Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[GreyLord]

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.

Overall, revisions make for a quick profit, but kill the line. That's what I think will eventually happen with D&D...and what we may be seeing the beginnings of right now. Dancey, much maligned...I think has a right call in someways on the situation in the market. (and no, I'm NOT Dancey, but I think he was one of the brightest guys involved with 3e...OGL was PURE genius).

I don't think it has to be that way...but WotC's marketing stinks right now.

Yes, believe it or not...your D&D stuff are BOOKS. If you buy a PHB, it's a book. If you buy dice...sure it could qualify as a toy...but overall, D&D is a book brand.

LotR is an excellent example...because they DON'T want to isolate the 100 million fans. So they market the heck out of it. They create books by Mr. Tolkien (Christopher) based around the writings of the books (ironically there are MORE books on the history of the writing of LotR then there are in the LotR). You make GOOD (key being the word good) movies that draw lots of crowds and draw excitement about the brand so you sell more books. You make boardgames and other accessory items that are unnecessary, but boost up the fringe interest in the key product. You use the product to produce other products (LotR monopoly, LotR risk, LotR video games, LotR action figures...etc.). The key is to use your marketing to sale more of the key product, whilst making money off the key product and it's various branches at the same time...but NOT change the key product.

As above, they could temporarily boost sales by doing a complete rewrite with up to date modern prose, modern writing styles, etc..., and probably make MORE money...but it would isolate a lot of the people who may be interested in the original but not picking it up. The key is to INTEREST that other 90 million who would NOT buy a reboot or rewrite and FAR outnumber those who have.

If you did do a revision however...the key then is to keep the 10 million who bought into it, to keep buying into it...and that means more stuff. For books, then yes...you keep publishing MORE books. Star Wars makes an extended universe...and KEEPS extending that universe. You don't go and destroy the original trilogy with remakes (well...Lucas may still remake and create NEW Star Wars movies with modern movie techniques...but as of yet has simply done touch ups and slight changes in the OT...and that STILL upsets many a person) and start over typically.

So yes...if it takes 300 books a year, then that's what you do. Of course, WotC as a book publisher IS selling quite a number of books in their D&D lines...and they AREN'T rulebooks...most of it is actually fiction. They do support the book line...but there's more to it.

Marketing is key...and the marketing from WotC really stinks. Hasbro has normally had better marketing, and I'm wondering what has happened to the good marketers they had for other lines which they put in charge of the WotC line. It's hard to get someone in there that doesn't get polluted (yes, I know many gamers are probably wanting to give me the finger right now) by the old guard in how to promote the brand. It's like they forget everything on how to make good choices and simply market it, instead of what they have been doing (IMO).

Revisions are typically BAD for business. It alienates your hardcore base who then spread the bad word, it fractures the community, and it can bring on a bad reputation...AND that's even before the reviewers get a hold of it and people know whether it's any good or not. Revisions are risky. People say if you don't take risks you don't get any profit...but there comes a point where it starts to get ridiculous. I think 4e was PERILOUSLY CLOSE to that mark as far as marketing goes. I think it was a miracle almost that it didn't flop outright because people were so sick of what they saw as a money grab, or whatever they wanted to call it for being released so soon after 3.5 edition.

I think there's been a serious problem with WotC marketing for the past 3 years...and I think it could be getting worse. It will become VERY apparent in the next 3-5 years if I'm correct...and that could spell MELTDOWN.

Even the most popular brands can suffer from this. Star Trek was always marketable...but when they did something that fans believed was trying to rewrite what Star Trek was...it just about literally killed the series. Star Trek Enterprise wasn't a bad show...but it failed for all the reasons that Revisions with bad marketing fail for.

Now after something fails...nostalgia kicks in...and people want more...and that want get's worse as it's not available. A reboot sometimes can be the best thing to happen and allows a LOT more freedom. A careful reboot can be more successful than a revision.

I don't see D&D dead in the grave...I think the Red box shows some promise with it's campaign, ad, and influx in the mass stores...but the jury is still out on whether the WotC managers can deliver on what they promised Hasbro with it's success. I'm thinking that it will be successful to a degree...but fail the final test for Hasbro.

So...another loooooooooooong post from me. Hopefully that explains the point even more...and answers the questions on how many books to sell. The original post shows WHAT WotC NEEDS to do. I expect they won't and that D&D will come out with a 5e and then die off...at least for a while.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Overall, revisions make for a quick profit, but kill the line.

Then how exactly is D&D still in production and profitable after 30+ years?

As the old man says in Holy Grail... "I'm not dead!"

 

[billd91]

Then how exactly is D&D still in production and profitable after 30+ years?

As the old man says in Holy Grail... "I'm not dead!"

But it has got a user base that's broken up into haphazardly overlapping and non-overlapping segments, some of which are now actively served by a competitor. That's the outcome WotC invited by taking on the risk of publishing new editions. The question remains, has that risk been worth it? Will that answer change in the long run?

 

[Sunseeker]

Overall, revisions make for a quick profit, but kill the line. That's what I think will eventually happen with D&D...and what we may be seeing the beginnings of right now. Dancey, much maligned...I think has a right call in someways on the situation in the market. (and no, I'm NOT Dancey, but I think he was one of the brightest guys involved with 3e...OGL was PURE genius).

People have been saying that revisions will kill the line since they came out with 2e. Yes, revisions WILL cost them some players, but it will also garner them others. Players who are unhappy with the current system may become entralled with the next, likewise, they may not. Predicting market trends is a difficult thing to do.

I don't think it has to be that way...but WotC's marketing stinks right now.

I honestly don't recall a time when WotC had good marketing, but that's a bit beside the point. They are a niche market, their goal isn't like that of WoW and to get as many kids and their parents into the game as possible, but to continue to support and be supported by a steady line of fans.

Yes, believe it or not...your D&D stuff are BOOKS. If you buy a PHB, it's a book. If you buy dice...sure it could qualify as a toy...but overall, D&D is a book brand.

D&D is not a book. D&D is a gaming system that is published in books. LOTR is a book. What's the difference you ask? LOTR is done. Bilbo had his adventure in The Hobbit, Frodo had his in LOTR. Their adventures happened, their cast came and went, their deed is done.

D&D however, is a system for having adventures, so long as one can have adventures, one can utilize D&D. The particular format it comes in is largely irrelevent so long as it is readily accessible. Before the age of computing, this was in the form of books, and though WotC is a little late on catching the boat, the digital age is now upon them and they are moving into that.

LotR is an excellent example...because they DON'T want to isolate the 100 million fans. So they market the heck out of it. They create books by Mr. Tolkien (Christopher) based around the writings of the books (ironically there are MORE books on the history of the writing of LotR then there are in the LotR). You make GOOD (key being the word good) movies that draw lots of crowds and draw excitement about the brand so you sell more books. You make boardgames and other accessory items that are unnecessary, but boost up the fringe interest in the key product. You use the product to produce other products (LotR monopoly, LotR risk, LotR video games, LotR action figures...etc.). The key is to use your marketing to sale more of the key product, whilst making money off the key product and it's various branches at the same time...but NOT change the key product.

Which again, illustrates the key difference between LOTR and D&D and why they are NOT the same. Frodo will always be Frodo, his description in given all through the LOTR series. Gandalf will always be Gandalf and Legolas will always be Legolas. Everyon can generally agree that they have a fairly fixed look about them.

Which is NOT the case with D&D. There are many intrepid halflings, and there are a multitude of wizards, and a variety of elven archers. They come in all shapes, colors, genders and styles. Each one embodies a particular player. There is no agreed-upon look of how EXACTLY one must look as one of these things, and as such, we cannot simply produce "generic elven hero" toys because what about that guy who wanted to be the slightly tan elf? Or the girl who, because most RPG players are male, gets no figure for herself at all.

As above, they could temporarily boost sales by doing a complete rewrite with up to date modern prose, modern writing styles, etc..., and probably make MORE money...but it would isolate a lot of the people who may be interested in the original but not picking it up. The key is to INTEREST that other 90 million who would NOT buy a reboot or rewrite and FAR outnumber those who have.

Again, you are demostrating the exact difference between a book, and a thing that comes published in books. D&D is a system, not a book. As that system ages, flaws are discovered, improvements are made, errors are fixed. And at some point, these "errata" become so great that they necessitate a whole new publishing. At which point, cool new ideas that were not thought of previously are integrated, perhaps so far to the point as to make it worthy of a new edition.

If you did do a revision however...the key then is to keep the 10 million who bought into it, to keep buying into it...and that means more stuff. For books, then yes...you keep publishing MORE books. Star Wars makes an extended universe...and KEEPS extending that universe. You don't go and destroy the original trilogy with remakes (well...Lucas may still remake and create NEW Star Wars movies with modern movie techniques...but as of yet has simply done touch ups and slight changes in the OT...and that STILL upsets many a person) and start over typically.

But again, Star Wars and D&D are different. Star Wars is a story, within a universe in which many more stories can exist. D&D is a style in which to create playable, interactive stories.

Marketing is key...and the marketing from WotC really stinks. Hasbro has normally had better marketing, and I'm wondering what has happened to the good marketers they had for other lines which they put in charge of the WotC line. It's hard to get someone in there that doesn't get polluted (yes, I know many gamers are probably wanting to give me the finger right now) by the old guard in how to promote the brand. It's like they forget everything on how to make good choices and simply market it, instead of what they have been doing (IMO).

I always wonder how one should define "good choices".
Are 'good choices' ones that cater to new fans, or old?
Are 'good choices' ones that cater to what I, the person defining 'good choices' is? Or are they what some other person is defining them as?

Revisions are typically BAD for business. It alienates your hardcore base who then spread the bad word, it fractures the community, and it can bring on a bad reputation...AND that's even before the reviewers get a hold of it and people know whether it's any good or not. Revisions are risky. People say if you don't take risks you don't get any profit...but there comes a point where it starts to get ridiculous. I think 4e was PERILOUSLY CLOSE to that mark as far as marketing goes. I think it was a miracle almost that it didn't flop outright because people were so sick of what they saw as a money grab, or whatever they wanted to call it for being released so soon after 3.5 edition.

The hardcore base is the minority. They have been and always will be. Look at any major MMO, the "hardcore PVPers" the "hardcore raiders", these guys make up less than 1% of the entire population. And the "hardcore base" is never pleased, and the more you cater to them the less they will be pleased. And games that cater to one, very exclusive sect of what is a very diverse population put people off MUCH faster than games that are open to everyone.

NEVER cater to the "hardcore base". You will paint yourself into a corner and you will never get out.

I think there's been a serious problem with WotC marketing for the past 3 years...and I think it could be getting worse. It will become VERY apparent in the next 3-5 years if I'm correct...and that could spell MELTDOWN.

You sound like those guys who predict the fall of the United States. The economy is down, less money is being spent and less money is available to spend. Should this trend change, people will show up with more free time, and more free cash, and hobby activies will grow.

Even the most popular brands can suffer from this. Star Trek was always marketable...but when they did something that fans believed was trying to rewrite what Star Trek was...it just about literally killed the series. Star Trek Enterprise wasn't a bad show...but it failed for all the reasons that Revisions with bad marketing fail for.

Star Trek Enterprise was pretty dumb I admit. Kinda fun, but dumb, and yes, you had to kind of tune out all the rest of the Star Trek universe to enjoy it. But I hardly think that killed interest in Star Trek. That single series? Sure. Star Trek as a whole just kept on trucking.

So...another loooooooooooong post from me. Hopefully that explains the point even more...and answers the questions on how many books to sell. The original post shows WHAT WotC NEEDS to do. I expect they won't and that D&D will come out with a 5e and then die off...at least for a while.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

Ah, what "WotC needs to do", what WotC needs to do is make money. They need to make the most money, and if that means selling 3 books to a million people instead of selling 300 books to 10 people, that's what they'll do.

I doubt they're so "mismanaged" as to require the input from either of us.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

WotC needs to continue the grand traditions set from TSR such as ignoring their audience and running themselves bankrupt.

Yeah, remember that?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Overall, revisions make for a quick profit, but kill the line.

Then again, stagnation can kill an RPG line. Many people like expansions. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the growing number of complaints that additional supplments were really stretching. How much more material could they have produced for 3.5 that would reach a wide enough audience to meet the company's needs?

I'm not familiar with the Pathfiner RPG, just their adventures. How many splatbooks have they released?

 

[BryonD]

Revisions are not the problem.

Regardless of individual opinions of the two systems, both 3E and 4E were major revisions. In late 2E the brand was floundering, if revisions were bad 3E would have been the death blow rather than the start of a new "golden age".

And, as much as I'm underwhelmed by 4E's market presence, if you drew a trend line using only late 2E to current 4E as a two point definition, D&D is doing great.

Neither 3E nor 4E hurt D&D just by being revisions.

4E's problem is that they didn't want to dance with the one that brung'em.

 

[GreyLord]

Then again, stagnation can kill an RPG line. Many people like expansions. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the growing number of complaints that additional supplments were really stretching. How much more material could they have produced for 3.5 that would reach a wide enough audience to meet the company's needs?

I'm not familiar with the Pathfiner RPG, just their adventures. How many splatbooks have they released?

Not many.

I believe 5 up to this point...the Core Rulebook, the Bestiary, the Gamemastery book and the Advanced Players Guide. They also have the Bonus Bestiary for 5 dollars...but that's more of a bonus then a splatbook. They have the Bestiary 2 coming out or slated for January.

D&D didn't last for 30 years though...the lastest incarnation has lasted a little less time than the original Starcraft...which is around 13 Years of WotC ownership...and owned by Hasbro for the last 11 years.

TSR was having some serious problems as the D&D staff bearers at the end of 1996...for some of the same reasons that I see problematic with Wizards of the Coast's marketing today.

 

[Filcher]

Yes, believe it or not...your D&D stuff are BOOKS. If you buy a PHB, it's a book. If you buy dice...sure it could qualify as a toy...but overall, D&D is a book brand.

I still disagree with this argument. I think you are mistaking the medium for the message, but this is only my opinion. I do, however, agree with many of your conclusions.

I'm still interested in seeing a discussion on RPG revenue streams that are alternatives to releasing new editions.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

4E's problem is that they didn't want to dance with the one that brung'em.

Your problem was my selling point. I can gaurantee I would not have purchased 4E if it resembled what came before it, since I was just about to tell my players that I no longer wanted to run D&D when the 4E announcement occurred.