do with your money what you want, not supporting WotC becuase you consider them the spawn of Satan (or Santa?) and only interested in the cash seems odd to me. I am not espeically happy with what they are doing, but it is better than nothing. Not to say I buy a product to "support the game" - I buy them to play and have fun with. But I don't refuse to buy on principle - why do that? I would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Everyone is out to make a buck - you, me and Wizards. And for an old adage - nothing you get for free is worth having (apart from love and friendship, of course, but that is a separate issue). Refusal to part with cash for something which isn't perfect in your eyes, but which would probably be OK, is quite a good way to ensure the extinction of the hobby.
I don't suppose I will change your mind, and I respect that. But I really disagree.
|
|
I can't say that I would be a fan of a subscription model either. I'm also not sure how bad the structural flaws are in the current model. I know that I haven't purchased (and don't intend to purchase) any of the Races of X books, Incarnum, the Tome of Magic, or any of the weather books, but I can't say that I am the typical purchaser of D&D products. Maybe the rest of you love these products and snap them up.What I do tend to buy is the Complete Books, the Monster Books, the occassional FR book (because they are generally very well written, even if I don't actually play the setting), and the DM specific books (i.e. Lords of Madness). I suppose that is about 50% of the product line being produced.
Are there signs that WotC is hitting rough financial straights at this time? It seems like Ebberon is one of the most successful campaign settings ever launched, even as we are leaving the honeymoon phase.
I would be curious - what sort of financial health is the hobby in?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would be curious - what sort of financial health is the hobby in?
I was hoping you would know. ;-)
This is from Hasbro's latest press release. It doesn't break out by subsidiary, but it does show how the Games division did. Revenue was down, though as you can see by reading below, trading card games and board games are blamed for that fact.
Revenues in the Games segment were $730.6 million for the year and $235.8 million for the quarter, compared to $796.0 million and $270.3 million in 2004, respectively. The segment revenue decline can be attributed to lower trading card and board game volume. Full year operating profit decreased to $69.5 million, compared with $137.6 million last year, reflecting lower overall segment volume – in particular high margin trading card games. In addition, there were inventory obsolescence and customer allowance charges associated with some of the new plug and play initiatives.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And, for what it's worth, here is what Hasbro says they're planning to do in 2006 with Wizards (bad news - minatures is part of the focus; good news - so is "publishing," though the focus there may be on fiction).
WIZARDS OF THE COAST offers a variety of successful trading card and roleplaying games, including MAGIC: THE GATHERING and DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. In addition to maintaining our focus on the success of MAGIC: THE GATHERING in both trading cards and online formats, our 2006 strategy will also focus on expanding our successful miniatures lines and our publishing business. The miniatures lines of pre-painted plastic characters are designed to enhance the roleplaying experience. We will also seek to continue the success of WIZARDS OF THE COAST’s publishing endeavors that have produced several books that were included on the New York Times Bestseller list in recent years. In 2006 we will seek to expand our marketing to younger readers by encouraging them to read through the placement of books in schools and libraries throughout the U.S.
I like the GAAP discussion.
I think we see a little of what can be wrong with the approach. WotC publishes few adventures because they are not profitable in comparison to rulebooks and sourcebooks. In contrast, minis are quite profitable.
But D&D is an ensemble of products. Historically (IMHO) adventures add to the tapestry of the game and the campaign worlds it supports. Adventures heighten appeal of the overall product. While not in themselves very profitable, they stimulate sales of the core books.
Minis do not do this (warning: uninformed opinion here; I've never owned a mini). They depend completely on the success of the core product. Make that product more popular, and you will make minis more popular.
Hasbro appears (to me, at least) to be either unaware of this interrelationship and/or unwilling to recognize it. It seems crazy to me -- it's like trying to sell Monopoly pieces while the Monopoly game slides into obscurity.
The miniatures business in particular perplexes me. WotC has dropped all future support of the Star Wars RPG line, but continues to sell their expensive minis -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that minis without a game won't sell well.
For what it's all worth :)
Jack
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Minis do not do this (warning: uninformed opinion here; I've never owned a mini). They depend completely on the success of the core product. Make that product more popular, and you will make minis more popular.
Hasbro appears (to me, at least) to be either unaware of this interrelationship and/or unwilling to recognize it. It seems crazy to me -- it's like trying to sell Monopoly pieces while the monopoly game slides into obscurity.
The miniatures business in particular perplexes me. WotC has dropped all future support of the Star Wars RPG line, but continues to sell their expensive minis -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that minis without a game won't sell well.
You're right, but the new mini lines are part of a game that is completely separate from D&D. WizKids showed with their Mage Knight line that there was a crossover between wargamers and CCG-ers, WotC aped that model, and that's the current mini's line. The core mechanics are designed to cross-over to D&D so that each game feeds into the other, but they are still different games.
My bet is that minatures also have a higher profit margin. The quality of the minatures is slightly higher than the stuff you get for free in the McDonald's happy meal, they're probably a couple cents to produce in China. Compare that to the cost of a book, which requires a lot of work to produce and to publish, particularly on a small scale.
No, not really - there my be kinks in my idea that need to be worked out but it wasn't a joke.
Sorry, it seemed funny to me;)
I guess we could argue that they ought to be altruists and be willing to make less money but create nothing but good content but I think that this really is just not likely to happen.
I hardly think I was arguing that. Of course they need to make money. I just think the nature of pen&paper gaming consigns it to a relatively small market. The market can be grown, but I don't think there is a magic bullet format that will make that happen. You may disagree with me, and perhaps you're right, but I think what gaming needs are more game masters - they are the people who really buy books, and they are the people who give players an incentive to buy gaming products. That means supporting a much bigger effort to run demos and sponsor conventions. School and library programs could help too.
Hence I'm looking to 'channel' there efforts into making the game as good as it possibly can be instead of encouraging them to actually damage the product with endless supplements...
I think your missing what I'm arguing for. There is no real new product to review in FLGS, you own all the product via your subscription fee, all of it is integrated together into one very large rule set thats constantly being tinkered with to improve it and squash the problems.
I fail to see how the .pdf model would stop the supplement bloat. In fact, it might exacerbate it. People will still demand more options, only now they're *forced* to pay for them under a subscription system. Under this model I can't cherry pick. Months may go by where I've paid for content I don't want. Not a formula for success.
Still computers are pretty much everywhere. There are a number of ways of getting access to one even if you personally don't happen to have one in your house. Really we are getting to the point were probably some extremely high percentage of the players, in the western world anyway, have a computer or have access to a computer.
I think you're under the impression that everyone who plays can afford a computer and regular internet service. They don't. Say the percentage of gamers with access to a computer is 90%. You've just lost 10% of your potential sales - and the proportion is nowhere near 90%. We tend to forget that since we interact with so many gamers online.
Moreover, this proposed model still doesn't address the fundamental problem for me. I want nice full color hardbound books I can put on my bookshelf. I don't want to have to burn through an ink cartridge every time a new update comes out. This is very important to me - printed .pdf's are not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as hardbound color books. If WotC went exclusively to a .pdf system, I would not sign up. Perhaps when print on demand machines become cheap enough and comparable in quality to a printed hardbound, but not before.
I don't personally see anything especially interesting about Greyhawk. It seems a fairly bog standard sort of world which pretty much anybody could come up with these days.
Sure, it is the motherlode in terms of being the original setting that St Gary of Lake Geneva came up with. But so what? It embodies all of the cliches that "standard" D&D worlds possess (the basic level Tolkien rip-off, with it's fantasy version of West Europe/the Midwest, all of the Norse races, a general sort of cosiness, and so on). It really only has the benefit that, being fairly undeveloped, you can do what you like in it. But you can do that in any world you dream up.
Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion, different strokes and all, but I think the things you disparage about Greyhawk are the very things that attract people to it; the cliches you cite are what makes WoG a classic setting.
I think a new marketing poll from WotC would be in order - do you want to see a new campaign setting, or do you want to see an old campaign setting revamped and revitalized? (Which seems to be the core question here.)
Oh, and while y'all are at it, fill out those survey cards in the back of the WotC books - they don't put those in there because they look pretty. I can guarantee somebody out there is looking at the feedback from those and making marketing decisions based on the information that *we* give them.
I think a new marketing poll from WotC would be in order - do you want to see a new campaign setting, or do you want to see an old campaign setting revamped and revitalized? (Which seems to be the core question here.) ...
And that's what has my panties in a wad -- WotC has shown no interest (quite the opposite, actually) in doing such a thing. There will be no discussion of support for other campaigns.
Jack
Creative Director
|
And, for what it's worth, here is what Hasbro says they're planning to do in 2006 with Wizards (bad news - minatures is part of the focus; good news - so is "publishing," though the focus there may be on fiction).
In Hasbro-speak, "publishing business" includes all books, including RPG products (and possibly even magazines).
And miniatures being part of the focus is hardly bad news, since a successful miniatuers line helps support the RPG end of things. The two brands are not competition, even if they are seperate games. When one does well, the other benefits.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In Hasbro-speak, "publishing business" includes all books, including RPG products (and possibly even magazines).And miniatures being part of the focus is hardly bad news, since a successful miniatuers line helps support the RPG end of things. The two brands are not competition, even if they are seperate games. When one does well, the other benefits.
Sorry - I should have been more specific. I meant bad news for the haters of the minatures line generally. I agree that having other revenue streams is important. I don't think WotC could have taken the chance with publishing 3.0 if they hadn't had the bank provided by Magic back in the day.
|
|
I love it when J. Jacobs and crew pops in with words of wisdom. It's good to hear from someone a little more front line.
BTW as much as I am frustrated with the minis line packaging, I love the minis themselves. I am hoping the additional focus on minis may offer alternate packaging of them instead of pure randomness.
FH
I can't say that I would be a fan of a subscription model either. I'm also not sure how bad the structural flaws are in the current model. I know that I haven't purchased (and don't intend to purchase) any of the Races of X books, Incarnum, the Tome of Magic, or any of the weather books, but I can't say that I am the typical purchaser of D&D products. Maybe the rest of you love these products and snap them up.What I do tend to buy is the Complete Books, the Monster Books, the occassional FR book (because they are generally very well written, even if I don't actually play the setting), and the DM specific books (i.e. Lords of Madness). I suppose that is about 50% of the product line being produced.
Are there signs that WotC is hitting rough financial straights at this time? It seems like Ebberon is one of the most successful campaign settings ever launched, even as we are leaving the honeymoon phase.
I think your purchasing pattern are probably along the lines of average. The issue, as I see it, is not that WotC are in financial straights now - they are probably fine now. But its now that there is increasing danger that the product itself gets destroyed as they try and keep it pumping money into the coffers. Nows were the bad idea's and the game damaging ideas get generated - a year or 18 months from now they give up on trying to sell us Secrets of Drow Magic and instead decide that the only recourse is to try and sell all of us the new 4th edition and start the gravy train up again back at the begining.
One way or another we end up at a bad place from here - hence my argument to change the system - essentially to come up with a model that makes WotC the caretakers of D&D as the best possible product with the highest quality, to include some mechanism for new content without making it imperitive that any content no matter what gets pumped out and to give them a mechanism to end the constant need to ultimatly create a new edition of a game in order to restart the gravy train. We need them to accomplish all of the above and we need to find a way to pay them to do that.
No, not really - there my be kinks in my idea that need to be worked out but it wasn't a joke.Sorry, it seemed funny to me;)
In some ways I think I'm possibly delving to deeply into my proposed subscription model as an antidote to the ultimate problem - really I'm not super attached to it as an antidote but something needs to be done before they get down to Magic of Ircanium III or whatever the heck they end up at - even if there are untapped revenue streams still available, like making a Spelljammer book, a few Greyhawk books and some adventures it does not address the core problem - those revenue streams dry up eventually - probably sooner rather then later since only a minority of players buy adventures (just the DM) and alternate settings (just those interested in the setting). This is part of the reason we get rule book after rule book - and all the rulebooks are designed to try and hit as many bases as possible - this is were the most money is - but its also were they can screw the game up the most and were lack of strong playtesting and integration with the rest of the supplements can damage the whole product. Even this though ultimately dries up as a good revenue source and were on to fracturing the community by making the 4th edition.
My proposal is meant to halt that and refocus their attention on making sure that all supplements are well integrated with everything else - by allowing them to go back and fix whats broken. With a subscription model the adventure or supplement is never truly finished - if new rules come out the adventure or supplement is brought up to speck. For those of us that have already run the adventure and don't plan on running it again its irrelevant but for those that plan to run it in the future its important. The product being sold becomes a single whole instead of dozens of separate books, mostly ignored, after their sales start to drop off.
I hardly think I was arguing that. Of course they need to make money. I just think the nature of pen&paper gaming consigns it to a relatively small market. The market can be grown, but I don't think there is a magic bullet format that will make that happen. You may disagree with me, and perhaps you're right, but I think what gaming needs are more game masters - they are the people who really buy books, and they are the people who give players an incentive to buy gaming products. That means supporting a much bigger effort to run demos and sponsor conventions. School and library programs could help too.
Well here you touch on something that I have not addressed and, in theory, its possible that this saves everything - so long as the market itself is growing there is no need to add any new material or they can be very picky about whats added. That said I've made the implicit assumption that by and large the market itself is pretty much static. If its growing its doing so very slowly - essentially if they have already sold most of the Players Handbooks they are going to sell - we've seen a big surge in roleplaying in the last 5 years or so and thats good but I think the market is mostly tapped out - maybe there will be a little growth but not enough to keep WotC afloat without it constantly pumping out new rule books hoping to keep the revenue coming in.
I fail to see how the .pdf model would stop the supplement bloat. In fact, it might exacerbate it. People will still demand more options, only now they're *forced* to pay for them under a subscription system. Under this model I can't cherry pick. Months may go by where I've paid for content I don't want. Not a formula for success.
Your also at the same time paying for updating of the product that you do like. Your right though - on the month they put out a Greyhawk expansion with lots of knitty gritty details I'm hardly jumping up and down - I don't play in Greyhawk and never have - I guess I probably check out what they have done and maybe I steal a few good ideas for my homebrew but I'm hardly really razzed. Still they'd need to try and support all the fans so maybe I'll have better luck next month - meanwhile I'm sending them an email asking them to look at what their new polymorph rules have done to one of my favorite adventures put out a year ago - 'cause they missed it in their latest rule change - the gits.
Eventually my email will cause them to fix that oversight and some month down the road I'll get some content that I do really like - and every month WotC will get the money they need to keep supporting and improving on the game I love - and we get away from a business model that ultimatly destroys the product itself.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think your purchasing pattern are probably along the lines of average. The issue, as I see it, is not that WotC are in financial straights now - they are probably fine now. But its now that there is increasing danger that the product itself gets destroyed as they try and keep it pumping money into the coffers. Nows were the bad idea's and the game damaging ideas get generated - a year or 18 months from now they give up on trying to sell us Secrets of Drow Magic and instead decide that the only recourse is to try and sell all of us the new 4th edition and start the gravy train up again back at the begining.
I figured my purchasing habits were pretty typical, I just don't like to say "I only purchase X, therefore other gamers only purchase X."
I guess the other thing is that I'm just about to the point where I want a 4e. You're right - the product cycle can only go on so long before there needs to be a reboot. I'd really like to see a new edition come out where they take the sacred cows that got carried over from second edition and put them up on the chopping block too (magic items and the d4 hit die, I'm looking at you.)
I guess the only problem with a 4e is that 3e isn't broken enough to justify it. 2e needed to be fixed. 3e isn't that broken and a new edition would be more a stylistic change than anything else.
I guess, in a bizzarro way, supplement creep that degrades the game isn't entirely bad. It pushes us to think about the game in new ways and gets new ideas circulating through the gaming community. Once 3e achieves a critical mass of brokenness, the push for a new edition will grow strong. The best features of the broken game can be reincorporated into 4e, and the cycle can begin again.
Ah, the heresay of it all...
WotC's rewrite of D&D history to phase out GH is just as wrong as Chevy no longer making parts for the Citation.*groan* The Citation. My family had one of those 'cars' when I was young. The name always tickled me.
Well.....the name Chevrolet "DWI Checkpoint" was a marketing no go, so they had to go with Citation :)
Same company that couldn't figure out why the Nova just didn't "go" in Mexico.....
Ultimately all they can do is make a 4th edition fracture the community and hope that enough of us get on board that they can start the gravy train up again by releasing all the complete books, stormwrack, Living Greyhawk etc. again but now for the new 4th edition - as it stands thats their only option, that I can see anyway, but it is a lousy option and its fraught with risk - what happens if enough of us don't get on board for the 4th edition? You guessed it, they are out of business.
Even if they do manage to make the 4th edition fly and they can run the gravy train once again it only delays things for 3 or 4 years - then they end up having to make a 5th edition and hope they can restart the gravy train yet again.
Isn't that how Warhammer works? ;) They're in, what, 6th edition now? Every few years the individual army books have outgrown each other balance-wise to such an extent that a new edition of the basic rules must be published and all the army books re-released to conform to the new ed. Seems to me they're doing OK. The one advantage games companies like WotC and Games Workshop have (and they know it) is the fanboy/girl mentality.
People get addicted to these things, they find they MUST have the next supplement, and it's a rare person who just says "meh, I'll keep playing 1st edition AD&D, no way are they ripping me off with their repackaged gloop." Gamers are like that; we feel like losers unless we are fully conversant with the most-up-to-date version, which in most cases means buying it, like a person who has to wear the latest trend of clothes every year.
The gaming industry works on the same principle as far as I can see, it's all about peer pressure and fashion and as long as those things exist games companies will always have a market. What you are proposing Jeremy would give the gamers what they want (the joy of being constantly up to date with rules so they can argue with each other about balance and combos) while cutting down on how much they have to pay for the privelige. Somehow I can't see a corporation going for it when they have the perfectly serviceable "make them shell out for constant new editions" technique. Incidentally this technique is also used by the publishers of academic textbooks. I can't see it changing anytime soon.
[
People get addicted to these things, they find they MUST have the next supplement, and it's a rare person who just says "meh, I'll keep playing 1st edition AD&D, no way are they ripping me off with their repackaged gloop." Gamers are like that; we feel like losers unless we are fully conversant with the most-up-to-date version, which in most cases means buying it. Like a person who has to wear the latest trend of clothes every year.
Not everyone is like that. I sold all my 1st and 2nd edition AD&D stuff (except for the rule books and the GH stuff) to finance my D&D 3.5 hobby. I still spend less on D&D than I spend on golf, although I tend to dress better on the golf course ;)
I never bought any 3.0 stuff and played 2nd edition through 2002. I estimated my old AD&D collection at about $1000 total value--which is not a lot compared to other hobbies. My total 3.5 collection stands at about $300, including miniatures. That's really not a lot of money for a hobby that provides years of enjoyment, so if people want to buy every sourcebook out there--why the hell not, still cheaper than going to movies every week!
Somebody is still playing 1st edition, God Bless 'Em....I got $60 for my Judges Guild Dark Tower module!!
...People get addicted to these things, they find they MUST have the next supplement, and it's a rare person who just says "meh, I'll keep playing 1st edition AD&D, no way are they ripping me off with their repackaged gloop." Gamers are like that; we feel like losers unless we are fully conversant with the most-up-to-date version, which in most cases means buying it. Like a person who has to wear the latest trend of clothes every year...
I think it's more the power-gamer hiding in us all -- always looking for something a little bigger, a little better.
Regards :)
Jack
|
Director of Narrative
|
[
People get addicted to these things, they find they MUST have the next supplement, and it's a rare person who just says "meh, I'll keep playing 1st edition AD&D, no way are they ripping me off with their repackaged gloop." Gamers are like that; we feel like losers unless we are fully conversant with the most-up-to-date version, which in most cases means buying it. Like a person who has to wear the latest trend of clothes every year.
Not everyone is like that. I sold all my 1st and 2nd edition AD&D stuff (except for the rule books and the GH stuff) to finance my D&D 3.5 hobby. I still spend less on D&D than I spend on golf, although I tend to dress better on the golf course ;)
I never bought any 3.0 stuff and played 2nd edition through 2002. I estimated my old AD&D collection at about $1000 total value--which is not a lot compared to other hobbies. My total 3.5 collection stands at about $300, including miniatures. That's really not a lot of money for a hobby that provides years of enjoyment, so if people want to buy every sourcebook out there--why the hell not, still cheaper than going to movies every week!
Somebody is still playing 1st edition, God Bless 'Em....I got $60 for my Judges Guild Dark Tower module!!
My group didn't play/buy any 3.0 stuff until 3.5 was almost out. (sucks to us out of the loop) We played 2.0(heck, by that time it was like 2.4.6) until 2000. We had that, " What does Hasbro think we are idiots?" attitude.
|
Greyhawk will be around long after WOTC is gone. We've been playing since 1980 & there were periods when nothing at all was being published under the Greyhawk banner, it never slowed our campaign. We switched to 3.5 from 2ed in November of this year; so far we only use the core books & the spell compendium. There's little chance of us converting to a 4th ed.
I figured my purchasing habits were pretty typical, I just don't like to say "I only purchase X, therefore other gamers only purchase X."I guess the other thing is that I'm just about to the point where I want a 4e. You're right - the product cycle can only go on so long before there needs to be a reboot. I'd really like to see a new edition come out where they take the sacred cows that got carried over from second edition and put them up on the chopping block too (magic items and the d4 hit die, I'm looking at you.)
I guess the only problem with a 4e is that 3e isn't broken enough to justify it. 2e needed to be fixed. 3e isn't that broken and a new edition would be more a stylistic change than anything else.
I guess, in a bizzarro way, supplement creep that degrades the game isn't entirely bad. It pushes us to think about the game in new ways and gets new ideas circulating through the gaming community. Once 3e achieves a critical mass of brokenness, the push for a new edition will grow strong. The best features of the broken game can be reincorporated into 4e, and the cycle can begin again.
Hmmm ... well you might be right here. I'll admit that its possible that they can simply make new editions every 3-4 years in an endless loop. I've been assuming that the big danger of that is how many people will just keep playing 3.5 and I think thats a significant danger - the problem is that 3.5 is not really broken. 1st Edition felt broken in significant ways and there were some major improvements in 2nd edition. 3rd edition was pretty much a whole new system completely and 3.5 essentially addressed most of the bugs in 3.0. That leaves us with an edition were an update is probably not all that huge, really likely something that could fit in a 20 page supplement - I'm just not sure how well this would fly as it potentially makes a lot of people pretty angry. I guess we'll see really.
Isn't that how Warhammer works? ;) They're in, what, 6th edition now? Every few years the individual army books have outgrown each other balance-wise to such an extent that a new edition of the basic rules must be published and all the army books re-released to conform to the new ed. Seems to me they're doing OK. The one advantage games companies like WotC and Games Workshop have (and they know it) is the fanboy/girl mentality.
It is how Warhammer works. That said it may or may not be a very good model for Dungeons and Dragons. Warhammer is excellent at bring new people into their hobby on the other hand their pretty amazing at driving people out of it as well. They have a huge turnover in their fanbase.
Even so they make their money off miniatures sales. Whenever a new edition comes out you have to buy that single new core book again and beyond that you need is a single army book - but thats all really.
I just don't see the same level of resentment one gets with D&D were we are going to have big libraries of supplements that will all suddenly go out of date. Still most of us have survived through that before so maybe we'll be just fine.
|
|
I like the GAAP discussion.
I think we see a little of what can be wrong with the approach. WotC publishes few adventures because they are not profitable in comparison to rulebooks and sourcebooks. In contrast, minis are quite profitable.
But D&D is an ensemble of products. Historically (IMHO) adventures add to the tapestry of the game and the campaign worlds it supports. Adventures heighten appeal of the overall product. While not in themselves very profitable, they stimulate sales of the core books.
Minis do not do this (warning: uninformed opinion here; I've never owned a mini). They depend completely on the success of the core product. Make that product more popular, and you will make minis more popular.
Hasbro appears (to me, at least) to be either unaware of this interrelationship and/or unwilling to recognize it. It seems crazy to me -- it's like trying to sell Monopoly pieces while the Monopoly game slides into obscurity.
The miniatures business in particular perplexes me. WotC has dropped all future support of the Star Wars RPG line, but continues to sell their expensive minis -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that minis without a game won't sell well.
For what it's all worth :)
Jack
Unfortunately, Hasbro may not see it that way. Where you have a niche product with a loyal audience, which is unlikely to grow significantly and suffers from some big competitors (I'm talking computer games here) then you have two choices. You can go for a big marketing spend to get this product broken out of its niche into new markets, or you can treat it as a cash cow and let it slowly wither on the vine, extracting the most value while you do so. The second option assumes that the product has a limited lifespan but can be used to cross-subsidise new products.
Frankly, I don't see D&D in the first category. As pointed out, there has been a big increase in RPG playing over the last few years, but that expansion is probably played out now to a large extent. So Hasbro may not be that interested in the long-term health of D&D - it's a product, like any other, and needs to wash its face financially. The RPGs probably make a reasonable amount of money and can be relied upon to generate cash flow at the moment, but it is a perfectly valid business proposition to wreck the overall health of the game by exploiting the gamers until they get fed up.
I'm not saying that is what Hasbro are doing, but I don't really see them marketing D&D that actively. And that is why, in a sense, I am a bit worried. If you look at the demographic, we are mostly in our thirties to forties and took up the game years ago (with notable exceptions, sure, but look at the threads where this was discussed). It's not a growth proposition for Hasbro, though they have done a good job over the last few years. The status quo is never an option in business, and something may have to give.
However, I do agree with the argument that they seem to be missing the point by not publishing adventures. A great adventure can be a major recruiting tool (you can't play the game without them) and will help to keep those of us harrassed types with outside lives, who cannot create our own adventures easily, playing (and buying). There seems to be some evidence that this may be dawning on the marketing types in WotC - there have been more adventures coming out lately, and more in the pipeline, than in recent years. Let's hope they keep it up, and the experiment works.
(And let's not forget Paizo's role in this - my own ongoing interest in D&D stems from subscriptions to Dragon and, in particular, Dungeon. They are a key part of the D&D "infrastructure" that keeps the hobby ticking over. I know that Paizo is another faceless corporation, but hey, you can't live with 'em and you can't line without 'em.)
|
|
I just don't see the same level of resentment one gets with D&D were we are going to have big libraries of supplements that will all suddenly go out of date. Still most of us have survived through that before so maybe we'll be just fine.
Exactly the reason that I only own 6 D&D books now (7 when phbII comes out). AD&D era I had EVERY BOOK (took up several shelves in my bookcase)! I refuse to buy another library that becomes obsolete in a few years.....again. I made a choice to only buy the books that I research and find to be well made or that I can read in Borders over a cup of coffee (or 3) to see if it looks good. I got on board with 3.0 and less than 1 year later 3.5 was introduced (another growing library wasted). I won't do it again. I am not made of money, and there are alot of things I like to do with money.
FH
I appreciate your sentiments, FH.... changing editions is always annoying, but if you break down the amount of money you spend on D&D vs. the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, it's really not that much "entertainment money."
I spend $40 on a round of golf--that's about 4 hours of entertainment 2-3 times a month. $120 = 12 hours, about $10 an hour.
Take yourself and your favorite person (s) to the movies. 2 hours of entertainment....about $30 with drinks and munchies?
$15/hr.
Go to a massage parlor for a blow**b....about $150 for 15 minutes? (Just kidding...just seeing if you're paying attention). $600/hr.
So your 7 sourcebooks at full retail, let's say about $35 each on average, plus a Dungeon/Dragon subscription at $80/year, you've been playing for many years now--say you replace each sourcebook every 3 years and game 8 hours a week. $485 every 3 years divided by 1200 hours of gaming (8 hrs x 50 weeks x 3 years) = $ 0.40 per hour.
Is my math GAAP compatible? I say unless you're spending $12,000 a year on gaming, you're getting your money's worth out of D&D.
Even those of you who game less than 1200 hours a year and own more than 7 sourcebooks probably find that D&D is only marginally more expensive than Satellite or Cable TV as far as entertainment dollars per hour.
...People seem to forget that Greyhawk is the default setting for anything WotC produces that is not campaign specific...
You're right, quite a few people do forget that. Including the entirety of WotC's staff (sometimes willfully and quite single-mindedly).
WotC claiming that GH is the default campaign is just sense-free noise.
...O.k. I took the long road, but, the bottom line is that Greyhawk is far from disappearing.
True, Greyhawk will likely survive through LG, but LG is a chaotic (and sometimes contradictory) patchwork that is not easily adaptable to campaigns at home. Furthermore, most of the background is in mods, which are not trivial to get (especially for those not participating in RPGA).
Regards,
Jack
|
|
I appreciate your sentiments, FH.... changing editions is always annoying, but if you break down the amount of money you spend on D&D vs. the hours of enjoyment you get out of it, it's really not that much "entertainment money."
I spend $40 on a round of golf--that's about 4 hours of entertainment 2-3 times a month. $120 = 12 hours, about $10 an hour.
Take yourself and your favorite person (s) to the movies. 2 hours of entertainment....about $30 with drinks and munchies?
$15/hr.
Go to a massage parlor for a blow**b....about $150 for 15 minutes? (Just kidding...just seeing if you're paying attention). $600/hr.So your 7 sourcebooks at full retail, let's say about $35 each on average, plus a Dungeon/Dragon subscription at $80/year, you've been playing for many years now--say you replace each sourcebook every 3 years and game 8 hours a week. $485 every 3 years divided by 1200 hours of gaming (8 hrs x 50 weeks x 3 years) = $ 0.40 per hour.
Is my math GAAP compatible? I say unless you're spending $12,000 a year on gaming, you're getting your money's worth out of D&D.
I also spent around $400 on minis in the last 3 years. About $300 on cons. $250ish for molds to cast scenery pieces and dungeons. $100 in dental plaster for the casts. $100 for gaming bag and gear. $30 in dice. $400 so far for the gaming room I am making. $100 in computer software for the game.
so $2165 every 3 years and I only get to game for 4 hrs a week:$3.60 an hour (approx)
I do get the point though, and it is a good one. And don't forget to figure in your golf clubs and bags and balls and stuff. My point is I wouldn't mind spending the money if the material was of a higher quality. I doubt you would by inferior golf equipment, or waste your time and money on a movie that you knew was bad, or went for the "happy ending" massage if you knew that Gigantor the Bearded Lady was "helping" you out. I want quality, not quantity. I would change my mind about limiting my purchases if the material was of a good standard and didn't need endless tweaking to get it to work in a balanced fashion.
FH
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmmm ... well you might be right here. I'll admit that its possible that they can simply make new editions every 3-4 years in an endless loop. I've been assuming that the big danger of that is how many people will just keep playing 3.5 and I think thats a significant danger - the problem is that 3.5 is not really broken. 1st Edition felt broken in significant ways and there were some major improvements in 2nd edition. 3rd edition was pretty much a whole new system completely and 3.5 essentially addressed most of the bugs in 3.0. That leaves us with an edition were an update is probably not all that huge, really likely something that could fit in a 20 page supplement - I'm just not sure how well this would fly as it potentially makes a lot of people pretty angry. I guess we'll see really.
I agree. The problem with 3.5 is that the core system works very very well. A change for the sake of a change isn't really justifiable.
Maybe the product I am looking for is something like Unearthed Arcana, but without all the animal-headed races and bad naming of classes. If Wizards were to publish another PHB/DMG with a new set of base assumptions (new base classes, new spells, new races etc) that could be cool.
I'm not saying that is what Hasbro are doing, but I don't really see them marketing D&D that actively. And that is why, in a sense, I am a bit worried. If you look at the demographic, we are mostly in our thirties to forties and took up the game years ago (with notable exceptions, sure, but look at the threads where this was discussed). It's not a growth proposition for Hasbro, though they have done a good job over the last few years. The status quo is never an option in business, and something may have to give.
This is what bothers me most. I'm not sure if Hasbro controls WotC's marketing, but a few adverts during the D&D2 movie does not cut it. It's like preaching to the choir, to borrow the cliche. Why the hell aren't they trying to reach the new generation? Do they just think that they have no hope of competing against Playstations?
I can tell you for a fact that when young kids see a group of gamers having fun around a table with painted miniature figures, they take an immediate interest. WizKids should be proof enough of that. That lure can get people to the table. Then it's up to the DM to make permanent converts - that's why it's so important to groom new DM's in any way possible.
One of the worst mistakes that TSR made was to kill the old animated D&D show, especially considering the direction it was starting to go. For the life of me, I can't understand why WotC/Hasbro refuses to advertise D&D where it can reach new fans, like Cartoon Network or during Saturday morning programming. It's like the leader of the hobby has a death wish or something.
I want quality, not quantity.
That's a good point right there, for sure. Several of the WotC sourcebooks I've purchased have been disappointing. When I first got into 3.5 I also bought some 3rd party products that just sucked the bag. That's why I just mainly stick with Dungeon for adventures, because their quality control is better than anyone else's that I've seen.
I would like WotC to farm out the D&D license so they can make their money off minis and not just ramrod sourcebooks down our throat. First off, license Greyhawk to Paizo so Erik can go a+#&!~! with it.....
|
|
One of the worst mistakes that TSR made was to kill the old animated D&D show, especially considering the direction it was starting to go. For the life of me, I can't understand why WotC/Hasbro refuses to advertise D&D where it can reach new fans, like Cartoon Network or during Saturday morning programming. It's like the leader of the hobby has a death wish or something.
I agree. That was a great show, which I almost never missed. It certainly helped to encourage my imagination and interest in the game. A new one would be right on the money, and probably better than half the crap I see on Cartoon Network these days.
Let me see if I remember correctly...there was Ranger, Barbarian, Wizard, Thief, Cavalier, and Acrobat. Oh yeah, and the stupid little unicorn with the oh-so-clever name of Uni. And an all powerful Dungeon Master who looked like a cross between a halfling and a frog. The bad guy was, I think, Venjur (spelling?). Man I loved that show.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
One of the worst mistakes that TSR made was to kill the old animated D&D show, especially considering the direction it was starting to go. For the life of me, I can't understand why WotC/Hasbro refuses to advertise D&D where it can reach new fans, like Cartoon Network or during Saturday morning programming. It's like the leader of the hobby has a death wish or something.
Did TSR actually kill that show? My impression was that it ran the course of most Saturday morning cartoons back in the day. It ran a single season and wasn't popular enough to justify renewing. (And, if my memory is correct, some local affiliates didn't want to run it due to the D&D-is-evil taint, which didn't help either.) Is there more to the story?
One of the worst mistakes that TSR made was to kill the old animated D&D show, especially considering the direction it was starting to go. For the life of me, I can't understand why WotC/Hasbro refuses to advertise D&D where it can reach new fans, like Cartoon Network or during Saturday morning programming. It's like the leader of the hobby has a death wish or something.
Hey, I still have some of those episodes on VHS!!!
Even though I liked them when I was younger, they were pretty corny. A remake would really be in order, like when they remade "Superfriends" and called it "Justice Leage". I'm 34 and I just can't get enough of that Justice League.
Ultradan
|
Director of Narrative
|
One of the worst mistakes that TSR made was to kill the old animated D&D show, especially considering the direction it was starting to go. For the life of me, I can't understand why WotC/Hasbro refuses to advertise D&D where it can reach new fans, like Cartoon Network or during Saturday morning programming. It's like the leader of the hobby has a death wish or something.
I too think a new D&D cartoon would be an interesting way to introduce a new wave of players, but I just shuddered thinking how annoying Lidda's voice would be.
Hah, this thread got me motivated to spend $45 on Greyhawk. I just had my Greyhawk maps that came out in Dungeon magazine last year laminated.
Would I have spent $45 on a WotC produced Greyhawk CD-ROM Atlas and Gazetteer similar to the FR CD-ROM Atlas that came out seven years ago?
What do you think? I'm sure the marketing guys at WotC are competent and think they know what they're doing, but I think they're missing the boat on a lot of nostalgic, middle-aged gamers with disposable income.....