You know what would end all of the arguing and fighting?

[Scylla]

From the sounds of things, the next edition of CoC will be a bit of a departure. We'll see if the storm hits.

Boom, I hear thunder.

 

[Transformer]

I grow weary of this analogy stomping. There is no perfect analogy, admittedly. But the fact remains: companies support multiple products in every field under the sun. (If Apple behaved like that, they'd never have developed the iPad because they'd be too busy supporting their iMac or OS—and for the love of Pete, don't tell me the computer business is a different business model, etc.) I cannot accept that Wizards, the largest RPG company with the deepest pockets and biggest staff, couldn't support two editions simultaneously.

I already said in my most recent post that some RPG companies support multiple systems at once. They do it with very small staffs which only make a few of the most lucrative possible supplements for each system. So certainly it can be done, but that system is nowhere near as stable or as lucrative as making hundreds of supplements for only one system which 70% of all RPG players play. No doubt it isn't lucrative enough for Hasbro, and so Wizards has no real options but to try and unite everyone with one system again.

Besides, this isn't a thread about supporting multiple systems. This a thread specifically about supporting every past edition of D&D at once. That is a fool's errand. TSR-era editions have no market share; no amount of continued support or new advertising would bring back anywhere near enough people to justify continued support for them.

As for supporting only 3rd and 4th edition, that's marginally more plausible. But the fact of the matter is, most people who might've regularly bought new 3rd edition books have moved on to Pathfinder and are uninterested in Wizards' products. Just supporting 4th edition would almost certainly be more lucrative, and evidently just supporting 4th edition for a few more years was deemed not lucrative enough. So no, supporting 3rd and 4th at once isn't a viable option either.

We can argue about whether it's wise for them to do so, or whether it's the best investment of their cash, or even the degree of creative support they could provide, but to say it's impossible because they don't have the staff or resources is, IMHO, ridiculous.

No one said they simply don't have the staff or resources. The question of whether they could physically manage, with existing cash flow, to support 2 or 6 different editions at once for a year is totally irrelevant. The question is whether they could do so and churn out a profit that's reasonably close to what they saw in the 3rd edition era, the profit they and Hasbro want. The answer is no; the only thing that can manage that is a new edition which unites the fanbase.

Now, if 5th edition fails to unite the fanbase, then Wizards may have to settle for supporting multiple systems going forward (5e, renewed support for 4e, and a third new D&D system perhaps). But it would, in fact, be a matter of settling. If they want one last shot at the kind of profits they used to have, a new edition is their one and only choice.

Call of Cthulhu comes pretty darn close.

I mis-typed. I only meant to say that it's not possible to make a single RPG which is backwards-compatible with every edition of D&D. I don't know about Call of Cthulu.

 

[Scylla]

For my part—the OP may differ—I never envisioned WotC supporting all editions. I see them supporting a cleaned up 2e and a "4.5e" and then later, after suitable development, releasing a brand new edition (which could be 2+ years from now). So for my part, I'm taking about them supporting two editions at once.

Now, if 5th edition fails to unite the fanbase, then Wizards may have to settle for supporting multiple systems going forward (5e, renewed support for 4e, and a third new D&D system perhaps). But it would, in fact, be a matter of settling. If they want one last shot at the kind of profits they used to have, a new edition is their one and only choice.

On this we can largely agree, my friend. But I fear that's a great deal to ask of any edition.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not saying it IS a good market, just that there IS a market, and potential revenue, so assuming that it's a bad financial move, or stating it would be too costly without anything to back that up is just as invalid.

First off, I wasn't really addressing you, specifically - I was just spring-boarding off your statement. Any "you" I may have said was meant in the general sense, not the Scribble-specific. Sorry if I confused there.

Often enough we see folks set up long supports for ideas they think WotC should carry out, apparently stunned that things are not as obvious to WotC as to them/us. These constructions usually hinge on "There is a market!" My point was merely that the existence of the market is not sufficient - the market must be of sufficient size. If it is not of sufficient size, you will not see business action.

And that, honestly, is the difference: there is some support for the idea that the market is too small - the perceived behavior is consistent with it being too small. Your other options are usually going to be "there is some other business issue in the way" (which, honestly, is congruent with there being insufficient market - a large enough revenue overcomes most business issues) or some form of, "We are smarter than WotC at the business".

To my way of thinking, Occam's Razor argues against the latter.

 

[D'karr]

I think that a Global Thermonuclear War would be the answer to the OP question.

<Joshua Electronic Voice>Do you want to play a gaaame?</end Joshua Electronic Voice>

 

[Scribble]

First off, I wasn't really addressing you, specifically - I was just spring-boarding off your statement. Any "you" I may have said was meant in the general sense, not the Scribble-specific. Sorry if I confused there.

No worries- I wasn't upset or anything.

Often enough we see folks set up long supports for ideas they think WotC should carry out, apparently stunned that things are not as obvious to WotC as to them/us. These constructions usually hinge on "There is a market!" My point was merely that the existence of the market is not sufficient - the market must be of sufficient size. If it is not of sufficient size, you will not see business action.

And that, honestly, is the difference: there is some support for the idea that the market is too small - the perceived behavior is consistent with it being too small. Your other options are usually going to be "there is some other business issue in the way" (which, honestly, is congruent with there being insufficient market - a large enough revenue overcomes most business issues) or some form of, "We are smarter than WotC at the business".

To my way of thinking, Occam's Razor argues against the latter.

I see the point, but... I think there is more too it then that. I find it hard to believe for instance that supporting multiple editions (even if only with adventures, and occasional source material) would be less profitable then board games?

Obryn (I think it was Obryn) brought up the idea of "forced obsolescence" which I think is interesting, and could be another factor unconsidered...

Now I don't know if I'd go so far as to say forced... But maybe the numbers have always shown that edition changes are more profitable-

So the question is, how long can that policy keep working (especially with a product that doesn't really go obsolete?)

So it could just be we've never been at a point before where it made sense...

I don't have any numbers one way or the other, so yeah maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Evenglare]

well what about liscensing. They can liscense their stuff out to different companies. Paizo was doing dragon and Dungeon, MWP made FANTASTIC dragonlance products. Then wizards PULLed the cord and began doing all of this work them selves. Or in some cases saying "GIMME THAT BACK IT'S MINE " for Dragonlance and have done -nothing- but gut material from it. There IS a large fanbase for dragonlance, and a very dedicated fanbase who would have loved to see the game being supported. There ARE ways to do this stuff. Liscensing , free lancers, having older editions print on demand (which is pretty great now). How about feature things from fan sites like athas.org, or dlnexus.

I honestly don't believe that the man power isnt there, and money is too tight. I believe that hasbro has their new toy and they dont want to let anyone else play with it. That's why the GSL came about, and that's why the pdfs were pulled in a knee jerk reaction. They dont know how to manage a market that is based on it's players.