D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Alzrius]

Setting an ROI target is something all companies do. They evaluate the amount of investment in production that will net the greatest profits. I don't understand why you heavily imply that it's a bad thing. Some companies do engage in bad behavior hence the examples I gave that I consider bad behavior that would make me reconsider a purchase. Setting an ROI target is not something I would ever consider bad behavior.

And here I thought you had nothing more to add.

All kidding aside, I'll spell this out one more time, since you still seem to be confused: WotC's focus on return on investment and profit maximization was brought up initially with regard to why it's fallacious to suggest that you can't print large numbers of high-crunch products as a sustainable business model, in that it was a failure to hit their ROI under such a model that led them to abandon that practice, rather than that model being inherently unsustainable.

With regard to WotC's bad behavior, I gave you plenty of other examples for why people feel that WotC is a "profits first, excellence second" company (and why people tend to look askance at that, as opposed to a company that reverses those values). Your response was something along the lines of "as long as they're trying to make money, it's okay" and "you can't hold something against them if they later reverse that policy," to which I made it very clear why that's not the case for a lot of people.

 

[Alzrius]

The point is that all of them exist in a pretty separated state between their products and actual participation in their evil. Honestly, it would be pretty difficult for them to get tonthst point, no matter how many Pinkertons theybhire (I say hi a Pinkerton at the door every day at work, doesn't mean I am participating in their shady activities).

Leaving aside that I'm not sure "evil" is necessarily the right word here, it sounds like you're talking about something else entirely. My point was that it's not at all impossible, or unreasonable, to find certain TTRPG companies more or less ethical than others. That's a separate consideration from whether or not any of them are as good as the very best, or as bad as the very worst, companies out there.

 

[Parmandur]

Leaving aside that I'm not sure "evil" is necessarily the right word here, it sounds like you're talking about something else entirely. My point was that it's not at all impossible, or unreasonable, to find certain TTRPG companies more or less ethical than others. That's a separate consideration from whether or not any of them are as good as the very best, or as bad as the very worst, companies out there.

Each circumstance is different. But aside from the way out there fringe, I don't see a lot of air between the crowd, in terms ofnethical analysis.

 

[Parmandur]

And here I thought you had nothing more to add.

All kidding aside, I'll spell this out one more time, since you still seem to be confused: WotC's focus on return on investment and profit maximization was brought up initially with regard to why it's fallacious to suggest that you can't print large numbers of high-crunch products as a sustainable business model, in that it was a failure to hit their ROI under such a model that led them to abandon that practice, rather than that model being inherently unsustainable.

With regard to WotC's bad behavior, I gave you plenty of other examples for why people feel that WotC is a "profits first, excellence second" company (and why people tend to look askance at that, as opposed to a company that reverses those values). Your response was something along the lines of "as long as they're trying to make money, it's okay" and "you can't hold something against them if they later reverse that policy," to which I made it very clear why that's not the case for a lot of people.

You can make a profit to get by and not be doing the best thing to grow and sustain a hobby at large. Maximizing profit over the long term is not incompatible with supporting and growing a hobby.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You're leaving out the crucial point that the issue of ROI was initially brought up with regard to the matter of "printing too many crunchy books too fast is unsustainable and unprofitable," specifically in that it was neither of those things, and that the only reason WotC moved away from doing so was due to ROI.

I'm going to have to strenuously disagree here.

Let's start by making the obvious point-

Let us assume, for purposes of argument, that one of the two things is correct...

1. More material will always result in more revenue over the long term. (Ignoring ROI).
2. Less material will always result in more revenue over the long term. (Ignoring ROI).

If either of these were true, then logically the correct answer would be for WoTC to either (1) print an infinite amount of material; or (2) print absolutely nothing.

Now, we know that these extremes aren't true. It's almost like there are these curves ... call them supply and demand ... that work to influence the market. But, just as importantly, there are different business strategies as well.

Take, for example, the Birkin Bag. Hermes could, quite easily, hire more people and pump out more Birkin Bags. And while that would undoubtedly create more revenue in the short run, the entire point of the Birkin Bag is that it is exclusive and hard-to-buy. Pursuing a different business strategy would lead not only to the death of the Birkin Bag, but also the diminution of Hermes as a brand. We all learned this basic economic concept when we were in kindergarten, although the example used involved more geese and golden eggs.

Now, the RPG book market isn't the same as the Birkin Bag market .... obviously. Value isn't created through enforced scarcity. Still, there is something to be said for a reasonable level of output; this has several advantages- first, you are not overly taxing your consumers' spending. Second, you will not have so many undifferentiated products out that new consumers may be turned off. Third, you are less likely to overwhelm your consumers when they look at their bookshelves. A moderate pace with gradual releases is not just "ROI," it's also an investment in the overall health of the game.

But what about Paizo? Well, different companies can pursue different strategies. It is certainly relevant that Paizo has a large number of subscribers- a model that WoTC does not use for physical media. More importantly, I think I can safely assume that most PF players are considered more "hardcore," whereas WoTC is marketing to a much more diverse, and casual audience. To put it even more simply- different companies are pursuing different strategies for different consumers and to protect different brands.

In saying all of this, I do not mean to say that WoTC's release schedule is "just right," like some type of ersatz Goldilocks analysis. It has been successful. Could it be more successful if they released more books? Maybe. But maybe it could be more successful with fewer, better titles! I would say that the rest of this is noise- they decided on a slow and steady release schedule, and that has been, to date, a reasonably prudent decision.

 

[Alzrius]

Each circumstance is different. But aside from the way out there fringe, I don't see a lot of air between the crowd, in terms ofnethical analysis.

Well, I don't know how much is "a lot," but there seem to be plenty of other people who feel differently, and I can't say bring myself to say that they're unreasonable in doing so. Again, there are certainly much larger gaps between any TTRPG company out there as compared to the very best/worst of all companies, but that doesn't make a comparison between TTRPG companies not worthwhile.

You can make a profit to get by and not be doing the best thing to grow and sustain a hobby at large. Maximizing profit over the long term is not incompatible with supporting and growing a hobby.

I'll point out that I never said that making money and excellence were incompatible goals; indeed, that's what people value in companies that adopt a "excellence leads to profit" standpoint. The issue is that people tend to look skeptically at companies that put profits above excellence, as that often comes at the expense of their customers, and it's not like we don't have any examples of that in the TTRPG space.

If company A says that they're deliberately holding back on monsters that people want, in order to get them to buy subsequent books, and company B puts all of their monsters online, both are still seeking profits. But company A is doing so in a manner that doesn't work in their customers' best interests (i.e. they could have given them what they want upfront, but deliberately didn't do so), whereas company B is working in their customers' best interests (i.e. giving them what they want, and trusting that the quality of their work will encourage future purchases).

Now, that's nowhere near the level of something involving Big Tobacco, but it's still an ethical stance that people can perceive and react to.

 

[Echohawk]

I think that, if we're looking at all TTRPG companies, you can rank some higher than others on that scale.

There are so many other Evil Corporations imposing themselves on my day-to-day life that I'm (far too) quick to forgive RPG companies for their missteps. I guess I just don't want to hate on companies that are supporting a hobby I love.

That said, the missteps that do tend to stick more in my mind are when companies treat their employees badly. For some reason that bothers me a lot more than when they make stupid decisions about products or strategy.​

 

[Alzrius]

There are so many other Evil Corporations imposing themselves on my day-to-day life that I'm (far too) quick to forgive RPG companies for their missteps. I guess I just don't want to hate on companies that are supporting a hobby I love.​

Sure, and that's your prerogative. No one is suggesting otherwise, but by the same token, there's reasonable and principled disagreement to be had from the people who say that they have principled and justified reasons for seeing things differently.

That said, the missteps that do tend to stick more in my mind are when companies treat their employees badly. For some reason that bothers me a lot more than when they make stupid decisions about products or strategy.

And that's understandable, just like for people who look at eco-friendly business practices, respect shown to their customers, etc. All of which is a far cry from claiming that TTRPG companies are basically all the same because they exist in some "murky middle."

Heck, I still look askance at WotC for having a CEO who was a major player at one of the largest of the Big Tobacco companies out there, but apparently I'm alone on thinking that's relevant.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm going to have to strenuously disagree here.

Looking over your points, Snarf, I don't think you are.

Seriously, when you say that WotC is pursuing a different strategy with different customers, there's no disagreement there (or at least, not with me). Rather, I was objecting to the idea that the type of books that we got in 3.5, at the pace we got them, "don't sell". They do sell. As you noted, Paizo is selling them, just using a different model.

I'm simply objecting to the unqualified, stated-as-obvious-truth idea that there's no way that level of content-output can be sustained. Yes, it can! We know it can! We're seeing it happen in real time! Did some adjustments need to be made to make it happen? Sure, but it can and does and is happening!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Looking over your points, Snarf, I don't think you are.

Seriously, when you say that WotC is pursuing a different strategy with different customers, there's no disagreement there (or at least, not with me). Rather, the idea that the type of books that we got in 3.5, at the pace we got them, "don't sell". Except they do sell. As you noted, Paizo is selling them, just using a different model.

I'm simply objecting to the unqualified, stated-as-obvious-truth idea that there's no way that level of content-output can be sustained. Yes, it can! We know it can! We're seeing it happen in real time! Did some adjustments need to be made to make it happen? Sure, but it can and does and is happening!

But we didn't actually see that, did we?

First, and most obviously, 3.5e didn't keep selling. They went to 4e.

Second, Paizo's sales are dwarfed by WoTC's. We can agree on that, right? That's not a value statement, but a statement of fact. And that's okay, because Paizo is perfectly happy selling to a much smaller group of consumers; their model works for that group. I don't think that the model would work for more causal fans ... which is the larger market that WoTC is selling to. Again, WoTC sells tons of books to kids (15% of players are between the ages of 10 and 15) and to casual gamers, while PF remains a lucrative, but more niche product.

Again, I am not saying that this is necessarily the sweet spot. But given that we've seen over nine years of uninterrupted growth - something unheard of in the history of D&D ... I think we can at least acknowledge that the "slow & steady" approach has some merit.

People saying, "But they could sell more," aren't adding much in terms of factual content. Yes, things could always be different, but this release schedule has, so far, worked in terms of long-term viability.