|
This also goes to the original question asked in this thread.
If, in the unlikely event that D&D fails to make money (or just "break even" in the current environment), then WoTC would likely cut the product line(s) and it would be the right thing for them to do.
WoTC is not a "public trust," it is a business enterprise.
Customer relations is part of what a business enterprise does.
Customer relations, perhaps ironically, does not really involve doing what the customer wants. It is explaining to the customer why you are doing something that might annoy them. Businesses make decisions based on what is best for them. Sometimes it is in line with what an individual customer wants, and sometimes it isn't. And they are sometimes prey to forces beyond their control. No armchair gaming company CEOs are going going to change WotC's/Hasbro's bottom line. This is not to say they haven't made mistakes, but not making profits is about the biggest mistake a company can make.
I am a long-term Paizoan, as some of you may know. But when I read the ill-informed stuff in threads like these I have to shake my head. It is hardly surprising that Paizo gets a rep as a 4e-hostile place with the negativity that pops up here. This thread has been perfectly civil, which is fine. But it is still depressing. Which company do I prefer - Paizo or WotC? Paizo, of course. But then they are a completely different company with a different business model. The ultimate sanction any of us has is not to buy a company's product. I'm not sure what else there is to say these days about WotC that hasn't already been said.
Maybe the combination of wotc dragging the game down and the rising prominence of WoW will mean that the game will be cheap enough for Paizo to buy it. Wouldn't that be something?
Very unlikely. The IP alone is worth a small fortune in the computer gaming world. Even if the pen and paper game was completely discontinued I simply can't see Hasbro giving up the IP for less than many millions of dollars.
A powerful geas?
A powerful geas?
Material component -- lots of cash.
Oh, wait. Material components are gone...
|
The fact remains that they increased the price (for the second time) with bloodwar when quality was fairly good. Since then they increased the price again while significantly reducing the quality and decreasing the tactical options for the game. How was reducing the quality of the game while increasing the price and dimishing the "fun" factor going to turn the game around? I think they just tried to make them a cheap as possible to maiximze profits,and the fans noticed the decrease in quality and quit buying them as much.
|
|
I have no trouble forgetting D&D and calling it Pathfinder. No trouble at all.
It is a shame about the minis though. I thought 4th Edition was made to use the minis more. Right? Unfortunately, the new theme of 4th Edition introduced some new creatures and characters that I wanted nothing to do with. The minis were also converted to this theme in everyway. And there, I cannot justify collecting something that invalidates my previous collection.
I really believe WotC overestimated (perhaps under) the buyers of their products. I am almost 40 now, and I have the cash to bank roll a lot of rpg products. However, as an adult I have to answer directly to my wife for these expenditures. I cannot keep my marriage together by ditching all this 3.x crap (a massive bookcase of untapped D&D) and start anew under WotCs idea of what I should be doing. As a D&D customer, they completely lost me. They aren't looking back, and that means I can't either.
Funny, I had to ask myself, "If they totally started cranking out 3.5 again would I buy it?"
Answer: Yes, I would jump right back into bed with them.
Cheers,
Zux
I think the way you think. I agree with everything EXCEPT the part about hopping back in bed with them. I will not prostitute myself to wotc anymore. They have lost me forever. They are dead to me.
I much prefer to follow the footsteps of an Erik Mona, Monte Cook, Matthew Finch, or the brilliance of Myth Merchant Press...
...just my two cp.
In the end, the line failed for a simple reason: There simply wasn't enough of an audience for the D&D Minis game. There seems to be enough interest in D&D Minis in general - and specifically, fans were mostly interested in higher quality, less randomized minis, with the ability to choose whether they wanted player packs or monster packs. So, that is what they plan to offer, at a higher price per mini.
I've never played the game, so it's failure doesn't impact me at all, and yet my support for DDMs has always carried the same criteria you mention (highest quality possible and less randomization). The failure of the game itself doesn't seem to have had an impact on their decision to continue selling DDMs, though.
That seems to be about the best plan they can offer - and yet people are still complaining.
I could care less about the loss of the game. I'm more concerned about the loss of quality, and if they raise prices like you suggest without bringing the minis back up to the quality standards they had from the WotDQ to DoD eras or so, they'll lose more than just a game.
Granted, some of the minis in the latest sets aren't bad, but to me, the overall quality of the latest sets leaves something to be desired.
Yes, it would be nice to get all these things for free. But that simply isn't viable for the company, and expecting that WotC should be losing money to benefit the fans is downright absurd.
I agree. They don't have to lose money. They simply have to keep DDMs at an acceptable level of detail and quality, and they'll have my money. If they don't, they won't.
I think the way you think. I agree with everything EXCEPT the part about hopping back in bed with them. I will not prostitute myself to wotc anymore. They have lost me forever. They are dead to me.
Wow. How Godfather-esque :)
I agree. They don't have to lose money. They simply have to keep DDMs at an acceptable level of detail and quality, and they'll have my money. If they don't, they won't.
Not to argue, but I think part of the point (and WotC's big problem here) is that they can't maintain both the previous quality and economic viability.
I'll take inferior minis over none any day -- especially when they are no longer randomized. I might get fewer for my money, but I'll get more useful ones.
|
|
I have no trouble forgetting D&D and calling it Pathfinder. No trouble at all.
It is a shame about the minis though. I thought 4th Edition was made to use the minis more. Right? Unfortunately, the new theme of 4th Edition introduced some new creatures and characters that I wanted nothing to do with. The minis were also converted to this theme in everyway. And there, I cannot justify collecting something that invalidates my previous collection.
I really believe WotC overestimated (perhaps under) the buyers of their products. I am almost 40 now, and I have the cash to bank roll a lot of rpg products. However, as an adult I have to answer directly to my wife for these expenditures. I cannot keep my marriage together by ditching all this 3.x crap (a massive bookcase of untapped D&D) and start anew under WotCs idea of what I should be doing. As a D&D customer, they completely lost me. They aren't looking back, and that means I can't either.
Funny, I had to ask myself, "If they totally started cranking out 3.5 again would I buy it?"
Answer: Yes, I would jump right back into bed with them.
They didn't start with 3. They started with 1. They never reduced prices. The prices steadily increased since the line started, and the price increases have been sooner and steeper recently, while quality took a nosedive.
Cheers,
Zux
I think the way you think. I agree with everything EXCEPT the part about hopping back in bed with them. I will not prostitute myself to wotc anymore. They have lost me forever. They are dead to me.
I much prefer to follow the footsteps of an Erik Mona, Monte Cook, Matthew Finch, or the brilliance of Myth Merchant Press...
...just my two cp.
I agree. They don't have to lose money. They simply have to keep DDMs at an acceptable level of detail and quality, and they'll have my money. If they don't, they won't.
And I think that is the goal with the new line - higher quality, less randomized minis, at the consequence of a higher cost. We'll certainly have to wait and see if they deliver, of course!
My theory is they are just trying to get the money from the secondary market distributors. If people will pay $35 for a dragon then WotC wants the money. This is reasonable. I don't think WotC want us to 'pay more', they want us to pay the same but pay the money to WotC instead of someone else. Unfortunately, they will be making a guess at what the market wants to pay. Before the market determined the prices.
To answer the OP: People buying 4e products in large enough numbers to make it profitable. The End.
As for DDM, I am probably average in that I bought a lot of minis, did not mind the new rules when they came out but did mind that the new ones were fugly and stopped buying them. I am actually pretty excited about the new sets as I would rather have 1 awesome figure than 8 crummy ones any day. Lets just hope they really are awesome.
I think one thing that was pointed out by all this was that prepainted minis at relatively cheap prices were only possible because of very cheap labor in China and cheap gas to sail them across the ocean. Of course the same thing could be said about RPG books printed overseas. And TVs. And iPods. And everything else we lazy Americans buy.
I never played DDM, but I was initially surprised to hear of its departure. After reading some of the posts on this thread, it is hard to imagine why WoTC would continue to support the DDM if most of their DDM sales were to players who either use the miniatures for their 3.5/Pathfinder/4.0 games; or simply to collect, rather than for the DDM game.
Not to argue, but I think part of the point (and WotC's big problem here) is that they can't maintain both the previous quality and economic viability.
It sounds like subpar miniatures are the way of the future then. Cheap miniatures at a higher price. Gee, why does that sound like the way a LOT of things are going these days?
I'll take inferior minis over none any day -- especially when they are no longer randomized.
I wouldn't. I'm as avid a collector as anyone, but I won't lower my own personal bar just so I can buy inferior minis because that's all they're able to manufacture. That's, well, stupid and a waste of money. I'd much rather see the line die a deserving death so I could move on to something else worthy of my money. I'm not that brand loyal.
|
|
It sounds like subpar miniatures are the way of the future then. Cheap miniatures at a higher price. Gee, why does that sound like the way a LOT of things are going these days?
Crosswiredmind and I had a big hullaballou argument when 4e came out because I had implied that the quality of the miniatures were also lowered. Now that months have passed, and as more minis are released, I can visibly see the lower grade artistry and production value. Am I a snob, or do others think quality is an important facet to our game components....?
Wave of the future or not, I am one consumer that will pay for quality, and will not pay when I feel quality is compromised, or integrity is violated.
Just my opinion, 2cp worth.
What would stop Wizards from terminating the Dungeons and Dragons product line? The same thing that would stop Paizo from terminating the Pathfinder product line: a profit.
If a product line is making money, there's very rarely a reason to get rid of it. If a product line is losing money, there's very rarely a reason to keep it.
Not terribly complicated, I'm afraid. Buy more RPG stuff.
What would stop Wizards from terminating the Dungeons and Dragons product line? The same thing that would stop Paizo from terminating the Pathfinder product line: a profit.
Please note that the point of my post was canceling a line with no prior warning, not canceling a non profitable line. Players of DDM were given a roadmap of future products and events almost a year into the future only days prior to the cancellation of the line.
|
Please note that the point of my post was canceling a line with no prior warning, not canceling a non profitable line. Players of DDM were given a roadmap of future products and events almost a year into the future only days prior to the cancellation of the line.What would stop Wizards from terminating the Dungeons and Dragons product line? The same thing that would stop Paizo from terminating the Pathfinder product line: a profit.
Sometimes the decision happens that way. Ultimately someone up the chain of command makes a decision that the blearily unaware soldiers have no ideas coming.
There is a good business reason for this, market value. Any time a company cancels a line or makes a cut (or surprisingly sometimes announcing an expansion) market price tends to drop. You keep these things quiet to avoid a spiral or rampant speculation.
Similar thing just happened where I work, a business partner just ended a long profitable and amicable relationship. The team handling the account is literally packing it up the next day.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Well, they started with prices that everyone was happy with and high quality minis. And then realized they weren't making a profit on it, their own expenses were rising, and their audience was shrinking, which is when they started cutting costs.
Actually, quality was very poor for many of the miniatures in the first two sets (Harbinger and Dragoneye). It wasn't until Archfiends that quality was really achieved. Archfiends was the final $10 set, so there was only one quality $10 set.
The sweet spot was probably Archfiends - Giants of Legends - Angelfire - Underdark. Aberrations, which happened in the middle of that, is generally considered a prety lackluster set (thought it did have some very goof sculpts). Consensus is that with the exception of Blood War, everything from War Drums on was some degree of medicore to poor when viewing the sets as a whole. So we've been in a decline for a long time now.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Please note that the point of my post was canceling a line with no prior warning, not canceling a non profitable line. Players of DDM were given a roadmap of future products and events almost a year into the future only days prior to the cancellation of the line.What would stop Wizards from terminating the Dungeons and Dragons product line? The same thing that would stop Paizo from terminating the Pathfinder product line: a profit.
Most product lines which are cancelled, are cancelled without prior warning. Otherwise, the manufacturer risks getting stuck with stock that it can't sell. The same thing happened with Chainmail.
So, the answer remains, snarky or not: the only thing that stops any company from cancelling any product is the profitability of said product line.
But generally, product lines can be terminated for no reason, with no notice, by any company, at any time. I'm not sure what would lead you to expect a different answer, much less cause you to even ask the question at all.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian:
In large companies with shareholders and performance bonuses, besides there being the states of a line 'being profitable' and of a line 'not being profitable', there seems to be another state of a line 'not being profitable enough'.
Right, but the bottom line as to what keeps any particular company from cancelling any particular product is, well, the bottom line. It's a pretty weak restraint on the ability of companies to cancel their product line, but it's really the only one that exists (outside of a few heavily regulated industries).
Which is why the question posed by this thread isn't really a question, it's more a rhetorical device, implying that because WotC cancelled DDM with no notice, they could cancel D&D with no notice. But, Paizo could cancel Pathfinder without notice and Apple could cancel production of the iPhone without notice, so it's not really all that effective as a rhetorical device and leads to the "so what" style posts you see littering this thread.
Even products which in and of themselves make losses are maintained by some companies, however; British supermarkets have developed a habit of selling cans of beer at a loss in recent years, because such 'loss leaders' (or whatever the correct financial jargon for them is) get customers through their doors, so that they can be tempted with more expensive goods.
Yes, and typically those other products make up for the loss. It doesn't change the fact that there is nothing restraining the supermarkets from canceling (or raising the prices on) their beer. I am not making the statement "only unprofitable product lines are cancelled" (look at the American auto industry, which only has unprofitable product lines), I am saying that "there is nothing preventing any company from canceling any product line." It's just that most companies won't cancel profitable product lines, and hence the statement that only profitability prevents cancellation and not the broader statement "profitable product lines are immune from cancellation."
Out of curiousity (and without intention of reference to any gaming product), at what point does a company advertising a future product which it then never produces cross over the line into commiting fraud?
Some customers might buy currently produced products on the basis that they have been promised future products which will maintain/enhance the value of the currently produced products.
Or are these very murky legal waters?
The bar for fraud is pretty high in the commercial context. It's been a while since I studied the topic, but I believe the elements are intent to deceive and reliance on that deception. So, you would have to show that the company intentionally made false statements and that the purchasing decision was based on those false statements. I think your reliance has to be reasonable, but I'm not 100% on that point. There's also a substantial amount of leeway for what's known as "puffery," like when you say "this is the best soap money can buy!" It's assumed that everyone knows that statements like that are just salesmanship and not part of the bargain when you purchase a product. So, anyway, you'd have to show that you purchased the product because you expected it to be supported in the future, that the the company made statements that it would be supported in the future, that the statements were false at the time they were made and the company intended you to rely on them, and that it was reasonable for you to rely on them. There's no way such a claim would be successful in this context, largely because product lines fail/get cancelled all the time and it's entirely unreasonable to expect otherwise absent some sort of express guarantee.
It sounds like subpar miniatures are the way of the future then. Cheap miniatures at a higher price. Gee, why does that sound like the way a LOT of things are going these days?
I have to say there are some VERY high quality **unpainted** figures out there from many vendors - not necessarily from WotC of course - when you compare them to 20 years ago, there is an increase in quality. Sculptors like Julie Guthrie and co are still around producing work....
Of course, that assumes you have time to paint them.
The sweet spot was probably Archfiends - Giants of Legends - Angelfire - Underdark.
I agree. The initial sets were really terrible (take a look at some of the Harbinger figures.) Then the quality got really nice for a few sets. After that, the quality didn't drop so much, but the figures got to be really odd stuff. I have a boatload of figures that are bizarro monsters that I'm never going to use (Frost Giant riding a wooly mammoth!)
As someone who never played the minis game, but bought enourmous amounts of minis for RPG use, I'm very excited about the changes that WotC is bringing to the minis line. I especially like the idea that you're going to be able to buy packs with non-random, high quality minis for your PCs. Under the previous system, high quality minis were rares, which meant that you never seemed to get enough of them for people's PCs, and you had to go scrounging for them on ebay. Now, if only they'd do the same thing for monster minis - sell you a "goblin tribe" box set or an "undead hoard" - I'd be much more inclined to buy them as a DM. Until then, I'll probably just keep buying them off ebay.
The sweet spot was probably Archfiends - Giants of Legends - Angelfire - Underdark.
About what I think, too. Underdark was the pinnacle. Things went downhill afterward. And it wasn't gradual, either - it started with a pretty big plummet with the very next set - wardrums.
Am I a snob, or do others think quality is an important facet to our game components....?
If you're a snob for thinking that, then so am I! And I'm damn proud of it. Seems that companies like Paizo and Reaper made me a snob.
Thank you for making me a snob!