Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[Filcher]

Just so we're clear: I completely agree that WotC regularly screws up.

But while I agree with the conclusion, I disagree with your argument. If I am understanding you, it seems to boil down to:

D&D is a book
Revising books is bad
therefore
Revising D&D is bad

I might be wrong, but I'd say that WotC isn't a book publisher, but a game publisher whose medium has often been books. We're starting to see them move into the digital realm, in fits and starts and complete blunders, but the medium does seem to be changing.

And while I don't disagree that revising fractures the base, I'm wondering what alternatives exist to drive sales. We get "revisions" when the publisher has exhausted the splat book possibilities. Once a publisher has done a "complete guide" to everything under the sun, how next to sell games? Electronics are designed to break. Videogames get boring. What should RPGs do to drive sales?

Edit: And I'm not making a case for revisions, but honestly asking an open ended question as to what other game publishing models might work.

I read that TOR published 250-300 books a year. For a game publisher to do the same (and honor the "no revisions" thesis) we'd be looking at 25 - 30 new game lines a year, right? If WotC is simply a publisher of books, they are a colossal failure.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

One of my favorite book series, Dresden Files, came out with a new book last year, and let me tell you, I'm still angry about it! I had just finished reading the last one, and they're pumping out new ones already?!

Like, take Lord of the Rings. Imagine if they had revised that book to make a new one, called The Two Buildings or something stupid like that. How much of a naked money grab would that be, I ask you?!

No, WotC should follow every other book publisher and just never publish anything new, ever, until the end of time. That's the only way to be successful.

 

[evildmguy]

From this article

Member Blogs - Board Game Member Blogs

in the comments I read something that I think freaking pinpoints what I think is mismanagement at WotC. From their handling of how they do their electronic stuff (DDI, etc...or the complete failure in MY EYES of the gaming table concept), to how they completely FAIL to market boardgames (no advertising, rely on fans to actually say anything since WotC says nothing, even on their website many times), to their total lack of marketing D&D to anyone but the core players (when was the last time you saw a D&D advertisement on Cable TV for example...maybe the late 80s?).



Don't get me wrong, I disagree with what he stated about D&D 4e, I actually typically play it without a grid or minis (and yes...those who say it can't be done simply don't have the capacity...read imagination, but trying not to slander them...to do that)...BUT I think he's frikken spot on with his analysis of WotC marketing. Those guys don't have a CLUE. You don't alienate a games base (like D&D) by doing not just one (and one sometimes is bad enough to kill the base...look at New Coke vs. Classic...aka...3e vs. the REAL D&D...but it had the opposite effect which also happens and reinvigorates a hobby...like 3e did partially...one million reinvigorated players out of 25 million isn't really a reinvigoration...but it's better than 25,000 players out of 25 million that they had going before 3e)...but THREE FRIKKIN revisions in the past 10 years (some might say 4 with essentials).

Each time you revise something you stand a chance of killing it...and they've done THREE!!!??? (or 4 as I already mentioned depending on who you talk to).

I seriously think Hasbro ignores it's basic marketing that they do with their other toylines...or put idiots in charge of marketing at WotC...

Anyways...back to your typical reading...

I can agree in a the general sense that I don't think they have done well with marketing. As I am their target audience, and do buy their stuff, their marketing dollars are wasted trying to let me know about it. I already do. The only proof I can offer is that WotC hasn't done well in marketing is that DND Encounters attendance went up after the CNN article came out, although attendance has (sadly) died down again.

However, do you have a cite for your numbers? Specifically the number of people playing 2E and 3E? You use 25 million as a number. Where did you get this?

It's my understanding that three revisions in ten years is average and that DND was actually behind the curve of revisions until 3.5 came along. I know that oWoD had three revisions in the 90s. Isn't the latest Gamma World either the sixth or seventh revision since the 80s? I don't have good cites for this but I'm sure it wouldn't be tough to find.

In the end, I agree that they don't market well but am not sure what the rest of your post is saying. Sorry that I need it spelled out.

 

[Umbran]

With brand names, revision is typically bad.

I dunno. Thinking broadly now - "New and Improved" "Now with Extra <stuffyouthinkyouneed>" and "New Formula!!" are staples of the retail world.

Yes, sometimes there are well-known, abysmal failures (New Coke, f'rex). But they also successfully happen all the time. So, they're bad, except when they aren't.

 

[billd91]

I read that TOR published 250-300 books a year. For a game publisher to do the same (and honor the "no revisions" thesis) we'd be looking at 25 - 30 new game lines a year, right? If WotC is simply a publisher of books, they are a colossal failure.

That's an unwarranted logical leap. If WotC were simply a publisher of books, whether or not they published as many as TOR would be immaterial. A publisher doesn't have to be TOR-sized to be a successful publisher of books. They would have to do well with the ones they published, not achieve or exceed the level of a particular other publisher. Is TOR a colossal failure because McGraw-Hill or Random House publishes a lot more each year?

 

[MerricB]

Try telling a car manufacturer they shouldn't come out with new models.

Do you drive a Model T?

Cheers!

 

[renau1g]

Yes, well, you note how quickly one "plays through" a video game, or Settlers of Catan? A single campaign of D&D can take a year, and that may only get a given player the experience of a single class/race combination.

So, 2 to 4 years may be a little quick. But I'd agree with 5 years for RPGs. It is still probably a major win on the cost to entertainment hours ratio.

Well VG's nowaday take what 15 hours for most of them (Fallout and a few others excluded). 5 years isn't bad. Personally, I hope they can always improve the game and while I find 4e the best system for me, there's still a lot I'd like to see cleaned up. Hopefully if they come up with 5e in a couple years I can introduce my boys to it (they're around 3 now) rather than the bloated system 4e will be with another 2 years of supplements.

 

[renau1g]

Try telling a car manufacturer they shouldn't come out with new models.

Do you drive a Model T?

Cheers!

I wish I drove a Model T, I'd be rich

Cars have verifiable improvements to the models, despite their aesthetic changes (which can't be done with edition changes of D&D, some prefer 4e, some PF, some 3e, some 1e). A current Chevy Cruze is better technically than the Chevy Cobalt it replaced, which was better than the Cavalier it replaced.

Not disagreeing they need to put out new editions of RPG's to keep people interested, but this example isn't great.

 

[billd91]

I dunno. Thinking broadly now - "New and Improved" "Now with Extra <stuffyouthinkyouneed>" and "New Formula!!" are staples of the retail world.

Yes, sometimes there are well-known, abysmal failures (New Coke, f'rex). But they also successfully happen all the time. So, they're bad, except when they aren't.

Except that most of these examples aren't really comparable to major changes in an RPG (or novel). If my dishwasher detergent has a more lemony scent or is better at not leaving spots on my glassware, it's not a huge change from my perspective. And the company's not putting that much at risk if they've done their due diligence and can show that the new formula doesn't cause harm to the public. That's not the case with a major overhaul of a game or other item that depends on the aesthetic bond it has with its users. Could you imagine what would happen if, in LotR, Strider were replaced by a guiding hobbit named Trotter? Or if a beloved movie scoundrel's personality was watered down by having a bounty hunter shooting at him first rather than having him take his pre-emptive shot?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Maybe we can all agree the OP was filled with excessive ellipses abuse.