|
Morrus posted this as a rumor at EN World
Here is a link to the original source:
Exclusive: Wizards Not Reprinting Core Dungeons & Dragons Books
If this is true, why would WotC do this? What effect would it have on their existing customer base?
I am trying to understand the business logic behind such a potential move. Mind you, it is in the rumor stage as for now.
|
|
Article sources are not confirmed.
With that being said, the question is how many copies of PHB1/DMG1/MM1 are still floating around in circulation at places like Amazon, Alliance Distribution, Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc ... Unless WotC/Random House decides to destroy (ie. pulping) a large number of copies for tax write-off purposes, I wouldn't be surprised if there are still many copies around to last for at least another year or two (or three).
I know that this is still unconfirmed. I also realize that there are a large number of books still out there. I am trying to figure out what such a move would mean for WotC, for 4E and its players. Would the player base treat this as a new edition? If so, how would they react?
Quack.
It could be part of a shift towards online content - in my group nobody except for me buys any books. They wait for the crunch to come out on the character builder/monster builder and do without the fluff (or borrow mine).
It could be part of a shift towards online content - in my group nobody except for me buys any books. They wait for the crunch to come out on the character builder/monster builder and do without the fluff (or borrow mine).
Makes sense, especially once the Rules Compendium hits. I do worry that there is some good stuff in the DMG that might slip through the cracks, though; it's got some excellent (non-crunchy) content.
I'm sorry, but an unfounded rumor on a non-DnD based site is no reason to panic. Official press releases have stated 4e will continue on as normal. There is no evidence to support that this "exclusive" information is anything more than fabrication.
If this is true, why would WotC do this? What effect would it have on their existing customer base?
I am trying to understand the business logic behind such a potential move. Mind you, it is in the rumor stage as for now.
It makes sense. There are probably still quite some unsold books around, and they want sales to be focussed on the new product, the essentials line.
And anyway, they will release the rules compendium, and all the other material is still available in DDI. No one really loses anything.
It's not a reason to worry but a sign that they still do have some business sense.
The timing makes sense too - people will buy the old stuff now, afraid it wont be available in the future, helping clear out the inventory and make space for the essentials line...
I think this is a good thing, if its true. The game needs better entry level products, and three books to get started is too much. A solid red box, a rules compendium and supplements is IMO better.
I'm sorry, but an unfounded rumor on a non-DnD based site is no reason to panic. Official press releases have stated 4e will continue on as normal. There is no evidence to support that this "exclusive" information is anything more than fabrication.
+1
|
One theory I've seen (from Chatty DM) is that Essentials is to bring in new players; Once you have those new players, you want them to graduate to the normal core books; At this point, there is *a lot* of errata for the core books.
So, take those things, you take the core three out of print for a while, then re-publish once essentials has started getting traction, but subtly include all of the errata to date. You suddenly have an influx of people who want the new books. Profit.
Sounds logical to me, although wierd. I'm also not a person who cares about errata either, I wouldn't be concerned about buying PHB1 because of that, so I don't know how sound the argument is.
Maybe this is the first step towards 5e?
I wouldn't say obsolete, but they have less bearing on the importance of play. You can get by without it at times, but to reference something or see how a certain combat move/status/whatever works,its definitely something to have. Eventually it might not be necessary, but for now I still see the need for at least one PHB and DMG at the table.
But I'd definitely have to agree that online does look like the way it will go.
|
If this is true I think the reason is pretty obvious and makes sense. As mentioned a few times already in this thread Hasbro wants to push players to the online subscription based content and away from the paper rulebooks.
This makes great sense since the online stuff is easier to change and the subscription fee is regular income with a lot less overhead. I'm not sure what all the hubbub and mystery is about since this is pretty clearly the strategy for 4E (and D&D) going forward. Even Paizo has stated the future of the RPG is electronic.
I don't play 4E but from what I have seen and heard you basically use DDI for most things. The core printed books are already obsolete.
Doesn't that present the problem that, to play their pen and paper game, you would need at least one net-connected laptop at the table at all times? And preferably one per player? I suppose this is de rigueur for some groups now, but it seems like a steep entry curve to me.
You just need a computer to print the character sheet, and it is not necessary have an influx of computers at the table. With the rules compendium as the core, I use DDI. If this is a shift to electronic, then it will be interesting to watch. If there a demand for PHB, PHB2, etc. then there will be a reprint most likely, but for now, attempting to clear inventory makes sense. But of course you can throw pencils, paper, and couple dice on the floor and predict something entirely different.
In addition, you only need to subscribe to DDI maybe 1-2 times per year and have access to updated content (same as paying for a PDF file), or just pay once per year for a full subscription.
I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased production of the Core books. We have to remember that Wizards is now owned by Hasbro, and Hasbro's focus isn't on us, the gamers, it's on their shareholders and their bottom line. If the core books don't sell, Hasbro will kill them.
One trend I do see from Hasbro is, any long standing properties they acquire eventually get permanently changed to make the games easier or more "Public-friendly". Look at Risk, it's been around forever, and most people would say it takes forever to play. Now, Hasbro has permanently changed the game with "missions" to make the game play faster and therefore more appealing. They changed Clue entirely, and they're even slowly changing Monopoly. Hell, they were going to break Scrabble until people flipped out about it.
The same thing can be seen in Dungeons and Dragons. The difference between AD&D and 3.X wasn't that huge. From 3.X to 4e is was enormous and made the game easier to play. Now, they're making it even MORE 'noob friendly'. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It was Fourth Edition that got my young cousins to play RPGs, and now we regularly play Pathfinder together because the PF rules offer us more freedom and choice than 4e does.
Overall, I think it's win-win, either way.
I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased production of the Core books. We have to remember that Wizards is now owned by Hasbro, and Hasbro's focus isn't on us, the gamers, it's on their shareholders and their bottom line. If the core books don't sell, Hasbro will kill them.
One trend I do see from Hasbro is, any long standing properties they acquire eventually get permanently changed to make the games easier or more "Public-friendly". Look at Risk, it's been around forever, and most people would say it takes forever to play. Now, Hasbro has permanently changed the game with "missions" to make the game play faster and therefore more appealing. They changed Clue entirely, and they're even slowly changing Monopoly. Hell, they were going to break Scrabble until people flipped out about it.
The same thing can be seen in Dungeons and Dragons. The difference between AD&D and 3.X wasn't that huge. From 3.X to 4e is was enormous and made the game easier to play. Now, they're making it even MORE 'noob friendly'. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It was Fourth Edition that got my young cousins to play RPGs, and now we regularly play Pathfinder together because the PF rules offer us more freedom and choice than 4e does.
Overall, I think it's win-win, either way.
I would agree with you on the win-win. In regards to making games easier or more public friendly, I would say that to me, that is a good thing. I love a lot of those games you mentioned...well except for monopoly. Throw in Axis and Allies and then you've got a collection of games that I have been able to start with someone...but never finish due to time being at a premium in my "adult" life. What I like about 4e is the cutting of so much prep time, so if "noobing it up" contributed to that, then I definitely like the end result, although there are some things that have been "noobed up" that I didn't like. But yes, I would definitely say win-win.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The speculation I saw on ENWorld is that the Essential products line will have the components that are currently contained in the existing core books. There's apparently a Dungeon Master's Kit coming out, which has a pretty thick rulebook, some adventures, etc.
This, of course, raises the spectre of the 4.5 edition. The official spin is likely that the rules have not changed, it's just that the formating of the rules have changed. So, if you have the original DMG, you wouldn't need the DMK because the former (as updated by errata) has all the information contained in the later.
Still, at the end of the day, I have a hard time imagining how the existence of the Essentials line casts a positive light on the performance of 4e. Part of the justification for the new edition was drawing in new players, and if they feel the need to launch an entirely new introductory product line within 2 (or is it 3?) years of the new edition, that means the new edition was likely not meeting that goal.
The speculation I saw on ENWorld is that the Essential products line will have the components that are currently contained in the existing core books. There's apparently a Dungeon Master's Kit coming out, which has a pretty thick rulebook, some adventures, etc.
This, of course, raises the spectre of the 4.5 edition. The official spin is likely that the rules have not changed, it's just that the formating of the rules have changed. So, if you have the original DMG, you wouldn't need the DMK because the former (as updated by errata) has all the information contained in the later.
Still, at the end of the day, I have a hard time imagining how the existence of the Essentials line casts a positive light on the performance of 4e. Part of the justification for the new edition was drawing in new players, and if they feel the need to launch an entirely new introductory product line within 2 (or is it 3?) years of the new edition, that means the new edition was likely not meeting that goal.
Two years next month, IIRC.
Wow. Historically, the core rulebooks have always been the cash cows of the line.
As an ongoing thing my understanding is this was mainly only true of 1st Edition. From 2nd edition on the core books sold like hot cakes for a couple of years after they where released and then sales pretty much dried up. The problem is that the player base, after initially all racing out to get the new book does not significantly expand so sales become extremely limited.
Thinking about this I'd say it makes sense.
Just who are they going to sell another print run of the core books to?
The grognards already have copies and the newbs are supposed to buy the essentials line. So where is there market for the core books? If its the Monster Manual just buy the essentials line version. You'll get the eratta for your monsters thrown in as a bonus and likely some of the classic monsters have been improved on in the meantime. DMG basically the same answer (though I do wonder if some of the wonderful fluff in that book might be lost). The PHB is the only real conundrum book because the original PHB has the core classes. Thing is their powers all exist in the essentials line as do all the rules etc. We are literally talking about maybe 8-16 pages of material that is unique to the PHB and not replicated in the newest form in the Essentials version of the book. That material can be found on the DDI as well.
Meanwhile there is a robust secondary market out there for these books and still a fair bit of stock in FLGS etc.
Hence the market for the core books is simply none existent for the DMG and MM and very, very, small for the PHB consisting mainly of completists with damaged PHBs. A group that can easily get a copy of the PHB if they so desire - likely at their FLGS who will be desperately trying to get rid of whatever PHBs they currently have in stock.
There simply is no market to justify WotC doing another print run...as it stands its likely that there are far too many PHBs already circulating in the market never mind them adding more.
I know that this is still unconfirmed. I also realize that there are a large number of books still out there. I am trying to figure out what such a move would mean for WotC, for 4E and its players. Would the player base treat this as a new edition? If so, how would they react?
Its meaningless to us - we have the books already. The only change in my behavior is that, if my niece starts to play, I buy her the essentials line for her books. For the new builds etc. well if I'm a completist I suppose I buy the essentials line myself, or if I want a hard copy of the rules with all the errata. Most of us though simply hit 'update' on our DDI subscriptions and, maybe, download the update to the official errata document and make a few more changes to our original rules books.
One theory I've seen (from Chatty DM) is that Essentials is to bring in new players; Once you have those new players, you want them to graduate to the normal core books; At this point, there is *a lot* of errata for the core books.
So, take those things, you take the core three out of print for a while, then re-publish once essentials has started getting traction, but subtly include all of the errata to date. You suddenly have an influx of people who want the new books. Profit.
Sounds logical to me, although wierd. I'm also not a person who cares about errata either, I wouldn't be concerned about buying PHB1 because of that, so I don't know how sound the argument is.
There is nothing to reprint except the original core builds - even the core builds powers are in the essentials line. I think they might include the original core builds as 8-16 pages of PHB 4, that'd make some sense but there is not enough material for a stand alone product.
Still, at the end of the day, I have a hard time imagining how the existence of the Essentials line casts a positive light on the performance of 4e. Part of the justification for the new edition was drawing in new players, and if they feel the need to launch an entirely new introductory product line within 2 (or is it 3?) years of the new edition, that means the new edition was likely not meeting that goal.
Actually, it means they are sticking to the plan they talked about at the launch of 4E. I remember hearing about Essentials then, as part of their long term plans. They always intended to create an introductory version of the game a year or 2 after release. To be honest, I was expecting this set earlier.
There is no real indication of a discontinuation of the regular line. There are already several book announced that aren't part of the Essentials line, like "Heroes of Shadow". I will admit the regular line does seem to be a bit on hold while they release Gamma World and Essentials.
They aren't going to announce that they will stop production on the Core books. They would simply announce a new edition. It is way too early for that. They also wouldn't announce it through a random blog on the internet.
Maybe this is the first step towards 5e?
Unlikely - to much effort and hype being pumped into the Essentials line as their 'evergreen' product for it to make sense to go to 5E just yet. Give it another 3 years and we'll see.
If this is true I think the reason is pretty obvious and makes sense. As mentioned a few times already in this thread Hasbro wants to push players to the online subscription based content and away from the paper rulebooks.
This makes great sense since the online stuff is easier to change and the subscription fee is regular income with a lot less overhead. I'm not sure what all the hubbub and mystery is about since this is pretty clearly the strategy for 4E (and D&D) going forward. Even Paizo has stated the future of the RPG is electronic.
I don't play 4E but from what I have seen and heard you basically use DDI for most things. The core printed books are already obsolete.
I wish.
But they already have their cake - almost all 4E groups have a DDI subscription. I suspect that the average American D&D group has about three subscriptions. Canadians and Europeans probably average around 2 per group.
It would appear that most of us will pay for a subscription AND buy books. Hence it makes no sense to stop selling us books. Why would WotC leave that money on the table? It appears they can have their cake and eat it to essentially.
Maybe this is the first step towards 5e?Unlikely - to much effort and hype being pumped into the Essentials line as their 'evergreen' product for it to make sense to go to 5E just yet. Give it another 3 years and we'll see.
Wild guess on 5E: Announce 2012, release 2013. 4E was just too much of a drastic change to expect them to get it perfectly right the first time.
Then they should actually regress and call it D&D 3.99 to incorporate even more components from previous editions. I say that as a joke, but it may go that direction, even if they only make minor changes to exisiting rules, and flesh out other areas that need more attention like rituals.
Doesn't that present the problem that, to play their pen and paper game, you would need at least one net-connected laptop at the table at all times? And preferably one per player? I suppose this is de rigueur for some groups now, but it seems like a steep entry curve to me.If this is true I think the reason is pretty obvious and makes sense. As mentioned a few times already in this thread Hasbro wants to push players to the online subscription based content and away from the paper rulebooks.
This makes great sense since the online stuff is easier to change and the subscription fee is regular income with a lot less overhead. I'm not sure what all the hubbub and mystery is about since this is pretty clearly the strategy for 4E (and D&D) going forward. Even Paizo has stated the future of the RPG is electronic.
I don't play 4E but from what I have seen and heard you basically use DDI for most things. The core printed books are already obsolete.
Most groups probably keep a PHB around but your not going to really need more then a single copy. Early on you won't even use that one copy very much but as your players get past 5th or so conditions will start to become much more prevalent and you'll need to look them up. Eventaully you'll memorize the common ones and you'll start finding that whole sessions go by without anyone touching the PHB again but you'll always need it around just in case an uncommon condition pops up.
The DM should have a copy of page 42 of the DMG as well but, as that has been erratta'd he might as well just print out the page. I suppose a copy of the DMG is a good plan as well just in case the PCs decide to chop down a door and you need to look up how many hps a standard door has. Actually gets used even more rarely then the PHB however.
Although it dawns on me that how often you crack the books could vary a great deal on how much of a 'wing it' type DM you are. I nearly never crack the book because I'm a high prep DM - if there was going to be underwater combat in the current session I looked up how that works before the game started.
I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased production of the Core books. We have to remember that Wizards is now owned by Hasbro, and Hasbro's focus isn't on us, the gamers, it's on their shareholders and their bottom line. If the core books don't sell, Hasbro will kill them.
This is highly, highly unlikely, unless Hasbro as a parent organization is into micro-managing. Parent companies issue business targets, they leave it to the executives of that company/division to figure out how to get there. Otherwise, they're paying high-salary positions for people who are figureheads without any power. If that's the case, you might as well save the money and eliminate those positions.
For example, Hasbro may tell WotC: "We want to see 2010 sales up 10% over 2009 sales. As part of business plan discussions, WotC is going to show how they plan to get to that target, and perhaps the D&D RPG is highlighted element of that discussion but it's just as likely to be rolled up into "games" or some larger division category.
The WotC executives are the ones who have to develop their own business plans & strategies to meet the targets that have been set for them.
I know it's popular Internet-lore to portray WotC as gamers-like-us and Hasbro as the evil megacorp, however, real-world business rarely works that way -- it's not cost-effective and requires more work on the parent company's part. Hasbro execs have their own jobs to do. They're not doing the WotC exec's jobs for them.
Can it happen? Yes. Does it happen? Rarely. However, it usually happens when the parent shakes up the executive ranks of the division, and then as a temporary basis until they can replace the exec(s) with people they feel will meet the desired targets.
Now, if you want to speculate that WotC is being forced to make choices it would prefer not to due to unattainable business targets set by Hasbro... You see that sort of thing happen pretty frequently. (Note: I'm not saying that's the case and personally, I think the rumor is much ado about nothing.)
As an ongoing thing my understanding is this was mainly only true of 1st Edition.
My understanding is that this was true all the way through 3rd Edition. I think you're incorrect.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As an ongoing thing my understanding is this was mainly only true of 1st Edition.My understanding is that this was true all the way through 3rd Edition. I think you're incorrect.
Same here. I've never heard anyone say that sales of the core books fall. In fact, I've always heard the opposite, that the core books are the evergreens that keep revenue flowing in the door on a regular basis throughout the life of an edition.
As an ongoing thing my understanding is this was mainly only true of 1st Edition.My understanding is that this was true all the way through 3rd Edition. I think you're incorrect.
Its definitely not true of 3rd. Monte Cook tells us that shortly after they finished 3rd he was told that the plan was to release 3.5 in about three years once the sales started to really crash. I presume they knew that sales would slump from past experience with 2nd, experience with other RPGs, and the understanding that they had what amounted to a mature market.
Its the fact that its a mature market that dictates this. With 1st new players where discovering D&D all the time so that 5 years after the initial release a substantial number of people would discover D&D for the 1st time and enter the hobby - thus buying the books. The total size of the hobby would double and double again every few years during this era. Thats never happened again.
2nd and 3rd where not like that - chances are if you where into D&D you already new about it and bought the new books within the first three years.
Same here. I've never heard anyone say that sales of the core books fall. In fact, I've always heard the opposite, that the core books are the evergreens that keep revenue flowing in the door on a regular basis throughout the life of an edition.
I'd back up my statements with a quote and link to Monte Cook but I seem to have run into a conspiracy theory.
Check this out:
I go looking over at Monte's site for the review in question. What I'm looking for is a review of 3.5 in which he happens to discuss the basic marketing strategy being used and why.
But all I can find is a review saying Dragon Magazine is good stuff.
Confused I figure I'll use a more oblique angle - I do a search for people linking Monte's review figuring that we are talking about Monte Cook here and people will have linked that review when it first came out.
Several hits One from Enworld and another from The Atari forums
Both mention the review and both provide a link but the link no longer leads to a 3.5 review by Monte - instead they all link to a review saying Dragon Magazine is good stuff.
I even dig up an article where Sean K. Reynolds mentions Monte's review and throws in his own thoughts - but of course the review in question seems to have vanished.
Oh boo hiss another great conspiracy theory shot down by reality - I found the article in question.
Same here. I've never heard anyone say that sales of the core books fall. In fact, I've always heard the opposite, that the core books are the evergreens that keep revenue flowing in the door on a regular basis throughout the life of an edition.
OK here we go. Source.
The Beginning of the Story
A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source.That source was me. I was there.
See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.
Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.
Here I sit, in 2003, with my reviewer's copies of the 3.5 books next to my computer, and that's not what I see. It's not difficult to see how that could have happened, however. The business team for 3.0 (and I'm talking about Ryan Dancey and Keith Strohm here) are gone. Skip's gone. Jonathan's working on miniatures games. I'm gone. It's an interesting truism that in the corporate world, where long-term planning is a must but the length of time an employee stays in any one position is short, business teams and design teams rarely last long enough to see their plans come to fruition. Thus the people to propose something are almost never the people who implement it.
So, one has to surmise that the new business team determined that sales were slumping slightly earlier than predicted and needed 3.5 to come out earlier. One also has to surmise that someone -- at some level -- decided that it was to be a much, much more thorough revision than previously planned. Some of this is probably just human nature (two of the 3.0 designers were out of the way, and one would only work at Wizards of the Coast for about half the design time) and some of it is probably the belief that more revenue would be generated with more drastic changes. The philosophy of 3.5 has changed from being a financial "shot in the arm" into something with significant enough changes to make it a "must-buy." Perhaps they thought to strive for the sales levels of 2000. Perhaps there was corporate pressure to reach those sales levels again.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually, it means they are sticking to the plan they talked about at the launch of 4E. I remember hearing about Essentials then, as part of their long term plans. They always intended to create an introductory version of the game a year or 2 after release. To be honest, I was expecting this set earlier.
Interesting. I vaguely recall something like that, but this is the first time I've seen the idea that Essentials was planned from the beginning (at least other than in a sinister 4.5 conspiracy kinda way). Has WotC been making it clear that the Essentials was always part of the 4e launch plan? My reaction to the announcement of the Essentials line was that the core 4e products were doing so poorly that WotC was effectively rebundling and relaunching the edition. Given the product cancellations that were announced (DMG3?), the Essentials line looks much more like a last ditch attempt to change strategy rather than a carefully planned roll-out.
Some people have been looking into this rumor. Someone over at EN World contacted the WotC press team and was told that they were committed to supporting all their existing rules. More importantly IMO, is that an FLGS owner contacted WotC directly and was told that yes, WotC is not going to print any more core books but that they have plenty of inventory in reserve, so the books will not be disappearing anytime soon. That makes sense to me due to the twin impacts of the Essentials line and DDI.
Interesting. I vaguely recall something like that, but this is the first time I've seen the idea that Essentials was planned from the beginning (at least other than in a sinister 4.5 conspiracy kinda way). Has WotC been making it clear that the Essentials was always part of the 4e launch plan? My reaction to the announcement of the Essentials line was that the core 4e products were doing so poorly that WotC was effectively rebundling and relaunching the edition. Given the product cancellations that were announced (DMG3?), the Essentials line looks much more like a last ditch attempt to change strategy rather than a carefully planned roll-out.
I remember Scott Rouse talking about WoTC marketing plans over on EN World (not that he got into any great detail) and I remember him stating that WotC was going to focus on attracting new players in their third year. That was well over a year ago.
Also, only one 4e product has been announced and then apparently canceled, Player's Options: Humans (and I remember WotC stating that line was an experiment when the dragonborn book was first released). No books, especially the DMG3, were officially announced and then canceled.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks for the source Jeremy. I'm not sure that I agree with the way you characterized it in your post (Monte seems to say that there was a sales slump, which might've been a result of the bad economy in 02-03 as much as anything else, not that the sales of the core rule books dried up entirely), but very much appreciate you following up with the source.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I remember Scott Rouse talking about WoTC marketing plans over on EN World (not that he got into any great detail) and I remember him stating that WotC was going to focus on attracting new players in their third year. That was well over a year ago.Also, only one 4e product has been announced and then apparently canceled, Player's Options: Humans (and I remember WotC stating that line was an experiment when the dragonborn book was first released). No books, especially the DMG3, were officially announced and then canceled.
Thanks Shroomy. I'd picked up the cancellation of the DMG3 through the usual chain of internet gossip/hearsay. Still, even if they weren't officially announced and then cancelled, were they in production and then the production resources were reallocated?
Two years next month, IIRC.The speculation I saw on ENWorld is that the Essential products line will have the components that are currently contained in the existing core books. There's apparently a Dungeon Master's Kit coming out, which has a pretty thick rulebook, some adventures, etc.
This, of course, raises the spectre of the 4.5 edition. The official spin is likely that the rules have not changed, it's just that the formating of the rules have changed. So, if you have the original DMG, you wouldn't need the DMK because the former (as updated by errata) has all the information contained in the later.
Still, at the end of the day, I have a hard time imagining how the existence of the Essentials line casts a positive light on the performance of 4e. Part of the justification for the new edition was drawing in new players, and if they feel the need to launch an entirely new introductory product line within 2 (or is it 3?) years of the new edition, that means the new edition was likely not meeting that goal.
Oops; I was wrong. Two years ago last month.
Thanks Shroomy. I'd picked up the cancellation of the DMG3 through the usual chain of internet gossip/hearsay. Still, even if they weren't officially announced and then cancelled, were they in production and then the production resources were reallocated?
I remember Scott Rouse talking about WoTC marketing plans over on EN World (not that he got into any great detail) and I remember him stating that WotC was going to focus on attracting new players in their third year. That was well over a year ago.Also, only one 4e product has been announced and then apparently canceled, Player's Options: Humans (and I remember WotC stating that line was an experiment when the dragonborn book was first released). No books, especially the DMG3, were officially announced and then canceled.
No idea, no one ever heard anything official about it. I think people just assumed it was going to be released because of the PHB3 and MM3.
An explanation of how parent-subsidiaries operate in the real world, rather than the shadowy corporate espionage world many gamers mistake for the real world.+1.
I've given up on making that argument, and it's nice to see it so well done.
THANKS!