What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[Dannyalcatraz]

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not slandering marketers or even bad mouthing them. I don't think marketing folks are Evil, maybe Chaotic Neutral (with Evil tendencies) but, they are efficient. While I don't agree with their tactics or the means, it is the most widely accepted business practice for product development and very unlikely to be replaced anytime soon.

I consider myself to be LCGN.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Mark - I think WotC is done with PDFs, they got burned pretty hard on the pirate market.

I think that they set themselves up to fail in the PDF market - charging full hardcover prices for their PDFs was a mistake.

I suspect that the Pathfinder PDFs are doing just fine, but they are reasonably priced, and only have watermarking, not DRM.

In theory WotC did not want inexpensive PDFs to compete with book sales, instead they made piracy more attractive. (I also doubt that PDFs would have placed much drain on book sales - I know that I have both books and PDFs for Pathfinder material.)

There are two main reason I see that WotC won't backtrack (plus a bonus secondary reason).

1) Marketing - Hasbro is the #1 seller of toys in North America and quite possibly the world. If you've noticed, they re-release successful lines (Transformers, GI Joe, My Little Pony, etc) about every 4 - 7 years. As WotC is a wholly owned subsidiary thereof, it makes sense that they too would follow this business model.
2) Money - following on the coat tales of 1 above, the reason for this is continued positive cash flow and a replenishing revenue stream.

B) Pride - I can't imagine any company going back to an older product other than Coca-Cola, and even they balked at it for a long time (New Coke was out and in production for 3 years before it was finally pulled completely.) Newer is always better in marketing regardless of proof to the contrary, that's why we have those nifty catch phrases like "shifting the paradigm", "wave of the future", "redefining style/class/precision/etc. and "raising the bar". Marketing research folks are a sad combination of yes men and scientists, however, they are for the most part, VERY effective at either guessing the next trend or forcing it upon you without you noticing. Either way, they are the rudder what steers the boat. And when it's all said and done, if the first two reasons are covered, then they can be forgiven by the board of directors.

I actually think that B is the major reason, along with one not shown - Control of Product Identity. There were WotC folks who thought that the OG and D20 Licenses allowed too much third party material to dilute their brand. (I disagree, but....)

Going back to 3.5 and the open licenses that fueled it is unattractive if you consider it dilution rather than reinforcement of the brand. The problem is that they were trying to put a genie back into its bottle, and it did not want to cooperate.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not slandering marketers or even bad mouthing them. I don't think marketing folks are Evil, maybe Chaotic Neutral (with Evil tendencies) but, they are efficient. While I don't agree with their tactics or the means, it is the most widely accepted business practice for product development and very unlikely to be replaced anytime soon.

Oddly enough, I think that much of 4e's birthing problems could have been avoided by leaving marketing in the hands of Marketing - letting the design team wing it on their own is part of what made the changeover seem so insulting to those who still liked the older engine.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oddly enough, I think that much of 4e's birthing problems could have been avoided by leaving marketing in the hands of Marketing - letting the design team wing it on their own is part of what made the changeover seem so insulting to those who still liked the older engine.

I couldn't agree more- mistakes were made that would have gotten marketing professionals fired.

 

[Lanefan]

What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

Mostly that Paizo has already taken 3.5's stuff - without even bothering to kill it first.

Lanefan

 

[Thunderfoot]

I think that they set themselves up to fail in the PDF market - charging full hardcover prices for their PDFs was a mistake.
I suspect that the Pathfinder PDFs are doing just fine, but they are reasonably priced, and only have watermarking, not DRM.
In theory WotC did not want inexpensive PDFs to compete with book sales, instead they made piracy more attractive. (I also doubt that PDFs would have placed much drain on book sales - I know that I have both books and PDFs for Pathfinder material.)

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was WotC or Hasbro that didn't understand that PDF is not hardcover. The folks at WotC keep saying that Hasbro doesn't run the show, but those meeting notes they used to print showed me otherwise. Not that they micro-managed, but that the had an eye on things... Without being there, it would be hard to speculate who made the decision and why, but hindsight being what it is - it was a bone headed move.

I actually think that B is the major reason, along with one not shown - Control of Product Identity. There were WotC folks who thought that the OG and D20 Licenses allowed too much third party material to dilute their brand. (I disagree, but....)
Going back to 3.5 and the open licenses that fueled it is unattractive if you consider it dilution rather than reinforcement of the brand. The problem is that they were trying to put a genie back into its bottle, and it did not want to cooperate.

That would still fall under 1 & 2 for me, but it's really just mincing words. You're quite right the OGL was somebody's personal target and they were very effective in killing it off for 4E.

Oddly enough, I think that much of 4e's birthing problems could have been avoided by leaving marketing in the hands of Marketing - letting the design team wing it on their own is part of what made the changeover seem so insulting to those who still liked the older engine.
The Auld Grump

I'm not sure that the design team had all that much to do with it. Having been there and watching the whole thing at GenCon, it seemed to me like it was kind of dropped in their lap. The presentation was moved once and was an hour late. Then at the "Q&A" (such as it was) it seemed that some of the key questions outside of design were never really discussed, there was even some debate on the release date and the inclusion of the OGL (something they said would be included at GenCon). It seemed like it was as if while they were leaving someone said, "Oh, by the way, while you're at GenCon, make sure you announce the new edition that's being released next year, okay? We'll pack some freebie hand out stuff for you so it will be a smooth announcement. Thanks."

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

2) Money - following on the coat tales of 1 above, the reason for this is continued positive cash flow and a replenishing revenue stream.

B) Pride - I can't imagine any company going back to an older product other than Coca-Cola, and even they balked at it for a long time (New Coke was out and in production for 3 years before it was finally pulled completely.) Newer is always better in marketing regardless of proof to the contrary, that's why we have those nifty catch phrases like "shifting the paradigm", "wave of the future", "redefining style/class/precision/etc. and "raising the bar". Marketing research folks are a sad combination of yes men and scientists, however, they are for the most part, VERY effective at either guessing the next trend or forcing it upon you without you noticing. Either way, they are the rudder what steers the boat. And when it's all said and done, if the first two reasons are covered, then they can be forgiven by the board of directors.

Is there any evidence D&D has been profitable for WOTC since 4E? It seems to have resulted in a shrinking staff, aimless products (fortune cards, power cards), diminished release schedule, fewer revenue streams (the miniatures line), a fractured community, a damaged brand, etc. When you've alienated three quarters of your customers it's time to set aside ego and give people what they want.

This seems a lot like New Coke. Releasing 5E would be like Coke, 3 years after releasing New Coke, releasing "Newer Coke! Since you loved New Coke so much". I can't imagine how marketing would have any credibility in proposing Newer Coke when the off-brand is doing so well by blatantly stealing the idea the marketing department thought needed replaced.

Pathfinder, 4E and the instant nostalgia for 3.5 have made the 3.5 brand very strong. Nothing WOTC could do could match match the existing affection gamers have for 3.5. Call it "Classic 3.5 Edition", "3E Renaissance Edition", "3E Reborn". Gamers would eat that up. WOTC would immediately solve its image problem.

 

[Thunderfoot]

And go broke trying to compete with Paizo. No, if people are actually looking for a re-release of 3.X, they have very little understanding of business. When 2E came out it was close enough to 1E that no one complained.
When 3E came out there was just as much flak as there was when 4E came out. And as far as a "3/4 of your customer base" that number is no where near correct.

The fact is 4E brought in as many old players as was lost, if anything it was a turn over more than an actual shift, so, no I don't buy it. The shrinking staff statement is incorrect, WotC did not have their annual Christmas layoffs this year. The last time that happened 3E came out. Likewise the diminished release schedule also ushered in 3E, so if anything that is stronger evidence that a new edition is in the works rather than the failing of WotC.

While I am no fan of 4E by any stretch of the imagination, from what I could tell at GenCon, since 4Es release, the tourneys were still manned, the products still sold and there were still lines into WotCs booth. What is evident is more of the "new grognards" (ie 3.X fanboys(for lack of a better term)) were hanging out at the Paizo booth. More telling was the number of retro clones that were available and selling, which means interest in OD&D, BECMI, 1eAD&D and 2eAD&D were more prevalent than ever. Or, more to the point, 3.X edition isn't the "Holy Grail" that some folks seem to think it is.

As to the question is there any evidence to 4e was profitable, I am unsure as the quarterly WotC financial reports are no longer posted on-line.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

Mostly that Paizo has already taken 3.5's stuff - without even bothering to kill it first.

Lanefan

Hell, Paizo cast True Resurrection on 3.5's corpse and polished the sword and armor in the process.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y'know...I can't say Pathfinder has really supplanted 3.5Ed- or Arcana Evolved- in my heart. Just sayin'.

 

[delericho]

There's nothing stopping WotC from going back to 3.5e as such. However...

- By the time 4e was released, the product line for 3.5e was really played out. The last few products seemed really tired, sales were dropping, and there really didn't seem to be much that they could sell... in large numbers anyway.

- A lot of 4e fans are fans precisely because of the vast differences with 3.5e. Going back would quickly and effectively alienate those fans.

- A lot of the 3.5e fans have moved over to Pathfinder, and won't be easily won back. It's not impossible, but bear in mind that WotC need a lot of sales to make something worth their while.

And I don't agree that WotC could support multiple editions concurrently. The big problem here is that that leads to them competing with themselves, so instead of having one product that sells enough copies, they have two that are both failures. And my gut feeling is that D&D sales (both 4e and late 3.5e) are just barely enough to support the line, and no more. This would certainly explain the vastly reduced release schedule of late - books that were just barely doing well enough are now more expensive and so not worth doing, while the DDI has heavily canibalised sales of the 'crunch' books that used to be the bigger sellers.

Basically, I'm pretty sure moving back to 3.5e would mean the end of 4e, and I think that would be a losing proposition. (Though I'm not at all convinced 5e would be a good idea either, nor indeed continuing with 4e. D&D-RPG may just be too small for a company the size of WotC/Hasbro to bother with.)