Chief Technical Officer
|
Even Paizo has stated the future of the RPG is electronic.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but I do need to clarify this before you all go back on your way....
I suspect that this is somewhat of a misquote of something I said in the "Future of Paizo" panel at PaizoCon.
Paizo believes that digital tools are going to become a bigger and bigger part of play for a lot of people, and that they'll be a key to increasing the number of active players in the future.
To be clear, though, we don't see anything fully replacing printed books for most people anytime soon, and I think it's safe to say that most—if not all—of us would consider it a sad day if it did.
|
CEO
|
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.
You would be wrong. As the person who did the analysis of the D&D business back when I was at WotC, the core rulebooks were always cash cows and always sold very good numbers almost until the time that a new edition came out. It was the new supplements that started to nosedive and thus require a new edition. The core books were always sales gold.
-Lisa
|
It was the new supplements that started to nosedive and thus require a new edition.
That begs the interesting question of why 3.5 was so compatible with 3.0? If you are releasing new core rules in order to out date the old splat books, so that they can be re-created down the line, don't you want to make it incompatible? Or have I completely miss-understood you?
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.
Definitely not true of 3rd? "Really crash"? I remember Monte's story (and it was nice of you to find it), and "slightly slump" =/= "really crash", I'm afraid.
I still believe you are incorrect. Everything I've heard from people out of WotC notes that the core books are evergreen.
To be clear, though, we don't see anything fully replacing printed books for most people anytime soon, and I think it's safe to say that most—if not all—of us would consider it a sad day if it did.
This makes me very happy to hear, as that was one of my biggest issues with WotC and their model for D&D4e, was the reliance of online/DDI. I know it's not *necessary*, but you can tell that's where they're headed.
Honestly, I think you folks at Paizo have the right idea in offering an electronic copy of material as well as a physical version. It's very convenient for people of all preferences.
the core rulebooks were always cash cows and always sold very good numbers almost until the time that a new edition came out. It was the new supplements that started to nosedive and thus require a new edition. The core books were always sales gold.
-Lisa
I'm just curious on your thoughts (if, as CEO, you can even comment on this.), But in my observation, 4e is getting pirated to death. As soon as they publish a new book, it's available to download illegally, and usually in a professional looking format. I wonder if that, with a combination of the integration of DDI, is causing some people to forego purchasing a hard copy of the book, and they're just downloading it?
I guess for some, they may see the online portion as so integral to the game, that they figure they may as well just keep everything on the computer and download it all instead of purchasing. It's a sad reality, and I don't know how anyone could do it. I love my books.
Pathfinder has the same issue of pirating, but I will agree that is why WOTC refuses to go back to a PDF format, and therefore DDI may be shown as a successful alternative. But the sad fact is computer programs can be pirated as well, along with DVD, etc.
If it is popular and people want it, both paper and electronic media will be pirated.
My problem with games these days, whether it is GURPS, 3.5, pathfinder or 4E, is there is just too much content to keep up with (not a bad thing), so ultimately a electronic reference tool or character generator is very helpful, but not absolutely necessary for most.
I think the net effect of all the pdf piracy is a positive one for the publishers...there are much more people getting exposed to it. It's free advertisement.
Of course, 90% of the pirates will most likely never buy any of the books, but the other ten percent (% freely made up on the spot), the people who actually are part of the target audience, they will buy books. We all here know how addictive buying rpg stuff can be ;)
And those new buyers are people who otherwise would not have been exposed to RPGs...it's what the movie and music industry still doesn't get. People who are into something are more likely to pirate it, but are also the group most likely to pay for it...
From all the reading on the subject I've done it seems lIMO ike the dnd essentials line is going to replace the current core books going forward. This could be a good thing for new players.
For instance, with the new Monster release, you get not only stats but also tokens. This is a very good thing for the new dm, as the game focuses so heavily on minis, having tokens with your monster book would be a huge convenience. If you are a new dm and don't have minis or tokens it will be very tricky to run a 4E game (without some creative thinking).
With the DDI a player doesn't really even need any books, you can pretty much create your character online and you're good to go. Furthermore, the nature of 4E characters is that everything you need to know about your character is on your sheet. I run a 4E game for my group and we virtually never consult a rules book during play. They have their sheets printed, I have my monsters, and the rules are pretty simple, so we're good to go. My concern with the essentials line is that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent to the dmg. You have books with the classes, you have the monster book, and you have a rules compendium, but I don't see anything that looks like it is designed to teach a new dm how to run a game. If the current core rule books stop being printed, I'm not really sure what will replace the dmg in terms of giving advice for running the game.
|
CEO
|
It was the new supplements that started to nosedive and thus require a new edition.That begs the interesting question of why 3.5 was so compatible with 3.0? If you are releasing new core rules in order to out date the old splat books, so that they can be re-created down the line, don't you want to make it incompatible? Or have I completely miss-understood you?
I don't consider 3.5 to be a new edition of D&D. I consider it a fine-tuning of the 3.0 ruleset. It wasn't created to obsolete splat books, but rather to make some of the changes that millions of players playing the rules brought to light. And if in the process, you sold a bunch of core books to those who already had them, that wouldn't be a bad thing, would it? :)
Btw, I wasn't at WotC when 3.5 came down the turnpike (I started Paizo in 2002). I can tell you that, as part of the team that launched 3.0, we didn't have 3.5 anywhere in our plans. However, most of us didn't last much beyond the launch of 3.0, so the next team that took over could very well have added a 3.5 into their plans early.
-Lisa
|
CEO
|
I'm just curious on your thoughts (if, as CEO, you can even comment on this.), But in my observation, 4e is getting pirated to death. As soon as they publish a new book, it's available to download illegally, and usually in a professional looking format. I wonder if that, with a combination of the integration of DDI, is causing some people to forego purchasing a hard copy of the book, and they're just downloading it?
Pirating will always happen. A lot of the folks who pirate books wouldn't have bought the books in the first place. Would you like to have no pirating? Absolutely. But that will never happen in this day and age. So you have to take it into account in your business model. The great thing is that gamers tend to be some of the most honest people that I have ever met, so I think that folks who can legitimately afford to purchase the products legally will.
-Lisa
|
Indeed, as Lisa said, pirates will always exist. Cracking down on it like the RIAA will not stop it, and removes it as a potential revenue source. I heard an advertisement on the radio for a Dexter Freebish concert. I downloaded a couple singles, liked what I heard, and bought the album. I never would have bothered if I couldn't have gotten ahold of those songs. That's a sale generated by filesharing.
|
Even Paizo has stated the future of the RPG is electronic.I don't want to derail the thread here, but I do need to clarify this before you all go back on your way....
I suspect that this is somewhat of a misquote of something I said in the "Future of Paizo" panel at PaizoCon.
Paizo believes that digital tools are going to become a bigger and bigger part of play for a lot of people, and that they'll be a key to increasing the number of active players in the future.
To be clear, though, we don't see anything fully replacing printed books for most people anytime soon, and I think it's safe to say that most—if not all—of us would consider it a sad day if it did.
Could not agree more! Books are not going away anytime soon. That quote had me a bit worried when I read it and I'm glad you clarified. Thanks Vic!!!
It seems to me that perhaps the last print run for the 4E core books was probably larger than was necessary, so WOTC has decided that they have enough books still sitting in their inventory that they do not need to reprint any time soon.
|
|
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.
That's pretty much what I thought as well. The core books have always been a primary cash stream in every edition.
I suspect that Wizards isn't (current tense) reprinting the Core rulebooks in the same way that Paizo isn't (at this point in time) reprinting the Core rulebook. They both have plenty in stock. The decision on when/if to reprint won't even be made until the stocks are much lower.
Can anyone point to an official source that indicates a plan to eliminate the Core rulebooks from their product line?
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.
The part of interest though is that in 2000 Monte was told by the brand managers that there would be a 3.5 edition that was slated to come out when, judging by historical trends from previous editions, sales would slump.
This was not a reaction to an economic downturn in 2002-2003 because it was already in the plans before 3.0 went to print in 2000 and in 2000 no one at WotC new what the economy would be like in 2002-2003 (also, I believe, the economy was actually on a tear in 2002-2003 having come out of a mini recession in 2001).
They key points are that they where using historical trends from previous editions - which tells us that the same thing had occurred in the past, presumably in 2nd, and that the expected this sales trend to continue during the 3rd edition era.
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.
You would be wrong. As the person who did the analysis of the D&D business back when I was at WotC, the core rulebooks were always cash cows and always sold very good numbers almost until the time that a new edition came out. It was the new supplements that started to nosedive and thus require a new edition. The core books were always sales gold.
-Lisa
OK I'll bow out on this as you have insider knowledge I just don't have access too. Still - if this is the case then why 3.5? Why does Monte indicate that there was always plans for 3.5?
The Monte article says that while a cleaned up with errata book was planned from the beginning, that isn't what ended up happening. The 3.5 book came sooner and had more modifications than the plan he was told.
There is a printing of 2nd edition with a great foreword beginning with "This is not a 3rd Edition" or some such. I'm not sure when it was released exactly, but it was a cleaned up with errata version. My copy is buried in storage so I can't check the date. Anyway, I'm betting the original plan was to do something more like that one, but for 3rd ed.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
OK I'll bow out on this as you have insider knowledge I just don't have access too. Still - if this is the case then why 3.5? Why does Monte indicate that there was always plans for 3.5?
I figured the 3.5 thing had a ripple effect in that it also allowed them to redo (and resell) all the 3.0 books published to date.
As for the slumping economy, my guess is that it pushed the slump date back a little. But, who knows.
Funny parallel to the whole thing though - the release of 3.5 was heralded in the 2e v. 3e edition wars as a sign of 3e's failure/WotC's money-grubbering. It seems like very few gamers I encounter begrudge the existence of 3.5.
I must say that, if I were still playing 4e, I don't think I would mind moving to the Essentials line even if it was officially 4.5. I like new editions, particularly those that clean things up and make them work better.
The Monte article says that while a cleaned up with errata book was planned from the beginning, that isn't what ended up happening. The 3.5 book came sooner and had more modifications than the plan he was told.
There is a printing of 2nd edition with a great foreword beginning with "This is not a 3rd Edition" or some such. I'm not sure when it was released exactly, but it was a cleaned up with errata version. My copy is buried in storage so I can't check the date. Anyway, I'm betting the original plan was to do something more like that one, but for 3rd ed.
I believe that the 2nd edition book your talking about is WotCs reprint after they had acquired all the rights from TSR.
I must say that, if I were still playing 4e, I don't think I would mind moving to the Essentials line even if it was officially 4.5. I like new editions, particularly those that clean things up and make them work better.
+1
Funny parallel to the whole thing though - the release of 3.5 was heralded in the 2e v. 3e edition wars as a sign of 3e's failure/WotC's money-grubbering. It seems like very few gamers I encounter begrudge the existence of 3.5.I must say that, if I were still playing 4e, I don't think I would mind moving to the Essentials line even if it was officially 4.5. I like new editions, particularly those that clean things up and make them work better.
It'd be a harder sell I think. First they are clearly on record as indicating that there won't be a 4.5 so its one more marketing misstep. The other issue is that WotC has been so rigorous in maintaining balance by releasing errata that there is a lot less 'broken' stuff to point to as justification for a revised edition.
Finally they have managed to deal with many of the core design problems through the follow on books. Grind has become less prevalent as both player and monster damage has grown fairly significantly. Higher Monster damage, in particular, nearly eliminates grind. There are some core fundamental issues that really could be addressed and they can't be becuase they are very much structural so a quick errata fix is out but without the zillions of little changes to accompany them its probably be badly received since it comes across as only really changing a few things.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Right, but a new revised set of core books incorporating that errata would be nice, and that seems to be part of the function of Essentials. I realize there are problems with the 4.5 name - I'm just stating my personal preference on revised editions. I don't think it's a widely held preference and I wouldn't advocate basing a product line decision on my preference.
Good to hear that grind has gone down. I don't harbor any hard feelings towards 4e; I very much value the lessons I learned running it and continue to use those lessons in my PFRPG game. It's just a little more epic than I like and PFRPG is more in line with my simulationist leanings.
Right, but a new revised set of core books incorporating that errata would be nice, and that seems to be part of the function of Essentials. I realize there are problems with the 4.5 name - I'm just stating my personal preference on revised editions. I don't think it's a widely held preference and I wouldn't advocate basing a product line decision on my preference.
Oddly, I right with you here, but I agree that it doesn't seem to be very common opinion.
Good to hear that grind has gone down. I don't harbor any hard feelings towards 4e; I very much value the lessons I learned running it and continue to use those lessons in my PFRPG game. It's just a little more epic than I like and PFRPG is more in line with my simulationist leanings.
I really miss 4E's simplified, self-contained stat blocks.
In "Aaron World," WotC sells D&D to Paizo, which goes on to produce D&D 5E that's a 3.5/4.0/Savage Worlds mash-up.
What? A guy can dream.
|
CEO
|
OK I'll bow out on this as you have insider knowledge I just don't have access too. Still - if this is the case then why 3.5? Why does Monte indicate that there was always plans for 3.5?
I can tell you that there wasn't always a plan for doing 3.5. Not from the brand team led by Ryan Dancey of which I was a part. We launched 3.0 in 2000 and there were no plans for 3.5. I should know as I was the business analyst for the team and I did all the sales projections.
I believe what happened is that the brand team changed people after 3.0 launched and the new managers decided to do a 3.5. But it wasn't always planned.
-Lisa
|
|
OK I'll bow out on this as you have insider knowledge I just don't have access too. Still - if this is the case then why 3.5? Why does Monte indicate that there was always plans for 3.5?I can tell you that there wasn't always a plan for doing 3.5. Not from the brand team led by Ryan Dancey of which I was a part. We launched 3.0 in 2000 and there were no plans for 3.5. I should know as I was the business analyst for the team and I did all the sales projections.
I believe what happened is that the brand team changed people after 3.0 launched and the new managers decided to do a 3.5. But it wasn't always planned.
-Lisa
Ah! That makes sense. Thanks, Lisa!
|
|
To be clear, though, we don't see anything fully replacing printed books for most people anytime soon, and I think it's safe to say that most—if not all—of us would consider it a sad day if it did.
Yah.One of my colleagues today told me that the invention of photography would lead to the death of painting.
Uh, huh. Me? I'm still waiting for the so-called "paperless office". ^_^
To be clear, though, we don't see anything fully replacing printed books for most people anytime soon, and I think it's safe to say that most—if not all—of us would consider it a sad day if it did.Yah.One of my colleagues today told me that the invention of photography would lead to the death of painting.
Uh, huh. Me? I'm still waiting for the so-called "paperless office". ^_^
+1..and have been for nearly 30 years.
Presumably this has faded (or maybe everyone already knows this), however I heard that at GenCon WoTC officially declared the corebooks are still being reprinted as necessary. Apparently the rumor started from a distributor asking if they were going to do another reprint, WoTC said "No - we have plenty in stock" (as in there's no need for a reprint at the moment).
My source is the incredibly reliable memory of a friend who read it on some website somewhere, so that should settle it. :)