Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It shows exactly that. Consumers are getting the skirmish game they want with 4E so they are not bothering to buy or play the same thing twice.

No, It's tempting to think so, but its wrong. The decline of DDM was already there before 4E was announced. Either 3E was already board-gamey enough for them, or there are just less people interesting in D&D based board games overall.*

At least that's what they tell us

I really need to step back a few years to give you the big picture. 2006 was a successful year for the entire D&D gaming line and D&D Minis played an important role in that success. In 2006 we released War Drums, a new minis starter, the War of the Dragon Queen Huge set, Blood War, and two D&D Icons Dragons. Although fans were embracing the new minis lines, 2006 was also a year when we started to see the D&D Minis line strain under the increasing costs of manufacturing. Labor, shipping, materials, tooling, and production costs were all creeping up so that in late 2006, after much analysis and many meetings, we made a decision to increase the price per pack to insure quality and profitability were maintained within the line. When we did the price increase our goal was that it would sustain the D&D Minis for at least two to three years. Unfortunately, we could not predict the sharp increases that we’ve seen in manufacturing costs over the last 12 months.

That same year we started to see a decline in sanctioned skirmish play. Typically sanctioned play will wax and wane monthly, so over the long haul we want to see general stability or growth. Even prior to the 4th Edition announcement in August 2007, we were seeing steady declines in sanctioned play.

*)If it's the former, an interesting thought - maybe people tried DDM and found they liked D&D, but more as an RPG then a board game. Does this mean decline in 3.x sales had been compensated by movement of DDMers to D&D? Or are they the same people, and all DDM C= D&D RPGers?

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, It's tempting to think so, but its wrong. The decline of DDM was already there before 4E was announced. Either 3E was already board-gamey enough for them, or there are just less people interesting in D&D based board games overall.*

At least that's what they tell us

*)If it's the former, an interesting thought - maybe people tried DDM and found they liked D&D, but more as an RPG then a board game. Does this mean decline in 3.x sales had been compensated by movement of DDMers to D&D? Or are they the same people, and all DDM C= D&D RPGers?

You are quite right. DDM and miniatures sales were down before the release of 4E. I would guess based on that fact, that D&D minis that were selling at all were to RPG groups and not skirmish groups. Because of the random factor, along with the DDM cards being of no use to the RPG buyers, sales on the minis slowed way down. RPG groups found themselves able to buy more of what they wanted on the secondary market rather than roll the dice and gamble on new packs.

That leaves us with the death of the skirmish game and the need for a new way to market minis to the RPG groups who already have tons of the things. Enter unique power cards combined with enough choice in what basic type of mini you are buying to liven things up. Sure the DDI may have all the powers if you don't get the minis, but either way its a constant revenue stream.

The only remaining stumbling block is that pesky DM guy who gets to decide what powers and abilities get used. Who's gonna pay DDI subscriptions or buy loads of mini packs to get access to powers that they might not be allowed to use? Lets start phasing him out of the game structure. We can market monster minis and unique power cards for that player to use against the other players too.

 

[CharlesRyan]

If market research shows that collectible competitive games produce stronger revenues than roleplaying games, take a guess at where decision makers are going to market assets such as the D&D IP.

There's a straightforward business logic to that statement, but it's not very enlightened. Other factors come into play: maintaining a diverse portfolio of property types, understanding the value of core consumers as thought leaders, making sure you don't cannibalize sales from other properties, market segmentation, and so on.

Maybe a competitive collectible fantasy game would sell better than the RPG format. But if you already make one of those, and it's already an industry leader, why would you dismantle a brand's existing value just to compete in the same space?

Hasbro may be many things, but clumsy, stupid, or unenlightened when it comes to its IPs is not generally one of them. Sure, someday, Hasbro might move brand leadership for D&D away from the RPG category (things change in business all the time, just like in the rest of life)--but it's hardly inevitable. I think D&D's fortunes would have to change dramatically (up or down) for that to be the case.

This is not sinister or evil. Its just business. Its employees at a company doing exactly what the shareholders pay them to do.

Of course. But having been that guy, I can assure you that the shareholders pay the brand leaders to maintain an insightful, long-term vision for the company's IPs--not to just jump on the latest trend with no regard for a brand's historic strengths.

 

[Gallo22]

Yep, I think 4E is helping people realize simpler can be better.

That's very debatable.

 

[Cadfan]

I can't give any hard numbers but I do remember most of the 2e-->3e angst being pre-release. Once the OGL/STL was finalized and released the anti-3e noise quieted considerably. People were excited that the game was becoming a lot more community oriented especially in the wake of TSR's gross-ish mishandling of the brand.

I, too, am of the opinion that the 3e/4e split is much more contentious and divisive than the 2e/3e split. I think that the picture will be much clearer come June 2009 when 4e has had some time to get its legs, the incomplete feel has been mitigated by splats, and maybe... maybe the GSL has been released in a satisfactory from.

I love 4e, and basically hate haters with a passion. I consider them scum. So, I've got pro-4e bona fides.

That being said, I do think that there's more acrimony this time around. And the reason I think that is that just before the release of 3e there was a general perception that D&D was dying. I think that mitigated a lot of the nerd rage, because even if you absolutely hated 3e, the alternative was obsolescence. That didn't stop all nerd rage or anything, but I think it quieted things down a little in comparison to the 3e/4e switch.

Had 3e tanked, WOTC gone out of business, and the rights to D&D been purchased by an entirely new party who then took three years to publish a new edition, I think a lot more people who are complaining about 4e might have looked at it and said, "well, its better than a slow death."

 

[Henry]

I wish someone (other than myself) would go back and dig through some usenet archives from circa September 2000 to see what kinds of gnashing of teeth and hand wringing was going on with folks with the release of 3rd edition.

Personally, I recall lots of folks being really excited about the new edition. Certainly not everyone was on board with the artwork, and the style, but everyone I knew pretty much collectively move towards it. Today - I don't know anyone in real life playing 4th edition. And if you believe the online polls, fully half the people outright hate the system. 3rd edition wasn't anywhere near those numbers.

Just because I'm insane:

[no subject] - rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups
Complaints about 3E's faults that seem a lot like 4e's lists of faults (the spells doing "damage and more damage", etc.)

rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups
Complaints about WotC having lots of splatbooks just like TSR did for each class

rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups
Complaint about Darkvision being easier for people weaned on computer roleplaying games to understand.

Anime-style artifacts? - rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups
Thread poking fun at anime, and attempts to add Anime Style magic items into the new 3e game (not a 3e slam, but just a reminder that the more things change...)

WAY TOO MUCH healing in 3E! - rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups
3rd edition slam by good old Halaster Blackcloak. Boy, seeing Halaster and Hong's names floating around in eight-year old threads really bring back memories...

rec.games.frp.dnd | Google Groups
Pretty varied thread, goes from calm discussion to "unable to appreciate halfling cleric ninja wielding two rapiers thank you very much."

Only a few, but there are some really cool rants and heavy discussions on rec.games.frp.dnd if you did into Google Groups Search a good bit. The problem is wading through, literally, tens of thousands of archived messages to find the really good "crash and burns", because people weren't as interested in archiving the "asshattery" threads the way people are on forums nowadays.

Another thing to remember; this forum, in particular, was founded on a 3e-loving community; the differences between fans of 3E and 4E are going to seem more profound than other forums in existance at the time. Anyone know how old the RPG.net community is, for instance? I didn't follow it until 2003, or so, but older communities (most of which were newsgroups-oriented in 1999-2000) are more likely to have a true accounting of some of the flame-laced rants going around at the time, as well as the more reasoned "I just prefer this" type of threads. One main difference, as you say: D&D was practically DEAD as a living, actively recruiting roleplaying game just prior to 1999; therefore, the base of players who didn't like what came before is going to be smaller than today's actively playing base of several million gamers. (What is the current estimate? 5 or 6 million worldwide versus 2.5 million in 1999?)

 

[Henry]

You are quite right. DDM and miniatures sales were down before the release of 4E. I would guess based on that fact, that D&D minis that were selling at all were to RPG groups and not skirmish groups. Because of the random factor, along with the DDM cards being of no use to the RPG buyers, sales on the minis slowed way down. RPG groups found themselves able to buy more of what they wanted on the secondary market rather than roll the dice and gamble on new packs.

Very much so. For me, I'll tell you what caused me to stop buying: price, and solely price. Once they passed $12.99, they crossed the line of what the minis were worth to me. I can't conscientiously pay more than that for 8 minis in a box, and I REALLY can't pay $15 for FIVE minis in a box, much less 10 for three. If the average price for a mini is over about a $1.75 per mini, It's just too much for me to pay.

I wonder if the $15 price hike a year or two ago was also the point of the decline of minis sales...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I certainly don't remember a huge amount of anger towards 3e when it came out. Maybe it was just because I hated Thac0, saves against a million things I can't remember and level limits for the most artificial reasons.

But the thing about 2e was that I really liked the worlds and campaign settings that came out of it. And in 3e came along, they were easy enough to bring into 3e.

4e over 3e feels much like Windows Vista over Windows XP. Vista may be an improvement over XP, but it's not a vast improvement. In some cases Vista is more of a hassle than it's worth. And with 4e being the Windows Vista of D&D, I feel that a service pack is needed before more are satisfied with it.

 

[Umbran]

1. The D&D brand: If things were simply about prefering one system to the other, there wouldn't be an edition war.

I don't believe this is correct. Humans, for time immemorial, have divided themselves into "Us" and "Them", even when They are no threat to Us. Tie this to the pseudo-anonymity of the internet, and you get people behaving badly, and thus an edition war.

If people chose to remember to treat each other with respect, there'd be no edition war.

 

[Imaro]

Very much so. For me, I'll tell you what caused me to stop buying: price, and solely price. Once they passed $12.99, they crossed the line of what the minis were worth to me. I can't conscientiously pay more than that for 8 minis in a box, and I REALLY can't pay $15 for FIVE minis in a box, much less 10 for three. If the average price for a mini is over about a $1.75 per mini, It's just too much for me to pay.

I wonder if the $15 price hike a year or two ago was also the point of the decline of minis sales...

This...all the way. The thing for me was when the minis were below 12.99 they were almost always an impulse buy, I mean at their original starting price of 9.99 I could get from 3 to 4 packs for about the price of a sourcebook, which, while not a great deal... seemed a pretty good deal. After the prices went up it got me to really start seeking out secondary sources for minis...especially commons. Way cheaper to get exactly what I wanted. Personally I think the price raises and (contrary to how it was presented above) the revamping of the entire game into DDM 2.0, had a drastic effect on sales.

Even now, I look at this new plan and wonder what exactly does this offer me that's better than what I have now. When I first started buying minis, I probably would have been all over this, but now I think I have most of what I need, And it's just jumped drastically in price even more. Besides, I still don't get how the monsters are considered non-random...because I can see one that comes in the pack. There's still the chance that for $15.99 I'll only get one mini I want or need out of 5. Just doesn't seem like that great a deal when I think about it.

NOTE: The only thing I know for sure I'll be buying are Dragonborn PC's as even on secondary markets they're going for $7 to $11 dollars each, so the WotC pack actually might be a better deal for this. Otherwise I don't see this increasing drastically how many minis are sold.