|
OK,i am not going to condemn 4th ed out of the box, although i am HIGHLY disposed to reject it. My reasoning and anger towards Wotc doesn't stem from 'OMG I spent a bajillion dollars on this damn game. I don't want to do it again', but from a related issue. My two gripes that I have yet to see articulated on this site are:
1- Yes, Wotc probably needs money. But here's the kicker- I think that need is artificially created due to corporate bloat. Have you ever looked at how LARGE that company is compared to firms like the old TSR or Palladium? Or even any of the financially solvent/successful D20 companies in the industry? They're HUGE! If they SLOWED the pace of releases, eliminated several dozen executives, and ran LEAN, they would have much larger margins, and be able to survive short term downturns in sales.
2- The second issue is their attempt to convert a game that was always based on the optional purchase of supplements into a continuing money stream. Minis sets come out several times a year. Cool, can I by the whole set to use in my game? NO. they're random. Meaning you have to purchase substantially more to get them all. OK, how about the new DI. Do I get access based off of my book purchases? Maybe. But all indicators suggest that it will require a nominal fee like, oh i don't know 10 bucks a month.
Oh yeah, you still need to buy the books.
Folks, I don't reject the edition based off of any decisions about what's in or out yet - we just don't know enough. I am very suspicious and somewhat leery of their motives. I do think they're primarily motivated by financial rather than gaming reasons.
AND that's OK. Just don't try to sell me that its about the game.
my 2 cents. Attack, agree, or state bleh! as you desire.
The 'Ling
OK, how about the new DI. Do I get access based off of my book purchases? Maybe. But all indicators suggest that it will require a nominal fee like, oh i don't know 10 bucks a month.
You won't need the DI to use the book. You can just buy the book and play with that.
The DI will be for those who are interested in its extra content.
Hmm... a company trying to make money. What a shocker!
|
|
Hmm... a company trying to make money. What a shocker!
heh.
I think you may have missed my point. Its not that they're trying to make money. Its that they are exceeding the communities ability to pay for their product.
After the release of 3.5 an acceleration of releases seemed to take place. this has the secondary effect of causing the idea well to run dry faster than may have otherwise happened. Once creative staff's ideas are pretty well done with, the only option is to go to a new edition.
What I was pointing out, is that Wizards (like many companies - especially after acquisition by even bigger firms) is probably bigger than can be maintained without forcing this type of a product cycle. My concern is that this tactic tends to destroy good will with the consumer and usually results in a poor end for the firm in question.
Its sad to say that rather than plan a gradual, sustainable growth, many companies tend to take a myopic view and focus on the most rapid possible growth for the next fiscal quarter or two...
|
|
You won't need the DI to use the book. You can just buy the book and play with that.The DI will be for those who are interested in its extra content.
Ahhh, but if that 'extra' content is tied to a book I purchased, its not really extra at all is it. Its a feature of my book that I need to pay a subscription fee to read.
If all PHB, MM and DMG D.I. materials are accessible to D.I. subscribers whether or not you bought the book, then its a feature of D.I.
If, however, you must purchase the book AND be a D.I. subscriber, that is an entirely different animal.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
1- Yes, Wotc probably needs money. But here's the kicker- I think that need is artificially created due to corporate bloat. Have you ever looked at how LARGE that company is compared to firms like the old TSR or Palladium? Or even any of the financially solvent/successful D20 companies in the industry? They're HUGE! If they SLOWED the pace of releases, eliminated several dozen executives, and ran LEAN, they would have much larger margins, and be able to survive short term downturns in sales.
D&D is a secondary line for WotC. Magic is still their bread and butter. You may also note that Microsoft is larger than any rpg company. They also offer a wider variety of products. Plus D&D has a larger market share than every other rpg put together.
It's almost as if there is a correlation between product offerings, market size, and corporate size.
Doesn't sound like bloat to me.
|
1- Yes, Wotc probably needs money. But here's the kicker- I think that need is artificially created due to corporate bloat. Have you ever looked at how LARGE that company is compared to firms like the old TSR or Palladium? Or even any of the financially solvent/successful D20 companies in the industry? They're HUGE! If they SLOWED the pace of releases, eliminated several dozen executives, and ran LEAN, they would have much larger margins, and be able to survive short term downturns in sales.
D&D is a secondary line for WotC. Magic is still their bread and butter. You may also note that Microsoft is larger than any rpg company. They also offer a wider variety of products. Plus D&D has a larger market share than every other rpg put together.
It's almost as if there is a correlation between product offerings, market size, and corporate size.
Doesn't sound like bloat to me.
Also, TSR? Running lean? We're talking about a company that at the end had GOBS of middle-management and had the second most abysmal inventory control system in the industry.
Speaking of awful inventory control systems, let's talk Palladium, shall we? We're talking about a company with its practices so shoddy that a single, unsupervised employee was able to walk off with $1.5 million worth of product and apparently irreplaceable artwork for said product and it was only discovered after the fact - in some cases several years after the theft occurred.
Palladium is another bad comparison anyway because it's not really a company but rather Kevin Siembieda's vehicle for self-employment (indirectly, also, his vehicle for employing his close friends and family). If Siembieda walked away from Palladium tomorrow, the company would fold immediately. When Peter Adkison walked away from Wizards of the Coast, nothing happened.
Those are not models for the smart company to emulate.
|
|
D&D is a secondary line for WotC. Magic is still their bread and butter. You may also note that Microsoft is larger than any rpg company. They also offer a wider variety of products. Plus D&D has a larger market share than every other rpg put together.
It's almost as if there is a correlation between product offerings, market size, and corporate size.
Doesn't sound like bloat to me.
Funny you should mention our friends in Redmond. They want to force their clients onto a subscription based format, too. Funny how it seems both firms, even though they indisputably dominate their market, see declining interest in their products and hope to fix that by incurring a recurring revenue stream by having customers rent what they once purchased.
Look, I can respect the sentiments in your sig. I really do. I just think Wotc is the wrong champion with the wrong plan choosing the wrong battle.
I hope I am wrong. Right now i am very nervous for the long term viability of the hobby and for radically different reasons from yours.
The 'Ling
|
|
Hmm... a company trying to make money. What a shocker!What I was pointing out, is that Wizards (like many companies - especially after acquisition by even bigger firms) is probably bigger than can be maintained without forcing this type of a product cycle. My concern is that this tactic tends to destroy good will with the consumer and usually results in a poor end for the firm in question.
Its sad to say that rather than plan a gradual, sustainable growth, many companies tend to take a myopic view and focus on the most rapid possible growth for the next fiscal quarter or two...
Bang on with what underling said. I do communication consulting to Fortune 500 companies. The big deal now with forward thinking businesses is sustainable growth over immediate profits.
I have the precise concern underling has pointed out: is Hasbro/WotC abandoning a sustainable growth plan for the D&D brand, and instead focusing on the low-lying fruit new editions provide? Are they now relying on a business model that releases a new edition every 4 to 5 years?
The problem with this model is that it increases the churn rate in your player base - you may attract more interest with new editions - but fewer people will stay with the game. Most are likely drop out before a second conversion if the cycle between editions is that short.
So the emphasis of the new D&D business model would require continually finding new customers rather than growing the existing fan base. So the focus will be on the new rather than the loyal.
Who knows. Maybe this is their plan. But it seems short sighted, and I doubt it's sustainable. It's certainly not the kind of customer experience I want to have with the company producing my RPGs.
Let's face it 4e is going to work for the following reasons:
Eventually it will be the bulk of the new material and therefore gamers will purchase it.
The concept of 'evolving content' online will intrigue people
AND
87% of us hard-core d&d fans who at first thought nope, 4e ain't gonna work are going to eventually buy it. Because we love D&D . . .pure and simple . . .many of us are D&D addicts, and we will break down and begin to rationalize the utility of 4e before May 2008.
Hell, I already have.
. . .many of us are D&D addicts...
** spoiler omitted **
Yep, there is that. As angry as I was this morning wtih the announcement, you've got me there.
And it'll probably be fun, too.
The big deal now with forward thinking businesses is sustainable growth over immediate profits.
Sounds familier. An investment company bought my place of employment 7 years ago. They're finally correcting some of the mistakes they made listening to the members from the former management that they kept on. The company is growing slowly but they are STILL making decisions without consulting the people that actually know how to make the product we produce. Then we're expected to fix the mess management made.
They make the decisions without us but we're expected to share (or even take all) the blame when something ends up screwed up.
Seems old habits die hard no matter what your income is.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Funny you should mention our friends in Redmond. They want to force their clients onto a subscription based format, too. Funny how it seems both firms, even though they indisputably dominate their market, see declining interest in their products and hope to fix that by incurring a recurring revenue stream by having customers rent what they once purchased.
*shrug* Play Exalted or switch to Linux. The problem with your arguments is that they aren't particularly addressed to the merits/flaws of 4e so much as they are a bunch of platitudes papering over a fundamental lack of business knowledge. Nothing you've said has anything to do with economic reality. WotC has large margins on Magic Cards and D&D Minis. They don't need to be lean on D&D (and, it's worth noting "lean" companies do not in fact survive economic downturns, they are the ones most likely to suffere a liquidity crunch and go under). Is your theory that if they fired everyone except Mike Mearls, he could focus on writing better books and not waste his time cutting through some imaginary red tape?
Basic economics 101: businesses want to produce and sell products. Your arguments that they need to scale back production work only if you make some wacky assumption, like that they are cannabalizing their own sales or that they don't have enough resources to product 3 high quality releases per month and thus are losing consumers through making shoddy products. I can't say that I see any evidence for either of these hypothesis. What seems to be the most common refrain from gamers is "what's next, Complete Peasant?" which indicates that there isn't much left under the sun for WotC to explore in this edition. Maybe what you mean is that if they had parceled out the real money maker books, they would still have some left. But why? by reducing their output they reduce their income each month. Plus, if you look at the books they release, they ususally appeal to different niches: a setting type book, a crunchy rules book, and some capstone system/adventure. It's hard to see why only selling a crunchy book and a capstone system in one month would somehow magically increase each of their sales. I guess the assumption must be that all D&D books are fungible, regardless of topic, an assumption I find questionable at best.
I'm also not sure how eliminating executives would help. Do you have some inside information that WotC has too many high level executives or that they are compensated too well? Their public company filings certainly don't reflect that the WotC employees are more heavily compensated than their Hasbro bosses. Is it just that you don't understand what executives do, and thus believe they can be eliminated without consequence?
Businesses need to adapt to their environment. As has been pointed out on this thread, 4e is already overcoming initial resistance. Check out the boards here and on ENWorld. People who swore they'd never touch 4e mere weeks ago are already admitting that they'll try it out. And that's even before the previews start in force.
4e is already overcoming initial resistance.
Booyah.
I'm gonna go change my name to 4dventure.
|
|
Because we love D&D . . .pure and simple . . .many of us are D&D addicts
Agreed, and I admit I'm one of those addicts. However, my D&D addiction is fed by TLG with their Castles & Crusades. It feels more like D&D than the whole d20 bloat to me.
So, I'll keep buying and playing "D&D" utilizing C&C. Not excited over, or caring about how many editions of d20 WotC puts out.
I wish the Wizards the best of luck in their endevour, they just don't affect me anymore.
|
|
Sebastian -
OK, I'm not even sure where to start, so I'll address your tone 1st. Your prior post was more than slightly condescending. Having read more than a few of your past posts I'm a little surprised that this was your chosen response. Your answer to play exalted because I'm unhappy with Wizard's business model suggests that I should swallow what they offer or shut up and leave. Typically, customers voice dissatisfaction when they are unhappy. That is what I am doing here and on other forums. Its feedback such as this that sometimes force companies to change their policies. You should understand that it is my right as a consumer to voice my dissatisfaction with their new monthly fee format. I understand that it is Wizards' right to ignore me.
Ultimately, Wizards claims to be doing this for the good of the game. I dispute that claim. They also claim that the fans have been clamoring for a 4th edition. I have seen no such demand - in fact as you yourself stated above, most posters for the last year have dreaded this change.(even if the excitement of the launch has changed some minds)
Just for clarity I will restate my concerns from the OP:
1- The monthly fee system for DI
2- The fact that they glut the market with releases to speed up the product cycle and maximize short term profits vs. long term sustainability.
Finally, I dislike their approach to the whole affair. Canceling Dungeon/Dragon, pulling Dragonlance / Ravenloft licenses, and making misleading statements about the timeframe for the release of 4th edition.
Will I boycott 4th edition? No. I never said that. Wotc will have to wow me to win me over. If they had shown more concern for their fanbase they wouldn't have to- I'd be singing their praises instead.
Ahhh, but if that 'extra' content is tied to a book I purchased, its not really extra at all is it. Its a feature of my book that I need to pay a subscription fee to read.
There might be extra content for those who pay for the DI. Certianly DI subscribers will get extra stuff like new feats, spells, magic items etc. (think of all the stuff Dragon added to 3.5). But the game will run with just the books and no DI. You'll be able to play pretty much as you play today.
If all PHB, MM and DMG D.I. materials are accessible to D.I. subscribers whether or not you bought the book, then its a feature of D.I.
Yeah - that won't happen. DI subscriber or no, WotC ain't in the business of giving this stuff away. There will be an SRD so those keen to try and work around this might pull it off but in general if you want to play your going to need to buy the books.
If, however, you must purchase the book AND be a D.I. subscriber, that is an entirely different animal.
Thats not the model they are talking about. You'll be able to play without being a DI subscriber, but they want your subscription fees so their going to work hard to make those that pay them feel they are getting their moneys worth and keep paying them.
|
|
Thats not the model they are talking about. You'll be able to play without being a DI subscriber, but they want your subscription fees so their going to work hard to make those that pay them feel they are getting their moneys worth and keep paying them.
Yes, but the way I read it, in addition to your regular subscription fee, should you buy a new book there will be an activation code so you can unlock additional material in the DI for yet another "nominal fee".
So, they're making out twice. DI fee then the "nominal fee" to get even more out of the DI. Double dipping.
Perhaps I read wrong though.
Thats not the model they are talking about. You'll be able to play without being a DI subscriber, but they want your subscription fees so their going to work hard to make those that pay them feel they are getting their moneys worth and keep paying them.Yes, but the way I read it, in addition to your regular subscription fee, should you buy a new book there will be an activation code so you can unlock additional material in the DI for yet another "nominal fee".
So, they're making out twice. DI fee then the "nominal fee" to get even more out of the DI. Double dipping.
Perhaps I read wrong though.
Not the impression I got. More like 'you can use your activation key to get more online stuff'. I think the activation key is to get you used to the idea of using the computer to enhance your game. If they can get you used to that idea then its just a short hop skip and a jump to paying a subscription fee for even more online enhancements and pretty soon they have you giving them money every month.
I seriously doubt that their plan is to rape you hard the moment you try and use your computer to help enhance the game - if they do that they'll never manage to rope you into becoming a long term subscriber.
As I said on another thread - looks like the Crack Cocaine model to me ... "this taste is free and if you like what you see you just come back and see me" being the idea.
|
|
I knew I read it somewhere. HERE is a link.
The quote I'm speaking about is:
"Each paper product will include codes to unlock digital versions on the site for a "nominal" activation fee. "
That kinda sounds fishy to me.
I knew I read it somewhere. HERE is a link.
The quote I'm speaking about is:
"Each paper product will include codes to unlock digital versions on the site for a "nominal" activation fee. "
That kinda sounds fishy to me.
Maybe your right. Be a bad marketing decision if they did it that way in my opinion. Of course nominal might be $2 - then the idea is to get you used to the idea of paying them something which might have some benefits, if you've done it once for even a small amount it might be easier to get you to do it again.
What I'm curious about too, is that if you are already an on-line subscriber, are you still going to have to pay that "nominal" activation fee to unlock extra content from the books you buy?
Interesting question, indeed. So, if you can either just pay for the web enhancement you access via the code OR pay for the full subscription of D&DInsider and access the material protected by the code for free, that would be ok. If you pay once for the "general" Insider stuff and once more for the enhancements, that would be a bit much for my taste.
Of course, even if you are an "Insider", the enhancements would be only accessible via the code - so you have to buy the books, but that would have to be expected.
I´m not so keen on web enhancements anyway - you either have to print them out and have some loose sheets with you books, or you leave them digital, and probably forget about them. The content may be good, but poses some logistic problems.
Stefan
There's a point about 4e that I haven't been seeing, and I think it may have something to do with why the DI seems so dysfunctional. Specifically, I think there's a strong arguement to be made that WOTC had some pressure to announce 4e sooner than later.
I'm not so keen on web enhancements anyway - you either have to print them out and have some loose sheets with you books, or you leave them digital, and probably forget about them.
Honestly, I just do all my characters on spreadsheets on my laptop as it is. Web enhancements aren't bad at all when they're an alt-tab away from your character sheet.
There's a point about 4e that I haven't been seeing, and I think it may have something to do with why the DI seems so dysfunctional. Specifically, I think there's a strong arguement to be made that WOTC had some pressure to announce 4e sooner than later.
What does this prove, other than the value of the HAS paper has dropped in the last few weeks? Its still higher than one year ago. And the developers let on that they are at 4e for two years already, so I don´t guess that this development has had any influence on the revelation of 4e.
Honestly, I just do all my characters on spreadsheets on my laptop as it is. Web enhancements aren't bad at all when they're an alt-tab away from your character sheet.
I'm not so keen on web enhancements anyway - you either have to print them out and have some loose sheets with you books, or you leave them digital, and probably forget about them.
Yeah, I´m doing a lot on PC as well. But as I own no laptop, I can´t access the stuff while at the gaming table. So that reduces the value of WEs for me anyway.
Stefan
|
|
5 years between major revisions is actually a bit on the long side in this industry.
My rules for this include major releases that were later declared un-products (qf. "unperson"); this prevents companies from disavowing their failures. A "major release" counts numbered editions, "revised and expanded" editions and "anniversary" editions. So D&D will have had seven major releases as of next May (OD&D, AD&D 1st edition, AD&D 2nd edition, the 1996 revision of 2nd edition, D&D 3rd edition, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th edition). I'm only counting the major players; the point is made clearly enough without involving every minor player in the business, and companies for which RPGs are a sidelight, not their main business.
Palladium: Has never made a major revision, but this disguises the fact that Palladium releases enough volume of new rules for a major revision of their system every two years or so.
Call of Cthulhu: Released 1981, 11 major releases, most recent major release 2006. Average time between major releases: 2 years, 3 months.
Interlock system: Released 1987, 3 major releases, most recent major release 1997. Average time between major releases: 3 years, 4 months
Storyteller/Storytelling System: Released 1991, 4 major releases, most recent major release 2005. Average time between major releases: 3 years, 6 months
GURPS: Released 1986, 4 major releases, most recent major release 2004. Average time between major releases: 4 years, 6 months
Hero System: Released 1981, 6 major releases, most recent major release 2005. Average time between major releases: 4 years
Dungeons & Dragons: Released 1974, 7 major releases, most recent major release 2008 (future). Average time between major releases: 4 years, 11 months
I'm not going to mess with the d6 system, even though West End was once a major player, because as a system it had three major releases as Star Wars: the RPG from its introduction in 1987 until West End declared bankruptcy in 1997, the company was in limbo for the next seven years, and there was another major release in 2004 (the "naked" d6 System).
The 3 years between 3E and 3.5E were kind of an anomaly for D&D; 4 years, 10 months for D&D 3.5 to D&D 4th Edition is pretty much on the average.
hehe anyone remember Barbara Bush; just say no :) vote with your cash
After the release of 3.5 an acceleration of releases seemed to take place. this has the secondary effect of causing the idea well to run dry faster than may have otherwise happened. Once creative staff's ideas are pretty well done with, the only option is to go to a new edition.
I don't believe you know what you're talking about. Each and every writer who works on games, no matter the company or circumstance, has tons of creative ideas. They don't all see light because every company can only produce so many products.
They also claim that the fans have been clamoring for a 4th edition. I have seen no such demand
More accurately, fans have been asking for fixes of things that are broken. 4dventure addresses that in the most effective way.
|
|
I don't believe you know what you're talking about. Each and every writer who works on games, no matter the company or circumstance, has tons of creative ideas. They don't all see light because every company can only produce so many products.
I believe I do know what I'm talking about. Sure writers have lots of creative ideas. Unfortunately, only so many of them are any good. Most proposed projects never see the light of day because they aren't good enough.
When they release 2 or more major splat books a month, the good ideas, as well as the so-so ideas are all rapidly exhausted. By releasing such an aggressive schedule of books post 3.5 launch, they ran out of quality material quite fast and had to resort to things like Tome of battle with it (almost entirely new) mechanics to DO anything creative. In fact, we now see that ToB was a "field test" of some early 4ed mechanics. But of course, I expect you will have an entirely different opinion or spin on things, and that's fine by me. Just be careful bandying around phrases like
I don't believe you know what you're talking about.
It might make someone's hackles rise. ;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
When they release 2 or more major splat books a month, the good ideas, as well as the so-so ideas are all rapidly exhausted. By releasing such an aggressive schedule of books post 3.5 launch, they ran out of quality material quite fast and had to resort to things like Tome of battle with it (almost entirely new) mechanics to DO anything creative. In fact, we now see that ToB was a "field test" of some early 4ed mechanics. But of course, I expect you will have an entirely different opinion or spin on things, and that's fine by me. Just be careful bandying around phrases like
It's really hard to accept the concept of holding your good releases as a successful business strategy. Besides, as I already mentioned above, WotC released different types of books each month to appeal to different audiences.
Take a look at the releases for November 2004: Sharn: City of Towers and Complete Arcane. What exactly would the benefit have been of releasing only Complete Arcane in November and then releasing only Sharn in December? All that means is that you, the gamer, have to wait longer for Complete Arcane. Will more people buy Complete Arcane because they otherwise would have purchased Sharn? What exactly is the relationship between releasing fewer products and revenue? Is it just pushing off the revenue into future quarters? Why would WotC choose to do that? The time value of money is such that a rationale person would prefer a dollar now over a dollar a year from now. Why should WotC push off getting the money for Sharn until December when it can get that money now?
In the meantime, following this reduced output theory, WotC is selling fewer books because they are releasing fewer per month. D&D is producing less revenue, there's less reason to have employees working on it, and WotC has to consider whether they need fewer employees. How is this good for D&D?
Your arguments fly in the face of Economics 101 unless you make an assumption that releasing multiple products per month somehow is less profitable than releasing one product per month. I could see that assumption being reasonable if WotC were releasing Complete Arcane and Complete Mage in the same month, but there isn't any economic reason to slow releases just so the good ideas "last longer."
3.5 is cumbersome. there are really alot of rules to remember during the course of even mid level combat. i think the spells are cumbersome as well. one of the reasons that i dont play spell casters. i also think that the rules unbalance themselves. (or it could just be the group i play with, but i think its the rules)
i will buy 4e. i will play 4e. just like i bought 2e, and 3e, and 3.5....e.
if every edition after the first makes it easier, quicker, more fun, etc, then i will continue to purchase them. hell, i even have the little original books.
its all in the name of improving the game. thats the way i see it. thats the way i understood the podcast. anything that improves the game, i am all for it.
and as for the di, i will prolly join. becasue i like online and download content.
come to think of it, i will join di, it has alot of features to it that before you had to purchase from seperate entities.
|
|
In the meantime, following this reduced output theory, WotC is selling fewer books because they are releasing fewer per month. D&D is producing less revenue, there's less reason to have employees working on it, and WotC has to consider whether they need fewer employees. How is this good for D&D?
Your arguments fly in the face of Economics 101 unless you make an assumption that releasing multiple products per month somehow is less profitable than releasing one product per month. I could see that assumption being reasonable if WotC were releasing Complete Arcane and Complete Mage in the same month, but there isn't any economic reason to slow releases just so the good ideas "last longer."
This is a valid criticism of what I have been arguing. Allow me to further explain what I mean to clarify my reasoning. D&D purchases come out of disposable income. This is a limited resource for all fans. What is the threshold where a given fan exceeds his limited spending ability? $40 a month? $60? $100? I tend to assume that for the average player their limit falls somewhere short of the amount of product Wotc puts out each month. That would suggest that for each fan, in a given month, they will have to be selective about what they purchase. They will have wish lists of things they want, but can't buy. These are unclaimed sales. If Wizards exceeds the average disposable income their fans are willing to spend on RPG materials in a given time period, they will be losing some sales on products that may otherwise have been purchased.
Now, under my suggested sales model and yours, Wotc will probably collect the same amount of money from their fans - but under the current strategy will likely have unsold items sit on store shelves for longer periods. If you release lots of books, I will buy the ones that most appeal to me and ignore the rest. By slowing the release schedule, books that only appealed to me marginally, like most Realms titles, would have received a more serious look and probably a purchase. Those sales will never happen now, as Wotc has released SO many books, my backlog is already considerable. I have to prioritize in my purchases.
This holds a second hidden danger. In attempting to release two or more major releases each month, I think many would say Wotc has released some titles of questionable quality. We may not agree on which titles, but most people have a few they strongly object to. Essentially, quality ideas are a consumable resource. Many recent releases have featured prestige classes that duplicate earlier classes' abilities or roles. How many times over the past year have you opened a new Wotc title and said "Great, another spellsword flavor. What is this Baskin Robbins?" or "Wonderful, just what I needed an undead hooker that died from strangulation. She'll go wonderfully with the other undead hookers from the last five splat books."
To recap ( a long, drunken post): Wotc recent release schedule likely exceeded most fans disposable income set aside for RPG purchases. Wizards likely would get the same dollars from sales under either system, but less unsold product would be returned by book sellers, and more goodwill from fans would be evident (goodwill being tied to the length between major editions, and thus the long term utility of purchases).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If Wizards exceeds the average disposable income their fans are willing to spend on RPG materials in a given time period, they will be losing some sales on products that may otherwise have been purchased.
But, is this lost revenue greater than the lost revenue of persons who choose not to buy any products from WotC because, for example, the only release that month is an Eberron book and I don't play Eberron? I can see the argument if the products released were in the same niche, but they are not.
Now, under my suggested sales model and yours, Wotc will probably collect the same amount of money from their fans - but under the current strategy will likely have unsold items sit on store shelves for longer periods. If you release lots of books, I will buy the ones that most appeal to me and ignore the rest. By slowing the release schedule, books that only appealed to me marginally, like most Realms titles, would have received a more serious look and probably a purchase. Those sales will never happen now, as Wotc has released SO many books, my backlog is already considerable. I have to prioritize in my purchases.
I'm not sure why you'd bother picking up a marginal FR book unless you had a very strong preference over purchasing Wizards products over all other leisure entertainment. A more likely scenario is that you rank Complete Arcane first, Halo 3 second, Magic Cards third, and then FR a distant fourth. If you don't purchase Complete Arcane, there is no guarantee you will purchase FR. It might as well be full of blank pages for many consumers. I severely doubt that most people fit into the buying pattern you describe above.
Essentially, quality ideas are a consumable resource. Many recent releases have featured prestige classes that duplicate earlier classes' abilities or roles. How many times over the past year have you opened a new Wotc title and said "Great, another spellsword flavor. What is this Baskin Robbins?" or "Wonderful, just what I needed an undead hooker that died from strangulation. She'll go wonderfully with the other undead hookers from the last five splat books."
Yeah, but if WotC can sell the same idea twice, why not do it? Sure, maybe you had the hexblade before, but now that the PHBII is here, the duskblade seems exotic and new. Do you need both classes? Neh, probably not. But, some people will ike the hexblade, some people will like the duskblade, and some people will just buy both books no matter what.
To recap ( a long, drunken post): Wotc recent release schedule likely exceeded most fans disposable income set aside for RPG purchases. Wizards likely would get the same dollars from sales under either system, but less unsold product would be returned by book sellers, and more goodwill from fans would be evident (goodwill being tied to the length between major editions, and thus the long term utility of purchases).
There are a lot of assumptions built into this model, the most important being that WotC books are perfect substitutes. WotC would not get the same dollars under either system due to the time value of money; they would need to increase the sale of the book each month to offset the loss from the sale of additional books they would otherwise offer. This effect would be particularly strong for things like setting books that appeal only to a small segment of the general auidience. Sharn is not going to make up the difference in sales that would have been generated by Complete Arcane. It makes absolutley no sense to spread out the release of each product over time.
Like I said, your model does not match the reality of Econ 101. You could make the same statements about Paizo if you wanted. After all, they replaced Dragon/Dungeon with two products that are more expensive and more content heavy. Maybe they should cut back their schedule. Sure, they'd have to let go of James Jacobs, Jeremy Walker, and Cosmo, but hey, at least we'd have "good ideas" for a longer period of time.
Or, it could be that, being the creative professionals that they are, Paizo rises to the challenge. It's possible they may not hit every ball out of the park, but they can't just sit back and only take the swings that will be guaranteed successes. They'll be driven out of business with such a model. Same goes for WotC.
Just for clarity I will restate my concerns from the OP:
1- The monthly fee system for DI
2- The fact that they glut the market with releases to speed up the product cycle and maximize short term profits vs. long term sustainability.
This is all off the top of my head after watching the YOUTUBE videos and reading the forums over at ENWORLD and WotC...
Re: #1
I think that it's important to remember what you get with your subscription to DnD Insider.....DUNGEON and DRAGON magazines. Granted they are no longer in print form, but they have said they are planning on having three updates per week (which you will need to be online to view) and then an anthology type of file which you can download at the end of the month containing that month's updates (which should be accessable when offline, and I would assume printable). Also, each DUNGEON adventure will come ready to be used in their "Game Table" software.
I'm lucky enough to be able to use a ceiling mounted projector for the maps when I DM, and I am quite excited about WotC's software offering.
Re: #2
Having an extra (consistantly recurring) ~$10 per month from a large portion of the DnD fanbase seems like a great idea in ensuring DnD's long term stability.
As for the validity of the new edition...
Everything that the developers have been talking about fixing/improving are things that my gaming group has been discussing for the past few months. Complexity of AoO (or more exactly avoiding them) and grappling, waiting around for your friend's high level two weapon fighter to roll his bajillion attacks, ineffective/useless abilities on monsters that are only going to last 3 rounds, etc. I for one am really looking forward to some of those issues being addressed. However, I don't think that 3.75 would have been the way to address them.
Businesses need to adapt to their environment. As has been pointed out on this thread, 4e is already overcoming initial resistance. Check out the boards here and on ENWorld. People who swore they'd never touch 4e mere weeks ago are already admitting that they'll try it out. And that's even before the previews start in force.
LOL
I told them jokers over at the WotC boards who swore up and down that they would never buy 4e that exact thing.
|
2 things for Sebastian,
1. I would have bought many more 3.5 books if WotC had:
A. released more quality books that were not seemingly thrown together and of questionable balance.
B. If they were released at a slower pace I would have considered buying ones that I didn't. I have a need to buy a certain amount of D&D stuff a month. With the faster pace of releases and the lacksidaisical eye towards keeping supplements balanced, I have moved most of my alloted D&D funds to more reputable (IMO) companies, Paizo being the main one.
and 2. On a personal note, you seem more venomous lately, is something wrong? You have always been a bit explosive(in a fun way) but lately you just seem to be out-right attacking people and mean-spirited so I am just wondering if everything is alright with you? (I am genuinely concerned, no sarcasm or anything.)
FH
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
2 things for Sebastian,
1. I would have bought many more 3.5 books if WotC had:
A. released more quality books that were not seemingly thrown together and of questionable balance.
B. If they were released at a slower pace I would have considered buying ones that I didn't. I have a need to buy a certain amount of D&D stuff a month. With the faster pace of releases and the lacksidaisical eye towards keeping supplements balanced, I have moved most of my alloted D&D funds to more reputable (IMO) companies, Paizo being the main one.
But what is the link between quality and production? If WotC does not put out Sharn, does that mean they will spend more time balancing Complete Arcane?
I also disagree on the balance issue. I think that the since starting up the design & development group, WotC's products have been more balanced, but also more complicated, which makes it easy to misjugde them.
and 2. On a personal note, you seem more venomous lately, is something wrong? You have always been a bit explosive(in a fun way) but lately you just seem to be out-right attacking people and mean-spirited so I am just wondering if everything is alright with you? (I am genuinely concerned, no sarcasm or anything.)
4e is a subject that gets me going because you get a bunch of people who know nothing about business puking out a bunch of inaccurate/false statements. The statement that got me going on this thread was the whole "they need fewer executives". It's such a narrow minded view of the way business works. I'm not saying that there aren't companies with too many executives or that management can not become overly stratified, but just asserting that there are too many executives as if that is an axiom of business shows such a lack of sophistication that I get riled up.
I also get irritated at the way the "I'll never buy 4e" gets thrown around as if it is a morale stand. I mostly tend to go after people that say crap like that, or that can't be bothered to read and digest what is actually being said by WotC (e.g., "I can only play 4e on the computer! It will be just like an MMORPG").
So, what it boils down to is not that there is anything wrong, but that I have little tolerance for many of the arguments being presented.
|
|
On a personal note, you seem more venomous lately, is something wrong? You have always been a bit explosive(in a fun way) but lately you just seem to be out-right attacking people and mean-spirited so I am just wondering if everything is alright with you? (I am genuinely concerned, no sarcasm or anything.)
I suspect it's the male menopause.
He's happiest when belittling others. He is in hog heaven right now. ;)
|
|
2 things for Sebastian,
1. I would have bought many more 3.5 books if WotC had:
A. released more quality books that were not seemingly thrown together and of questionable balance.
B. If they were released at a slower pace I would have considered buying ones that I didn't. I have a need to buy a certain amount of D&D stuff a month. With the faster pace of releases and the lacksidaisical eye towards keeping supplements balanced, I have moved most of my alloted D&D funds to more reputable (IMO) companies, Paizo being the main one.But what is the link between quality and production? If WotC does not put out Sharn, does that mean they will spend more time balancing Complete Arcane?
I also disagree on the balance issue. I think that the since starting up the design & development group, WotC's products have been more balanced, but also more complicated, which makes it easy to misjugde them.
and 2. On a personal note, you seem more venomous lately, is something wrong? You have always been a bit explosive(in a fun way) but lately you just seem to be out-right attacking people and mean-spirited so I am just wondering if everything is alright with you? (I am genuinely concerned, no sarcasm or anything.)
4e is a subject that gets me going because you get a bunch of people who know nothing about business puking out a bunch of inaccurate/false statements. The statement that got me going on this thread was the whole "they need fewer executives". It's such a narrow minded view of the way business works. I'm not saying that there aren't companies with too many executives or that management can not become overly stratified, but just asserting that there are too many executives as if that is an axiom of business shows such a lack of sophistication that I get riled up.
I also get irritated at the way the "I'll never buy 4e" gets thrown around as if it is a morale stand. I mostly tend to go after people that say crap like that,...
To address the first part, what I was saying is that if they didn't have such an aggressive release strategy perhaps WotC could devote more time and resources into making a product of better quality and balance. As an example, I own 10 books. They lost me as a steady customer when there started to be a constant stream of errata and more ridiculous combos, like some that grace the Optimization boards, started coming into being.
I would have bought a lot more if I could be sure that they were well-done and balanced but Wizards, IMO, ruined their reputation with me for putting out good material.If the Quality was great then I wouldn't care if they did put out 3-5 books a month, but I believe that with the quantity they are producing, the staff is maybe rushed too much and have too little resources available in order to police themselves properly. Does having a slower production rate guarantee higher quality? No, but if the proper resources were in place with a good deadline set, I believe the supplement books could have been of a much higher quality. I have no facts to back that up but logic dictates that allowing more time to review a product should show some of the flaws that are inherent in a product and that is what I am baseing my opinions on.
To address the second part. I agree with your irritation over the whole "I will never buy 4E" type of people. However, there is alot of strange and different things going on with WotC lately and a very dedicated and passionate group of people are trying to have their feeling of powerlessness and frustration heard. Will they buy 4E? Most likely, if they love D&D as much as they say, then definately they will, but they still need to be heard and allowed to rage alittle at the lose of 2- 20 year+ staples of the community and an almost immediate annoucement that their world is about to be revamped. I rage at these things also. I hate this next wave of changes mostly due to the fact that I don't trust my favorite hobby in WotC's hands. Will I buy 4E? Most likely, but I will be giving it a very critical eye, I won't buy until after I feel like there isn't a "4.5" coming to fix the skills-based class system(or whatever) and I will be extremely critical of supplement books. I have found out that I can take or leave supplements now so I won't buy anything that isn't of great quality.
So anyway, people are angry and are trying to vent a bit over this stuff. Is that so bad? You can have your laugh at them later by making a list of names on the boards that say they won't buy and wait for them to post back with a question when they start reviewing the rules from their 4.0 PHB.
Most people who take a few minutes to really think about it, know that they will eventually buy into 4.0. But right now they (and me) want to feel like they have some control over this part of their life and that others are upset also. Why not let them vent?
Well, I am glad that nothing bad has happened to you, I was just a bit worried when it seemed like every other post was you killin' somebody on the boards. Relax brother, you can laugh at all of us ragers after May.
FH
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I would have definitely bought more books if they'd been of higher quality, and probably if they'd been spaced further apart. For a time I was trying to get all the 3.0 books (and I do have all the hardcovers that aren't setting-specific), but the endless flow of new supplements broke me of that habit around the time Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and Dragon Magic were coming out. Too many options, and too little chance of a decent book.
** spoiler omitted **
You are so weak.
** spoiler omitted **You are so weak.
Weak like a FOX!