Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Jack99]

Other than PHB1, has there even *been* a second printing of any 4E book?

A know the "deluxe" editions of the PHB1/DMG/MM1 came out with some errata fixes included, but I don't think any other title has had a second print run.

Anyone know differently?

Yes. Greg Leeds mentioned somewhere (around the time of the pirating debacle) that the PHB2 was going into it's second print run. Maybe someone has a link.

EDIT: It was in the Q&A here at ENworld, IIRC, but I can't seem to find it atm.

 

[AllisterH]

One word: Gleemax. Awesome character builder or not, I'd argue that they would need to accrue enough return on investment to cover the costs from development on Gleemax, the VTT, et al before it can be a true success in the long run.

Er, no.

That wouldn't be a proper way for bean counters to look at it. Gleemax was a failed intiative but the sunk costs of it wouldn't be reflected on the balance sheet of DDI.

Keep in mind as well, that MTGO is _ALSO_ a WOTC-in house (now) deal. If the bean counters were actually looking at ALL electronic initiatives as one revenue stream, the MTGO would also be counted and that actually seems to have become a huge part of WOTC's revenue stream (something I heard bandied about is that it represents 20-25% of all sales)

 

[Shemeska]

Er, no.

That wouldn't be a proper way for bean counters to look at it. Gleemax was a failed intiative but the sunk costs of it wouldn't be reflected on the balance sheet of DDI.

Not an accountant here, so you may be totally right on that. Where I was coming from was that Gleemax and all of the outsourced DDI development were all part of the same project, bundled together in the original press releases, and all worked on by the same contracted design company (Radiant Machine). Hence why I would consider any profits from what would eventually go to market as the DDI (sans VTT, etc) as having to dig itself out of the hole from all the money sunk on what was originally planned for the whole Digital Initiative project as a whole.

Taking just the in-house development costs of the character builder and the few bonus tools that appeared afterward, that would be a runaway success probably if measured by itself without reference to the earlier project goals and costs (and without any speculated drop in book sales by essentially competing for crunch sales dollars).

As for MTGO, I don't follow it really and unlike some other stuff I never knew anyone working on it, so that didn't figure into my thinking at all. Interesting though if it has worked into a large portion of WotC's income.

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe this is different now in 4E, but back in the OGL days there were a lot of calls for less crunch. And time after time the market did not show up.

Agreed. While some segment of the market seems to want less crunch, WotC can't afford to be catering to small segments of their market. Their market as a whole seems to want crunch.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe this is different now in 4E, but back in the OGL days there were a lot of calls for less crunch. And time after time the market did not show up.

There were exceptions. But there was generally some specific appeal for the exceptions. All things being equal crunch sold solidly better than fluff.

Agreed. While some segment of the market seems to want less crunch, WotC can't afford to be catering to small segments of their market. Their market as a whole seems to want crunch.

I'm curious as to what crunchless,or nearly crunchless products were published for 3.x by WotC... because I honestly can't think of any off-hand to use in any type of comparison for what sold and what didn't?

 

[BryonD]

I'm curious as to what crunchless,or nearly crunchless products were published for 3.x by WotC... because I honestly can't think of any off-hand to use in any type of comparison for what sold and what didn't?

Many of the FR titles were crunch light.

Quite simply, the ones that sold less are less remembered.

But the pattern was also present for 3PPs.

 

[filthgrinder]

Not an accountant here, so you may be totally right on that.

There are a couple of different ways they could have handled the figures for the loss in their investment. However, its most assuredly gone from their balance sheet, especially with DDI bringing money in. Most likely they just declared it as bad debt and have spread it out over a period of years to count against their earnings for tax purposes. which is probably the most useful thing they could do. There are a bunch of fun and interesting things you can do with bad investments to make your statements look better. Considering the Gleemax project was killed multiple years ago, that loss has probably already been put to good use.

 

[AllisterH]

Many of the FR titles were crunch light.

Quite simply, the ones that sold less are less remembered.

But the pattern was also present for 3PPs.

Was there ANY 3.x book produced by WOTC that didn't have at least one option for players, i.e. a feat, spell, race, class (prestige or otherwise). Only the monster manuals come to mind and even those had things like the LA races....

Indeed, I remember many a complaint that WOTC was "taking advantage" of players by having player-crunch spread throughout ALL their books.

EDIT: Getting back tp the OP, I think ggroy is right....

If the compendium, monster builder and character builder were up during the start of the 3.x era, there would be no 3PP either even WITH the more open OGL. Throw in that WOTC actually updates the compendium with their errata....and I think 3PP would be looking at a serious challenge...

During 3.x, there really was no difference between a 3.x sourcebook produced by WOTC and a 3PP in terms of how easily it was to integrate the material into an existing campaign...

It took just as much effort to rewrite an encounter with a new CR X monster if said monster was created by WOTC OR a 3PP. Now though?

Not even 5 minutes with the compendium and monster builder....looking at easily 20+ minutes with a handwritten encounter...

 

[Fifth Element]

There are a couple of different ways they could have handled the figures for the loss in their investment. However, its most assuredly gone from their balance sheet, especially with DDI bringing money in.

This doesn't follow. Whether or not DDI is bringing in money has nothing to do with whether they have the Gleemax investment on their balance sheet. Assuming they tracked Gleemax and the DDI investments seperately.

If they did track them seperately, the Gleemax portion should be off the balance sheet by now, written off as a loss. But if they consider their whole online thing to be a single asset, then it might still be there.

Most likely they just declared it as bad debt and have spread it out over a period of years to count against their earnings for tax purposes. which is probably the most useful thing they could do.

That's not what a bad debt is. (A bad debt is a debt owed to you by a customer that goes unpaid.) And as far as taxes go, they may have been able to claim the loss and may not. Tax codes generally have restrictions on how losses can be claimed. I can't claim to be an expert in US corporate tax, though.

There are a bunch of fun and interesting things you can do with bad investments to make your statements look better.

Writing off an investment as a loss makes your statements look worse, not better. If you leave it on the balance sheet, your assets are higher, as it your income.

Considering the Gleemax project was killed multiple years ago, that loss has probably already been put to good use.

Probably. But bear in mind a loss is still a loss, and if you recover 30% of it from a tax write-off (to pick a number out of the air), you'v still lost 70% out of pocket.

 

[BryonD]

Was there ANY 3.x book produced by WOTC that didn't have at least one option for players, i.e. a feat, spell, race, class (prestige or otherwise). Only the monster manuals come to mind and even those had things like the LA races....

I doubt it.
But I also don't see any relevance. The issue at hand was less crunch and more focus on setting and adventures. They *DID* do that.