Obective look at WotC's history with D&D

[Shemeska]

2008 (ish) - WOTC starts the DDI - the single most profitable RPG product ever outside of maybe novel lines. Currently with a shade over 70 000 subscribers, it is drawing in money that no single RPG product can even come close to matching.

Of course, I don't think this one will pass without comment.

For having sunk multiple tens of millions on its development, I'd assume that it hasn't come remotely close to expectations of profit.

 

[Hussar]

I was under the impression that the forum counter that showed who joined DDI incremented when you joined, but didn't reduce when you stopped subscribing.

So they have 70,000+ people who ever subscribed, at some point, for atleast a month. Who knows what the actual number is. I doubt WotC would say.

This has been verified more than a few times as "current subscribers."

 

[Hussar]

For having sunk multiple tens of millions on its development, I'd assume that it hasn't come remotely close to expectations of profit.

Yes, because no one ever writes off a loss...

I think my point here is proven nicely though. You could try to have an "objective" look at WOTC history, but, only so long as it is 100% negative.

Unless, of course, it happened between 1999 and 2003, then it's safe to say they did something good. That's far enough back in history, and, of course, allows the OGL evangelists to continue banging their particular drum.

But, admit that WOTC might have done something well? Oh, hell no. Nothing WOTC ever touches must ever gain any praise. WOTC is teh evil corporation and must never, ever do anything right.

Hey, Shemeska, point me to another RPG product that is pulling in about 6 million dollars a year.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Yes, because no one ever writes off a loss...

<snip>

Hey, Shemeska, point me to another RPG product that is pulling in about 6 million dollars a year.

I'd bet that the Pathfinder core book has pulled in that much (so long as you write off the loss of printing, paying for art, distribution, time paid to authors during development, etc.)



It's a nasty picture you paint, Hussar, with people ignoring some facts and focusing on others to suit their agenda. Course, it goes both ways.

 

[Eridanis]

Hussar - your bitterness is unbecoming. Cool it.

And as a note in general, it's not REQUIRED that every thread about D&D turn into an edition war.

 

[Fifth Element]

For having sunk multiple tens of millions on its development, I'd assume that it hasn't come remotely close to expectations of profit.

Once again, we're looking for objective facts here. Please provide your source for the development costs.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

But, admit that WOTC might have done something well? Oh, hell no. Nothing WOTC ever touches must ever gain any praise. WOTC is teh evil corporation and must never, ever do anything right.

I'll praise the OGL. Best D&D-related thing WotC ever did. Re-printing the 1e AD&D books may be #2.

 

[Umbran]

It can be difficult to be objective on this matter for a very simple reason - our information on management decisions is fragmentary, at best. We don't see the decisions, we see the results of the decisions, and then infer the decisions from them. Needless to say, that's an error prone process, and tends to play up the role of "big ticket" results, and downplay the far more numerous workaday decisions that get things out the door.

 

[prosfilaes]

3) Returned the brand to visual media. Regardless of what you think of the movies' quality, this is a good thing.

I don't see why. The Dragonlance movie in particular took what could have been a valuable property for movies and made it so that no one is likely to ever make a movie from the Dragonlance Chronicles. The D&D name will survive the movies, but I don't see how it was helped by the association.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't see why. The Dragonlance movie in particular took what could have been a valuable property for movies and made it so that no one is likely to ever make a movie from the Dragonlance Chronicles. The D&D name will survive the movies, but I don't see how it was helped by the association.

1) There is no IP so radioactive that someone in Hollywood won't consider making a film of it. If nothing else, someone with an ego will say, "THEY screwed it up, but I can really do something with it! Especially with ___________ as my budget!" Or- like Marvel has done- they could file the numbers off and do something recognizably similar to the source material without using the source names.

2) Even if nobody wants to do a Dragonlance movie ever again, that is not the only setting in D&D's stable. Planescape, Eberron & DarkSun are all quite compelling and unique settings, for instance, and could be quite compelling on-screen.

3) The movies kept D&D's name in view, if nothing else. Having your name known in Hollywood is an asset in and of itself.

4) Hollywood isn't the only game in town. Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall" got made into a movie in India. Not big budget, not a blockbuster...but relatively faithful to the IP.