I posted this over at ENWorld, but since the PDF debate seems to be going strong here as well, I thought I'd post it here as well in case anyone's interested.
In advance, sorry for the lengthy post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Like many, I've been watching WotC's PDF-pulling with interest. I chose not to ride the 4e train but still purchased older, out-of-print PDFs. I missed the initial wave of announcements and was irritated that some of my wish list had vanished, but it wasn't a devastating development to me personally.
However, I feel it speaks volumes about WotC. For the last 24 hours, I've watched the various posters on both sides and aside from the sheer idiocy in which WotC has handled this situation, I've also been struck by some of the assumptions being made - both in- and against- WotC's favor. While I have no insider information, these assumptions fly in the face of everything I've encountered while working in corporate America for over 13 years. I am a solutions engineer for a technology company and in addition to seeing the operations of my employer, I have the opportunity to have some level of insight into my customers who cover a wide range of industries.
So here's one man's take on some of the conclusions being drawn:
1. Lawyers Don't Run Companies - Lawyers provide counsel. Executives run companies. So the idea that Lawyers are passing edicts to WotC is pretty far-fetched. Lawyers can provide suggestions, can say "yeah, we have a case and can go after X", and will be part of developing contracts, etc. But an executive or executives make the decisions - in this case, WotC executives. Lawyers, may have written the GSL, but someone within WotC said, "yeah that's what we want". Worst case scenario, someone at Hasbro said it for WotC. Which brings me to ...
2. Parent Companies Don't Micromanage Subsidiaries/Divisions - That's why the susidiary/division has it's own executives. The parent company is supposed to focus on the bigger picture, not the day-to-day operations. I seriously doubt Hasbro is running WotC. For that to be true, WotC's executives have to be empty suits and that is a more alarming prospect for the health & future of the company than PDF piracy. The more likely scenario is that Hasbro is dictating targets that are unrealistic, and WotC leadership is making poor decisions in an effort to make those targets. I've seen it first hand with customers and my own employer at different times throughout my career.
3. Companies aren't evil, but they can lose their way - I know we all love some Shadowrun, but corporations aren't evil. They may be run by evil people but it's orders of magnitude more likely that poor choices are made to support a business plan that's not achievable. There are businesses that put customers first because they understand that there will be no company without them. There are other businesses out there that put shareholder profits far above customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, or any number of other factors. #1 reason? The Internet boom. Many companies expect double-digit returns every quarter even when it's inarguably demonstrable to be unachievable. You know what helps drive that mentality? Being part of a publicly traded company.
I've also read the threads talking about the court cases and PHB2 sales, unsurprisingly, in Internet-land, people want to have it both ways:
"WotC had to pull PDF sales. The volume of lost sales due to piracy was huge."
"See how successful 4e is, they sold out the first printing!"
I see it as "Since every illegal download doesn't equate to a lost sale and since 4e seems to be selling very well, why the draconian reaction to selling PDFs?" There's a wide range of plausible scenarios that have already been debated in earlier threads. Only WotC knows the truth.
I know what I'm about to say will sound harsh and will earn me a WotC-hater label in certain camps. As gamers, we want to think that the flagship RPG publisher is made up of people just like us - and it is. Unfortunately, it's their job and you don't always get to make decisions or take actions you agree with at work. Sometimes you're ordered to do something, sometimes the decisions made above your head. But let's stop burying our heads in the sand. WotC is making the decisions. Put the credit, whether good or bad, where it is due. Cheer them for the success of 4e, but don't absolve them of decisions that hurt the industry or you as a customer.
If Hasbro doesn't like the decisions or doesn't see the results they want, trust me, they'll make changes. Of what type or scale I can't say. My belief is that Hasbro's role as villain starts and stops with the targets they're giving WotC.
Let's face it, folks, 4e could be a success by any objective measure in the RPG industry, and still be viewed as unsuccessful for not being profitable enough from a WotC or Hasbro perspective.
I agree with Stan! - WotC has dropped the mantle of RPG industry leadership. They've got market share, but there are several decisions that, although clearly beneficial to WotC, are not to the industry, 3PPs, or YOU the customer. Just because a company can do something, doesn't mean that it should.
Sorry for the long post, it's been kicking around in my head for a bit.
Lastly, a wise man once told me the following:
1) Never underestimate the stupidity of a corporation.
2) The only entity dumber than a corporation is a government.
3) The only entity dumber than a government is academia.
I'm thankful for your explanation of the fallacies.
I myself blamed the lawyers rather quickly.
The whole thing makes me a little sad, since I am a VTT player. It feels like they're trying to exterminate my only means of gaming. I know it's not like that, but it is pretty insulting.
2. Parent Companies Don't Micromanage Subsidiaries/Divisions - That's why the susidiary/division has it's own executives. The parent company is supposed to focus on the...
Sometimes they do. Just look at TOPPS and WizKidz. TOPPS rode Wizkidz all the way to the ground.
Sometimes they do. Just look at TOPPS and WizKidz. TOPPS rode Wizkidz all the way to the ground.
2. Parent Companies Don't Micromanage Subsidiaries/Divisions - That's why the susidiary/division has it's own executives. The parent company is supposed to focus on the...
Yeah, unfortunately Parent Companies aren't supposed to micromanage, but often they do :p
My husband worked for a subsidiary company that went through a bad patch due specifically to management decisions being foisted on them by "superiors" up the chain of command in the parent company. They eventually got those men off their backs, but were being milked as being a vary profitable part of the division, and supporting the other much less profitable parts. Was not good times.
I don't disagree that it's possible, but I find it highly unlikely. D&D is just one piece of WotC and a smaller one than MtG. Hasbro is huge by comparison and I think it's lottery-winning-odds against them micromanaging WotC.
I fully believe they've set unattainable targets for WotC to meet with regards to D&D, however.
I know it's a popular conceit to view the big corporation as the evil empire, and certain behaviors by companies & executives only reinforce that belief. But the reality is that WotC IS a corporation. They're not a mom-n-pop little guy being crushed under the thumb of big brother.
I could be completely wrong in my esitmation of Hasbro's involvement on day-to-day operations. If they are micro managing, it would make the situation even more pathetic than it already is.
Until I see stronger evidence to that effect, however, I think it's a convenient fallacy to praise WotC's successes yet absolve them of any responsibility when mistakes are made. Everyone makes mistakes. You don't learn from them unless you own up to them.
I think that since WotC staff post to websites, we naturally tend to think of them as the individuals that they are rather than the company that they represent. The two are intertwined, however. Although we WANT to believe that the stupid decisions CAN'T come from within WotC, the reality is that they certainly can. Press releases and communications with retailers, 3PPs, distributors, etc are being issued by WotC, not Hasbro. There's far more evidence to suggest WotC is making these decisions than there is that Hasbro is pulling their string and watching them march off.
I still stongly suspect that 4e is selling well by RPG industry standards but is underperforming by WotC and/or Hasbro business targets. I also think that until the gaming community comes to grip with that possibility, the emotion toward WotC's decisions will only increase. (IMO of course).
|
I still stongly suspect that 4e is selling well by RPG industry standards but is underperforming by WotC and/or Hasbro business targets.
A business partner and I learned the hard way once during a period of getting a start-up off the ground.
"Just because you're busy, doesn't mean you're making money."
I fully agree with what you are saying here, and I suspect there is some validity to the suggestion that this is probably the case for some of the decisions that are being made by WotC management.
In my opinion all evidence seems to suggest that WotC is in business panic mode - as oppossed to being in 'sticking with the business plan' mode.
"Just because you're busy, doesn't mean you're making money."
Ain't that the truth.
I think at least part of the "It's the fault of Hasbro/Lawyer/Suit/CEO/etc." claims is due to people not wanting to blame WotC and/or the Devs they know for anything.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
"Just because you're busy, doesn't mean you're making money."Ain't that the truth.
Big Idea Productions, the creators of the very popular "Veggie Tales" videos, got dragged down this same way. They had outgrown their mom & pop roots and hired an exec from Kraft or some similar big corp who basically built a business model like you would build for packaged foods instead of as an entertainment IP. So, even while the videos were flying off the shelves, they were licensing out games, toys, etc., and even made money on their first full-scale theater movie... the company was going down the tubes. Not that this one person was the only one responsible, but he just became kind of the focal point and a driver for the company sliding right off the edge and eventually getting bought out.
I do know that less than a year ago Hasbro did send a new CEO for WotC from Hasbro central, so while Hasbro as a company may not be micromanaging WotC as a company, it is entirely likely that new leadership was imposed on WotC in order to bring it in more in line with the Hasbro goals and plans.
|
|
Having listened to most of the luminaries of the day speak about the TSR of yester-year, it sounds like they ran into the same problem.
Their solution to dwindling sales was to put more product out, but as making more product was costing them more money, and more product didn't equal more sales ...
They essentially over-worked themselves out of profit.
|
I think at least part of the "It's the fault of Hasbro/Lawyer/Suit/CEO/etc." claims is due to people not wanting to blame WotC and/or the Devs they know for anything.
Sure, but as was implied elsewhere business sense is orthogonal to creativity and personability. Take EGG, for example--decent game designer [1] and writer, by all accounts a stand-up guy, horrible at business, and at least partly to blame for running TSR into the ground. The fact that TSR went down doesn't make EGG a bad guy, and the fact that this PDF decision stinks on ice doesn't make the creative team at WotC bad people, either.
[1] Although I still cringe at some of the things that made it into 1e...you'd think a wargamer would understand passive vs. active sensors, but no.
I think at least part of the "It's the fault of Hasbro/Lawyer/Suit/CEO/etc." claims is due to people not wanting to blame WotC and/or the Devs they know for anything.Sure, but as was implied elsewhere business sense is orthogonal to creativity and personability. Take EGG, for example--decent game designer [1] and writer, by all accounts a stand-up guy, horrible at business, and at least partly to blame for running TSR into the ground. The fact that TSR went down doesn't make EGG a bad guy, and the fact that this PDF decision stinks on ice doesn't make the creative team at WotC bad people, either.
[1] Although I still cringe at some of the things that made it into 1e...you'd think a wargamer would understand passive vs. active sensors, but no.
You sir, are 100% correct. Unfortunately, it seems that honest criticism of WotC is too frequently viewed as villifying the people that comprise it. Hence the frequent cries of "Hasbro", "Lawyers", and basically everything except WotC.
I left corporate WotC along time ago, when they killed Dungeon and Dragon magazine. I will always thank Peter Adkinson for saving D&D, but the bad decision after bad decision that WotC has made continues to alienate me as a former customer.
I hope for the continued growth of Paizo as they seem to understand me as a customer.
Do you think the current CEO of WotC is a gamer?
The head of Paizo is a gamer like us! WOO PAIZO!
Even more hardcore... she's the DM of a Pathfinder RPG Rise of the Runelords campaign!
|
Their solution to dwindling sales was to put more product out, but as making more product was costing them more money, and more product didn't equal more sales ...
They essentially over-worked themselves out of profit.
That's partly what happened. If my recollection of Ryan Dancey's analysis at the time is correct, only the core books were ever profitable in and of themselves...but TSR felt compelled to keep putting out additional material (campaign settings, modules, etc.) in order to drive continued sales of the core books, even though little of this non-core material was ever profitable itself.
CEO
|
Even more hardcore... she's the DM of a Pathfinder RPG Rise of the Runelords campaign!Do you think the current CEO of WotC is a gamer?
The head of Paizo is a gamer like us! WOO PAIZO!
...who left her players on a cliffhanger last night after a long battle against ogres in Fort Rannick. Just as they thought they had victory in their grasp, a number of Kreegs, including the commander, made an appearance. And Lucrecia appeared at their rear flank with a charmed druid's tiger in tow. The last words of the night:
"You guys sure have a nice kitty here." :)
The first response from my players?
"Can we get a couple rounds of healing in first?"
You can guess my answer. <evil GM grin>
Should be a fun fight next week!
-Lisa
...who left her players on a cliffhanger last night after a long battle against ogres in Fort Rannick. Just as they thought they had victory in their grasp, a number of Kreegs, including the commander, made an appearance. And Lucrecia appeared at their rear flank with a charmed druid's tiger in tow. The last words of the night:
"You guys sure have a nice kitty here." :)
The first response from my players?
"Can we get a couple rounds of healing in first?"
You can guess my answer. <evil GM grin>
Should be a fun fight next week!
-Lisa
AWH! You're outpacing my group. We're just getting into Fort Rannick tonight.
You can guess my answer. <evil GM grin>
Should be a fun fight next week!
-Lisa
Evil gamer girl GMs for the win! :)
Evil gamer girl GMs for the win! :)You can guess my answer. <evil GM grin>
Should be a fun fight next week!
-Lisa
Rock! \m/
Even more hardcore... she's the DM of a Pathfinder RPG Rise of the Runelords campaign!Do you think the current CEO of WotC is a gamer?
The head of Paizo is a gamer like us! WOO PAIZO!
...who left her players on a cliffhanger last night after a long battle against ogres in Fort Rannick. Just as they thought they had victory in their grasp, a number of Kreegs, including the commander, made an appearance. And Lucrecia appeared at their rear flank with a charmed druid's tiger in tow. The last words of the night:
"You guys sure have a nice kitty here." :)
The first response from my players?
"Can we get a couple rounds of healing in first?"
You can guess my answer. <evil GM grin>
Should be a fun fight next week!
-Lisa
Ouch. That's harsh. I love it! :D
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Lastly, a wise man once told me the following:
1) Never underestimate the stupidity of a corporation.
2) The only entity dumber than a corporation is a government.
3) The only entity dumber than a government is academia.
Hehe, awesome.
Hey, isn't Tarren Dei a member of academia?
;)
Yeah, and I agree completely.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, and I agree completely.So does this mean GW Bush is smarter than you?
Nah, but he gets more done anyhow. It's his entity that is smarter than my entity. His entity would kick my entity's ass and my entity would write 50,000 indecipherable words about the experience of getting its ass kicked.
Let's face it, folks, 4e could be a success by any objective measure in the RPG industry, and still be viewed as unsuccessful for not being profitable enough from a WotC or Hasbro perspective.
??????
Can you explain this again? And how.
|
|
Let's face it, folks, 4e could be a success by any objective measure in the RPG industry, and still be viewed as unsuccessful for not being profitable enough from a WotC or Hasbro perspective.??????
Can you explain this again? And how.
It's about return on investment (ROI) -- the ratio of how much money you made to how much money you put in, expressed as a percentage.
WOTC may have an ROI that is the envy of the RPG publishing community (I don't know if they do or don't), but Hasbro is going to look at their ROI in comparison to...pretty much everything else that Hasbro sells.
So what, right?
Weeeelllll...there is a basic principle of business economics that says that, adjusted for risk, you should only ever invest in the opportunities that will bring the highest return -- that, in fact, any investment that doesn't bring back the highest ROI is treated as a "loss" even if it was numerically profitable...because you walked away from money you could have made. (I believe I actually lost Sanity points during that particular college class in Microeconomics)
|
Nah, but he gets more done anyhow. It's his entity that is smarter than my entity. His entity would kick my entity's ass and my entity would write 50,000 indecipherable words about the experience of getting its ass kicked.Yeah, and I agree completely.So does this mean GW Bush is smarter than you?
Can I steal your entity's wallet after it gets an ass whuppin?
Large, complex entities are generally dumb--I've worked in both Academia and Government (Navy), and have found generally that one spends an awful lot of energy getting the resources and freedom of action needed to do anything worthwhile that takes one's cart out of the deep ruts worn by one's seniors. Usually someone several echelons above you in the hierarchy has made some stupid policy (generalizing from their own limited experience or as a knee-jerk reaction to some crisis, without soliciting feedback from subordinates on how the policy will affect the various branches of the organization). I suspect the same is true in any large corporation as well.
Given that WotC's top dog is, in his origins, a non-gamer Hasbro suit, he probably doesn't have a nuanced understanding of the various intellectual properties that WotC has been offering as PDFs--either in terms of how they affect the company's bottom line or in terms of their significance to customers. Bosses who don't understand the details, when faced with an alarming report ("the pirates scooped our new book the day it was released") tend to give firm orders (that's what bosses are supposed to do in a crisis) and don't want to take any guff (i.e. feedback) from their subordinates about it. The result is often idiotic and sometimes catastrophic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Can I steal your entity's wallet after it gets an ass whuppin?Nah, but he gets more done anyhow. It's his entity that is smarter than my entity. His entity would kick my entity's ass and my entity would write 50,000 indecipherable words about the experience of getting its ass kicked.Yeah, and I agree completely.So does this mean GW Bush is smarter than you?
Only if my entity can interview you for an article it's writing about your stealing of its wallet. BTW, the wallet is empty. Take it to one of the other entities to get it filled.
Bosses who don't understand the details, when faced with an alarming report ("the pirates scooped our new book the day it was released") tend to give firm orders (that's what bosses are supposed to do in a crisis) and don't want to take any guff (i.e. feedback) from their subordinates about it. The result is often idiotic and sometimes catastrophic.
Another "manager" that knows nothing but management principles in action? It's amazing how often things like this happen the corporate world when the people making decisions don't have a decent grasp of the actual product they're making decisions about (and don't want to, because "it's not important").
Unfortunately, in Corporate America the Lee Iacocas have been replaced with faceless suits with Business degrees. Part of the myth that specific management strategies and techniques are universal to all products and markets.
Unfortunately, in Corporate America the Lee Iacocas have been replaced with faceless suits with Business degrees. Part of the myth that specific management strategies and techniques are universal to all products and markets.
Aint that the truth. Not just corporate america,but true of most of western businesses.
Its taken me 20 years to find a company where the MD and the middle management actually are competant (for the most part). As a consequence I've turned down better paying jobs to stick with a boss who actually KNOWS what he's doing.
We still have knee-jerk salesmen who insist that their makes-virtually-no-profit customer is of supreme importance over someone elses makes-50%-of-the-companys-profit customer.. but as a general rule, its pretty good.
Unfortunately Hasbro sounds like it suffers like most other companies. Often the people who get into senior position ARE the knee-jerk salesmen types....which the poor decision making that entails.
(Which is only natural...After all, to get through an interview for a senior position often requires you to through a good sales pitch...)
Paizo, being more a product of the hobby than corporate america, is an exception..in its current ofrm at least. Long may that continue.
Even more hardcore... she's the DM of a Pathfinder RPG Rise of the Runelords campaign!Do you think the current CEO of WotC is a gamer?
The head of Paizo is a gamer like us! WOO PAIZO!
Which is very advisable: That way she can get the ruling with an iron fist out of her system. :D
Let's face it, folks, 4e could be a success by any objective measure in the RPG industry, and still be viewed as unsuccessful for not being profitable enough from a WotC or Hasbro perspective.??????
Can you explain this again? And how.
Certainly. Let's say Conglomerate A has 3 divisions, B,C, and D. Business targets are set for the fiscal year for double-digit returns across all lines of business.
Divisions B & C have a booming year and achieve targets of +11% and +14%. Division D has a return of +6%.
So Division D was profitable, right? Yes. But it underachieved the targets that were set. Now some companies would say it was a good year, but many others would say, "how do we get Division D to meet its targets?". Possible courses of action could range from additional investment & resources (rare), layoffs (common), or selling off or closing the less-profitable entity (uncommon until pattern of underperformance established and then = common).
So 4e could be making a profit, but be falling short of the targets WotC and Hasbro view as successful, as in "worth continuing/leaving alone".
And that example of +6%? That's WotC's return. For another publisher, like say Paizo or Green Ronin, the same dollar amount could equate to +35% because their cost structures are radically less than WotC's.
That's what I was saying. Now, I don't know that it IS happening that way. As I said in the closing of my original post, trying to apply logic to a corporations decisions is often futile. It's like playing craps. Sometimes the number comes up, but logic has little to do with it. However, the seemingly contradictory info of "PHB2 sells out", citations of rankings on bestseller lists, etc. contrasted with restrictive GSLs, DDI misfires, layoffs, and overreactions to piracy like pulling every PDF they own, suddenly have a certain amount of logic to them if my scenario is correct.
FWIW, the example I laid out? Not theoretical. Conglomerate A eventually spun off Division D so that it could focus its business on Divsions B & C.
|
|
Yeah, and I agree completely.
So does this mean GW Bush is smarter than you?
Nah, but he gets more done anyhow. It's his entity that is smarter than my entity. His entity would kick my entity's ass and my entity would write 50,000 indecipherable words about the experience of getting its ass kicked.
Can I steal your entity's wallet after it gets an ass whuppin?
Only if my entity can interview you for an article it's writing about your stealing of its wallet. BTW, the wallet is empty. Take it to one of the other entities to get it filled.
This entire exchange is made of pure win. Having been an active part of *all three* tiers described, I concur.
Thanks to both for the best laugh I've had since my wife described a competitor on The Biggest Looser as having "six-pack moobs".
Weeeelllll...there is a basic principle of business economics that says that, adjusted for risk, you should only ever invest in the opportunities that will bring the highest return -- that, in fact, any investment that doesn't bring back the highest ROI is treated as a "loss" even if it was numerically profitable...because you walked away from money you could have made. (I believe I actually lost Sanity points during that particular college class in Microeconomics)
That’s really not an exaggeration of business thinking, either. Within Hasbro, the return on 4e is going to be compared with the Easy Bake Oven and other product lines. Hasbro can only raise and generate so much capital to invest in new projects in a given year. If the money invested in 4e generated a 6% return, and that money could have been invested in developing a new action figure which would have generated a 14% return, then Hasbro made less money than it could have, which will be seen as a bad thing, even though it was generating a profit.
Let's say Conglomerate A has 3 divisions, B,C, and D. Business targets are set for the fiscal year for double-digit returns across all lines of business.
Divisions B & C have a booming year and achieve targets of +11% and +14%. Division D has a return of +6%.
So Division D was profitable, right? Yes. But it underachieved the targets that were set.
Just to add to that, Hasbro overhead is also being allocated to WoTC, and we don’t know what impact that has on WoTC’s profitability. WoTC doesn't just have to provide return on the investment in that division, but enough to carry the cost of its share of the corporate overhead. A poor overhead allocation can make a good division look like a bad one, just because it was given more of the overhead than it actually generated / consumed. Even if the allocation was done well, WoTC could suffer if Hasbro is simply inefficient and spends more for its overhead (per action carried out – bill paid, purchase order processed, etc.) than a small company would, which is possible.
|
|
FWIW, the example I laid out? Not theoretical. Conglomerate A eventually spun off Division D so that it could focus its business on Divsions B & C.
We can only hope.... and if my pre-4e-release prognostication comes to pass, Conglomerate A will sell off Division D sometime later this year or early in 2010 - once it has had a chance to milk all it can from the DD (Division D, of course) name and major products.
|
|
That's what I was saying. Now, I don't know that it IS happening that way.
From everything I have managed to scrounge up, that is EXACTLY what is happening.
FWIW, the example I laid out? Not theoretical. Conglomerate A eventually spun off Division D so that it could focus its business on Divsions B & C.
Note though that Hasbro only licenses, it never sells, IP in such spin offs.
The more likely scenario is that Hasbro is dictating targets that are unrealistic, and WotC leadership is making poor decisions in an effort to make those targets.
This is a great statement that I believe well reflects the WotC situation. After three solid years of poor decision making and what I suspect would be well below target sales figures, I can't believe that Hasbro hasn't sold off this entity.
The more likely scenario is that Hasbro is dictating targets that are unrealistic, and WotC leadership is making poor decisions in an effort to make those targets.This is a great statement that I believe well reflects the WotC situation. After three solid years of poor decision making and what I suspect would be well below target sales figures, I can't believe that Hasbro hasn't sold off this entity.
Two reasons: WotC as a whole (Magic: The Gathering, Minis, etc.) is probably meeting Hasbro's targets, with just 4e "underperforming." As mentioned above by Samuel Weiss, Hasbro selling (as opposed to licensing) the D&D IP starts at "when Hell freezes over" and goes downhill from there; with the brand recognition D&D already has, there's no way they'll give it up, even if they decide to kill the table-top RPG part of it.
|
|
It is probably worth noting that WotC will benefit from synergies with Hasbro, particularly through distribution. But possibly not much, since it is primarily sold in specialist shops and bookshops rather than toyshops. Also, I saw a profile of thye Hasbro CEO and it would seem that Hasbro is less the faceless corporate engine of greed than some and is instead interested in kids having fun with toys.
I suspect that the problem with D&D is culture clash - they don't understand their audience. Hasbro made its money dealing with children who by and large will not notice that they are being patronised or hard-sold to (ever watched a kiddie channel during the adverts?). Do that with a bunch of adults of generally good education and above average intelligence and you will annoy and alienate them (which is what they have done).
I also think Hasbro genuinely think that they can make a lot of money through D&D - great brand recognition - but can't seem to work out how. Actually I don't think the brand is that great - most people who don't know have heard of Dungeons and Dragons but equate it with LARPing, a terminally embarrassing hobby if ever there was one - so you are really preaching to the converted, plus it might have great name recognition but exudes uncoolness. The brand may continue, but whether D&D will continue as we now it (as a tabletop RPG) might be debatable. But who knows - the recession might blow up all sorts of things, including the sale of the D&D brand if it fails to perform. Though whoever might have pockets deep enough to buy it might be less friendly to the game than Hasbro.
FWIW, the example I laid out? Not theoretical. Conglomerate A eventually spun off Division D so that it could focus its business on Divsions B & C.Note though that Hasbro only licenses, it never sells, IP in such spin offs.
You can sell an IP only once, but license it out and it continues to generate revenue with only minimal effort by Hasbro itself. So, this is a good business model to follow.
(That is one thing the local governments over here don´t seem to understand when they sell things like local energy providers formerly owned completely by the city in question - if there are potential buyers on a corporate level, there is money to be made (obviously), so why the hell don´t they keep them themselves and get them to generate money? Obviously, government is dumber than corporations in examples like this.)
Stefan
|
|
I can't believe that Hasbro hasn't sold off this entity.
Two reasons: WotC as a whole (Magic: The Gathering, Minis, etc.) is probably meeting Hasbro's targets, with just 4e "underperforming." As mentioned above by Samuel Weiss, Hasbro selling (as opposed to licensing) the D&D IP starts at "when Hell freezes over" and goes downhill from there; with the brand recognition D&D already has, there's no way they'll give it up, even if they decide to kill the table-top RPG part of it.
Selling the D&D IP to a competitor runs the risk that they could actually work out how to make it highly popular and profitable, which would hit them financially, as well as leave egg on their face ("Why didn't you think of that?").
Better (in their eyes) that they declare the table-top RPG market to be a waste of effort, and sit on the IP, just to stop anyone else using it.
Better (in their eyes) that they declare the table-top RPG market to be a waste of effort, and sit on the IP, just to stop anyone else using it.
I wonder how that would turn out.
It could be seen by many that this roleplaying thing isn't worth looking into, if the biggest (and maybe only) game they know if its kind has tanked.
On the other hand, taking away the biggest name will leave a vacuum that will need to be filled. That means that companies who have a good thing going will be able to bite off a bigger piece of the pie.
It is probably worth noting that WotC will benefit from synergies with Hasbro, particularly through distribution. But possibly not much, since it is primarily sold in specialist shops and bookshops rather than toyshops. Also, I saw a profile of thye Hasbro CEO and it would seem that Hasbro is less the faceless corporate engine of greed than some and is instead interested in kids having fun with toys.
I suspect that the problem with D&D is culture clash - they don't understand their audience. Hasbro made its money dealing with children who by and large will not notice that they are being patronised or hard-sold to (ever watched a kiddie channel during the adverts?). Do that with a bunch of adults of generally good education and above average intelligence and you will annoy and alienate them (which is what they have done).
I also think Hasbro genuinely think that they can make a lot of money through D&D - great brand recognition - but can't seem to work out how. Actually I don't think the brand is that great - most people who don't know have heard of Dungeons and Dragons but equate it with LARPing, a terminally embarrassing hobby if ever there was one - so you are really preaching to the converted, plus it might have great name recognition but exudes uncoolness. The brand may continue, but whether D&D will continue as we now it (as a tabletop RPG) might be debatable. But who knows - the recession might blow up all sorts of things, including the sale of the D&D brand if it fails to perform. Though whoever might have pockets deep enough to buy it might be less friendly to the game than Hasbro.
I suddenly had an image of a new Saturday morning D&D cartoon and toys put out to coincide. Perhaps for example, those cheap foam "swords" they sell, but these would be "D&D swords".
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
Better (in their eyes) that they declare the table-top RPG market to be a waste of effort, and sit on the IP, just to stop anyone else using it.I wonder how that would turn out.
It could be seen by many that this roleplaying thing isn't worth looking into, if the biggest (and maybe only) game they know if its kind has tanked.
On the other hand, taking away the biggest name will leave a vacuum that will need to be filled. That means that companies who have a good thing going will be able to bite off a bigger piece of the pie.
So, uh, more GURPS and Hero players, then? :)