WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox, "I would say that the underlying thesis of our D&D business is all about digital,”

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

This is a very common myth, and people need to know this is false when it comes to American law.

I don't think it has anything to do with the law, but rather the practical realities of operating under shareholders.

If you have a long-term focused business plan that will make billions ten years from now while keeping the consumers happy and someone else comes in with a plan that will make hundreds of millions next year but tank the company's reputation with consumers in the process, there will inevitably be short-term-focused shareholders that think the other guy should be in charge, and if there are enough of them, you no longer have the job.

It's a perpetual balancing act - you can try to satisfy the consumers all you want, but if you don't satisfy the shareholders as well, they'll replace you with someone who will, consumers be damned.

 

[CrashFiend82]

I can't speak for other companies or fields, but I know there has been a perceptible shift at my Fortune 500 company and our field in general moving away from shareholder concerns toward stakeholders. Balancing long term interests of the consumer, employee, and stability over short or medium term gains. That being said the world feels like it shifts faster today, products to market etc. It can look like we pivot to new short term goals but I know we have hundreds of meetings and discussions over how a shift will affect long term Brand Management.
It feels like the questionable ethics of the 90s (Enron) and early 2000s boom/bust cycles have altered corporate thinking. Taken with consumer awareness being greater due to the internet, we are hyper focused on optics. Avoiding layoffs through restructure and constant customer based CI and focus groups.
The whole pursuit interests me, watching how corporations shift to new paradigms due to social media. Consider the OGL, if that happened in vacuum (pre-internet) would WoTC course corrected so quick. There are obvious recent cases were this gets questionable, review bombing. Overall though most days it feels like this a great time for consumers.

 

[Zardnaar]

Every edition was a “cash grab”. 2e only existed because 1e’s sales had cratered. 3e was a result of tsr going bankrupt.

DndOne is the first time in dnd’s history that we’re getting a new set of core books that isn’t because the company either makes a new edition or goes bankrupt.

It’s funny how “cash grab” and “editions I don’t like” are almost always synonymous.

I like 1E and 3.5 more or less.

 

[Zardnaar]

so 2024 is the next half baked and rushed out the door cash grab?

Nope it's a decade after 5E, a tweak to existing edition and public playtest.

Sure they want to make money but it's apparent they're at least attempting to improve 5E. Some things they're trying to fix were apparent back in 2015 or 14 even.

 

[Shardstone]

WotC is a trash company, but this is not a trash move, but it will be a trash move because WotC is a trash company.

So, let's unpack this a bit.

It makes sense that D&D needs to go digital. It is undermonetized, but not because it needs it players to spend more, but because the IPs that are under D&D collect dust, being brought out to make an adventure book once every 20 years. The many settings D&D has access too would be great fuel for a new era of comics, books, anime, movies, TV shows, video games and other cultural items like cookbooks (it's sold 200K copies!!), merchandise, VTTs, youtube and TIkTok prescence, and so on. In theory, if D&D tapped into just a bit more of its potential, it could catalyze into an even bigger phenomenon than now, becoming a Fantasy media tycoon on the levels of 90's Disney.

However, WotC sucks at hiring people with actual clear vision for the brand(s), game, and the overall company. The people currently in charge of WotC's future are thinking strictly in short term profits, and aren't thinking about maximizing their brand, which would lead to even greater profits. The lead designer of D&D has a conservative mindset when it comes to changes and refuses to bravely apply an innovative vision to the game, despite having literally all the money he needs to bring on actual 10/10 designers and game philosophers to help. I mean, if you have the money to hire celebrities for several streaming shows, you have the money to hire really good designers to perfect the adventure book, the setting book, etc.

Because WotC has already elevated D&D into mainstream status, they're resting on their laurels and trying to squeeze money from already existing ventures. A more bold and ambitious vision could take WotC even further, penetrating various media markets and becoming a TRUE household name, in the way that The Lion King and other Disney classics are. What I would give to be rich enough to just buy D&D for myself so I could hire people a lot smarter than me to realize the game and brand's true potential.

 

[Zardnaar]

2e was a cash grab in that they tried to change the game enough to stop paying Gygax royalties.

It cleaned up 1E which is a hot mess and the game had been out over a decade by then.

Sales dwindle eventually. I did say they all need to make money but when the primary objective is money only regardless that's when I use cash grab.

3.5 they wanted that suger hit again and they brought planes for a 3.5 forward.

 

[mamba]

If you have a long-term focused business plan that will make billions ten years from now while keeping the consumers happy and someone else comes in with a plan that will make hundreds of millions next year but tank the company's reputation with consumers in the process, there will inevitably be short-term-focused shareholders that think the other guy should be in charge, and if there are enough of them, you no longer have the job.

not all shareholders are short term focused, it is a matter of how long they intend to hold the shares, that is why companies that were family founded and where those families still have a significant stake can be much more long term oriented

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a very common myth, and people need to know this is false when it comes to American law.

According to the US Supreme Court:
"While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.”

(Emphasis mine.)

SOURCE: Here's the 2014 case that came from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

Which are the ones that don't do so?

 

[LordEntrails]

"I would say that the underlying thesis of our D&D business is all about digital," Cocks said.

Welcome to the twenty-first century. About time.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

not all shareholders are short term focused, it is a matter of how long they intend to hold the shares, that is why companies that were family founded and where those families still have a significant stake can be much more long term oriented

I am aware of that. I'm just saying that it's not always a simple matter of doing what's in the best interest of the consumers at all times.

To paraphrase CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers video: "Angels that spend treasure on good public works will lose to devils that don't." No matter how committed you are to doing right by your customers, if you're beholden to shareholders then you have to make sure they're on board with your plans or at least willing to wait and see how they turn out, because if a majority of them decide that replacing you with someone else is liable to benefit them more (in whatever time frame they care about), then that's what they're going to do.

While it's great if you can do both at once, keeping the shareholders happy is always going to take priority over keeping the consumers happy whenever the two are in conflict, if only because the shareholders always have the option of forcing the issue and ensuring that someone focused on appeasing them first and foremost is the one making decisions.

Not saying I like it, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a factor that makes doing the "right thing" less straightforward than it may seem from the outside.