What's stopping WOTC from going back to 3.5?

[MerricB]

It's very well worth considering that a major reason a lot of us changed to 4E (and there were a lot of us) is because 3.5E had failed to capture us for the future. For myself, there are significant problems with running higher level 3.5e, and properly preparing 3.5e was more difficult than I had the time to do.

There are things I don't like about 4e, but those things wouldn't be fixed by returning to straight 3.5e: I'd be giving up too much which was a success.

For 5E, my expectation is that it will build on both 4e and 3.5e, whilst becoming its own beast.

Cheers!

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'm not sure about the 3.5>Pathfinder assumption.


Looking at third party publishers, there seem to be few to none working on 3.5 products at this point. All seem to have moved to either Pathfinder or 4e (or both).



While people may play 3.5, I don't think there remains a market for it. I mean, just look at the Tome of Horrors news from yesterday. They COULD have released it as 3.5 instead of Pathfinder. Instead they put in the work to convert it (same with Slumbering Tsar).


This is not to say that these third party publishers can't be wrong, or that WotC might be a different beast....but it certainly seems those who have their companies and salaries on the line are betting on Pathfinder versus 3.5.

 

[zlorf]

i think the market for pretty much flooded to a point where sales were dropping off - not enough demand and enough material (+3rd party) to keep most people happy for there whole lifetime of rpging. Sure they can reprint a new 15th aniversity 3.x edition, and it would sell. Pathfinder are flying the 3.x flag now, but eventually they will also see a decline in sales, at least they have pretty good adventures to backup there products.
Wizards are a company that needs to make money...so they bring out 4e and Online subscription, and like previous editions eventually not profitable to sell.
Go on ebay and buy 3.5 stuff or just online to many sites that pretty much give you the rules you need for free.

Zlorf

 

[rkwoodard]

going back....Lucas

Hello,

They could reprint or provide PDFs again, and that would be cool (for those that want them).

But you would hate it if they made 3.5 their core engine again.

There is no way they would just go back as is.

They would pull a Lucas. They couldn't help themselves from tinkering.

Sure the books would look the same, until you turn to a certain page and BAM, there are rules for Healing Surges. They would try to build in their new ideas as if they had been there all along.

And then we would have another uprising of hate and venom.

rk

 

[Desdichado]

I just want to talk about what I've noticed amongst gamers in my community and the economics of the market. I'll play anything - which is part of the reason I gave up on 4E. Everyone I know seems to hate it. I know like 7 circles of gamers and I just can't find enough 4E players. Some things I've noticed amongst the gamers I know.

Everyone you know probably isn't really very many people. Nor do they seem to be representative of what's going on anywhere else. WotC can't make business decisions based on the casual survey of one guy in one area and the gamers he knows.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Everyone you know probably isn't really very many people. Nor do they seem to be representative of what's going on anywhere else. WotC can't make business decisions based on the casual survey of one guy in one area and the gamers he knows.

Yes, yes, everyone knows that.

But for all you know from your limited perspective, his story is true everywhere except where you game.

True?

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, yes, everyone knows that.

Not they don't. That was his primary evidence for posting his recommendation.

But for all you know from your limited perspective, his story is true everywhere except where you game.

True?

No. I talk to people about gaming in places other than where I game. I read gameblogs. Occasionally I even read threads here.

Not suggesting that that's more "scientific" than his assumptions, but your assertion also wasn't true.

 

[prosfilaes]

When 3E came out there was just as much flak as there was when 4E came out.

That doesn't match my memories. The Internet wasn't as big at the time, and I was playing GURPS, but the local group of D&D players quickly and unanimously switched over, while there's still some dissension in that same group over 3E versus 4e.

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.

I don't buy that; looking at the local D&D Meetup for D&Desque campaigns, I see two Pathfinder, one D&D 3.5 and one D&D 4. Looking at Amazon, the best seller is Pathfinder, and the basic 3.5 books are in the 20-30 range. Looking on LibraryThing, with the exception of a few months in 2008 and 2009, each quarter, more people have added copies of PHB 3.5 to the system then PHB 4. It's slid off recently, with quarter-by-quarter more people adding PHB 1 than PHB 4 to the system. It's not the evergreen older PHBs were. I won't argue that's hard data, but there's a picture being painted.

Or, more to the point, 3.X edition isn't the "Holy Grail" that some folks seem to think it is.

Maybe not the Holy Grail, but it seems decidedly more successful then 4e.

 

[RedTonic]

Unfortunately, it's impossible to do a factual, rigorous financial analysis of WotC. Hasbro does not provide the disaggregated financial reports of their subsidiary for the asking. (I tried.) However, Hasbro itself is doing quite well.

I would be skeptical of any information regarding WotC's sales/revenue gained from interviews with/remarks by their competitors' leadership.

 

[Umbran]

Is there any evidence D&D has been profitable for WOTC since 4E?

We don't have real sales numbers, so we have no direct evidence, either way. However, you don't go on selling a product for years if it isn't making a profit. The question isn't whether it is profitable, but whether it is as profitable as they think it could/should be.

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.

3e had shrinking staff after release (and folks said the same thing about its health, because of it), so that's not indicative of anything. There was some major concern about the health of the minis line back in 3e days. When they had a fast release schedule for 3e, folks accused them of "rules bloating"...

So a bunch of that does not necessarily mean what you think it means. There is a difference between "evidence" and "things that hang together to tell the story I want to tell".

When you've alienated three quarters of your customers it's time to set aside ego and give people what they want.

Do you have evidence that it is "three quarters"? Let's not posit numbers, and then start talking as if those numbers are actually true. We have no idea how many of their players were "alienated".