Why doesn't WotC license older editions?

[Greg K]

Give me a D&D: Saga Edition or something that combines the 'plug and play' of 4E, the flexibility and breadth of 3E, and the spirit of 2E, and I'm there.

Well, I can't help you with the plug and play of 4e, but I find core 3e with some UA variants and a couple of houserules along with limiting a lot of WOTC supplements captures the spirit of 2e for me.

 

[Maggan]

I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.

Nope.

WotC only has to sell more books now than at the end of 3e to have gained customers.

And for what it's worth, I totally think they are selling more now than at then last year of 3e, even before 4e was announced. The product cycle was complete, and those who wanted 3e PH, DMG and MM had bought them.

All else was investing in diminishing returns.

So there's no "pollyanna" in thinking that WotC has gained customers by releasing 4e.

/M

 

[Mistwell]

About Amazon: I'm talking what market share of D&D players are buying/playing 4e. I don't see how Amazon can answer that.

If initial sales at Amazon for 4e were stronger than initial sales at Amazon for 3.5e (which they were), you can draw some useful data from that. It's not a full answer to your question, but it is a partial answer based on something objective.

About WotC: Their layoffs don't seem well aligned with the idea of extremely strong sales.

They had similar layoffs after 3e, and after 3.5e, and both of those layoffs were during better economic times. So, unless you are saying those also had weak sales, I do not see how that is relevant to your point.

About 10 polls here, all with the same answers,

It would not matter if it were a thousand polls. Of course they result in the same answers. That doesn't make them more accurate however. As I said, they are internet polls, which are inherently unreliable. They are self-selecting for responders, and disgruntled people are more likely to answer an internet poll they seek out than happy people who do not feel the same level of urge (on average) to seek out such a poll and express their opinion. Do I really need to explain that internet polls are not accurate? Do I really need to point to all the articles on the topic, and how internet polls can never be relied on?

and my observations are not just from "my FLGS", it's 6 different FLGS' in 2 countries.

Which represents, what, .00000000001% of FLGS hours? Come on now, you know you cannot personally present your visits as representative. They are not. Heck, even if you OWNED 6 stores around the world, it would still not be representative of the world's game sales. It's too big a set of data for your samples to be meaningful in any way. Heck, I am not even sure the bulk of WOTC products are even sold through FLGS anymore!

What percentage adoption is that commercial reality showing? It's pretty consistent in the Southwest and Northeast Pacific: the biggest deal places in both countries are strongly in favor of 4e, but the little guys are hedging their bets -- or dropping all D&D, in the case of one store. So are the EnWorld 45% 3e/55% 4e split, or the general idea that 4e is leaving a lot of people behind, all that far-fetched? I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.

You have no actual data to go on. You've taken the classic hasty generalization position, and then accuse me of being pollyanna?

I am not saying you are wrong or right, I am saying you have no basis for knowing if you are correct or not, nor do I beyond those two relatively minor actual data points (Amazon, and the WOTC employee statement regarding reprintings). You have pretended that your non-data is actual representative information based on your personal opinion. It's silly. It's not something you would appreciate if someone else did that sort of thing in some other aspect of life.

We have no idea if they gained or lost customers. You going around claiming internet polls and your 6 visits to different game stores is some kind of proof of ~45% loss in customers is ridiculous. Have a little respect for your fellow peers here, be completely honest with them, and just say it's your guess that they lost a lot of customers but you do not have anything firm to back that up. Lets put an end to claims of hard numbers that are actually based on internet polls and your store visits.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not here to dispute sales numbers, but I think it is important to look at Amazon and the book trade numbers because FLGS numbers only tell a part of the story. They generally speak to a subset of the hardcore gamers who choose to shop at specialized hobby retailers. It's also important to know what casual gamers and those who do not shop at specialized hobby retailers are buying and playing if you want an overall view of the market.

- "Hasn't Shopped at a Game Store since 1998" Spikey

 

[Aus_Snow]

Have a little respect for your fellow peers here, be completely honest with them

Good advice.

So, got any proof that 'eventually, most people switch' yet?

Nah, didn't think so.

 

[Mercutio01]

Good advice.

So, got any proof that 'eventually, most people switch' yet?

It's simplistic to say people "switch" anything. But how many people out there still listen to 8-tracks and play 1E D&D? Individuals may not switch en masse, but the continued evolution of tastes to new things as older ones fade out is pretty much fact. As the years pass on and 3.5E gets farther in the rearview, I'm pretty sure the number of 3.5 players will fade as a subset of all D&D players. So while you and I may not switch to 4E (not for lack of trying on my part, but without f2f games it's a little hard), but there are new kids just learning to play D&D and they'll most likely be picking the newest books.

It's just a fact of life.

All that said, I'm not sure you can hold Amazon sales comparison between 3.5 and 4. So much has changed with how we shop in the world, with the internet becoming a much vaster market share of sales in general than they were, even in 2003. It's an interesting point to compare, but the raw numbers won't say much.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

About 10 polls here, all with the same answers...

Internet board surveys are worse than worthless. They're misleading. They are a self-selecting sample of a minority of board dwellers who just happen to feel strongly enough about whatever the survey is about to actually take part in it. Depending what site you go to and how you word the survey, you could get a survey that shows that most of the RPGers want to be fire engines.

 

[CharlesRyan]

And licensing previous editions would allow you to still sell to, and make money off of, those [who play earlier editions by] preference. You aren't making money off of these people anyways, with licensing you can. [. . .] (And competing against yourself is not a logical argument - the people who would buy these products aren't buying your current products anyways.)

This makes sense, but only if you assume that people clearly choose to play the current or an older edition. Since I didn't make that point very clearly, allow me to illustrate:

Out of ten hypothetical D&D players, let's say 8 play 4E and 2 play older editions.​

In this scenario, your point makes sense: WotC isn't monetizing 2 of those players anyway, so why not license the older editions and make some more money out of them?

Thing is, the real situation may be more like this:

Out of ten hypothetical D&D player, 5 prefer to play 4e and 2 prefer older editions. The remaining 3 play 4E, because that's what their group plays, or because they like playing the currently supported edition, or because they've just got into D&D and that's what they see on the shelves. Or whatever.​

So WotC licenses older editions, and some of those 3 players end up playing 3.5 or OD&D or whatever, instead of 4E. And WotC loses money directly because it makes a lot less on licensing, and loses indirectly because the marketplace is fragmented and player networks are weaker.

Under this scenario, the money made through licensing almost certainly does not cover the money lost on 4E. And the concept of competing against yourself is absolutely a rational concern.

 

[Mallus]

So, got any proof that 'eventually, most people switch' yet?

Isn't that what happened as the game went from OD&D --> AD&D --> 2e --> 3e --> 3.5e?

 

[xechnao]

Nope.

WotC only has to sell more books now than at the end of 3e to have gained customers.

And for what it's worth, I totally think they are selling more now than at then last year of 3e, even before 4e was announced. The product cycle was complete, and those who wanted 3e PH, DMG and MM had bought them.

All else was investing in diminishing returns.

So there's no "pollyanna" in thinking that WotC has gained customers by releasing 4e.

/M

I would say that they generated more sales on launch than what was going on for a couple of years on regular basis. The rest should be the same more or less. But if they did not do the investment for 4e their sales of 3e would critically drop after a certain point -this risk was so real that only the exact moment or timing was the unknown variable.