D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Hussar]

Well, we don't have all the details, at least until Ben Riggs gets further along on his next book. But while I agree that 3.5 sales were probably slowing down (like literally every other edition, up to and including 5E), that's a far cry from the idea that its release schedule was destined from the beginning to lead to failure.

3.5 following the sales trend of every other edition of the game previously isn’t evidence that it was destined to failure? When every other edition to date failed?

The only difference I see is that WotC was unwilling to wait until they were literally sinking before pulling the plug.

 

[Parmandur]

So you yourself admit that they adopted a suboptimal strategy in the beginning.

Obviously, yes. They aren't lerfect: they used to release too many books, for instance.

 

[dave2008]

That's not really how burden of proof works; you don't prove that something is not a factor, you prove that it is.

It does go both ways. You could, in theory, prove the sales strategy of 3e and 4e helped or at least didn't hurt sales. However, you are the one that said you had evidence that supported your claim, not me!

Likewise, I've said before that Ben Riggs' seminar suggested that what killed 3.5 was upper management at WotC thinking that they needed an edition reminiscent of WoW to increase revenue, which suggests that they weren't hitting target numbers ($100M as per Ryan Dancey), rather than they weren't able to take in more than they were spending.

That is the part I am wondering about, because that is definitely the figure I remember being thrown about that 4e had to reach. I guess it could have started back in 3e and 4e's goal was also to get to that number (and failed). However, isn't that some evidence that 5e's release schedule might have in fact worked as it actually did reach those goals with markedly less product (and therefore less overhead). So they not only reached the sales goal, but probably smashed the profit goals. That really seems to be evidence that supports the slower product schedule not the opposite you seem to think it is. I guess we see what we want to see.

 

[Alzrius]

3.5 following the sales trend of every other edition of the game previously isn’t evidence that it was destined to failure? When every other edition to date failed?

This again? Did you not read the part about the driving force behind 4E being a desire to get more money by being a WoW knockoff? Did you overlook the mountains of evidence that TSR's business practices leading them to overproduce product are nothing like the forces driving WotC/Hasbro release schedules after they took over? Maybe you should go read the rest of the thread before commenting on things that have already been asked and answered.

The only difference I see is that WotC was unwilling to wait until they were literally sinking before pulling the plug.

Well then you're not seeing things very clearly.

 

[Alzrius]

Obviously, yes. They aren't lerfect: they used to release too many books, for instance.

Or rather, they didn't adopt a strategy to capitalize on releasing books quickly. Maybe they could have asked Paizo about that.

 

[Parmandur]

Or rather, they didn't adopt a strategy to capitalize on releasing books quickly. Maybe they could have asked Paizo about that.

Yes, and thst strategy has paid off, for Hasbro's bottom line and the health of the hobby.

 

[Alzrius]

It does go both ways. You could, in theory, prove the sales strategy of 3e and 4e helped or at least didn't hurt sales. However, you are the one that said you had evidence that supported your claim, not me!

Again, I'll refer you to the thread where the historian said that the driving impetus to stop making 3.5E was something other than "not making more money than was spent."

That is the part I am wondering about, because that is definitely the figure I remember being thrown about that 4e had to reach. I guess it could have started back in 3e and 4e's goal was also to get to that number (and failed). However, isn't that some evidence that 5e's release schedule might have in fact worked as it actually did reach those goals with markedly less product (and therefore less overhead). So they not only reached the sales goal, but probably smashed the profit goals. That really seems to be evidence that supports the slower product schedule not the opposite you seem to think it is. I guess we see what we want to see.

I believe that Ryan Dancey was tossing that number around with regard to 3.X, though we might not have heard about it until later. That said, I'm leery of saying that this proves anything about 5E, because the point in question was that 3.5 wasn't necessarily producing too many books to survive. That 5E is doing better is dependent on a lot of factors, but the pace of overall releases has yet to be shown to be one of them; at best, people seem to be trying to draw inferences regarding sales volume, but even that's tricky, because why those volumes are what they are is almost completely speculative.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, and thst strategy has paid off, for Hasbro's bottom line and the health of the hobby.

Something paid off for Hasbro, but I'm not sure how much of it can be attributed to them having a strategy. Certainly, I wouldn't say that what's good for them is necessarily good for the health of the hobby; walled garden VTTs, and all that.

 

[Parmandur]

Something paid off for Hasbro, but I'm not sure how much of it can be attributed to them having a strategy. Certainly, I wouldn't say that what's good for them is necessarily good for the health of the hobby; walled garden VTTs, and all that.

The slower release schedule, specifically, has been very healthy for the hobby.

 

[Alzrius]

The slower release schedule, specifically, has been very healthy for the hobby.

No, I think you're wrong.