D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Ahnehnois]

Generally I agree with you on a lot of things but these are broad categories. And if you think Pathfinder is all that different than 3.5 I think you are being too fine grained in your analysis.

My point was more that the people playing them are different (the rules themselves aren't very different).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Meh, they could have gotten the rights from Atari. They would have had to pay for it, but oh well. They should have pony'd up the dough.

Really? Just like that? So long as you have some cash and show up at someone's door, you can buy whatever you want, cause the guy will automatically sell it to you? Interesting business theory you've got there.

 

[Scribble]

Really? Just like that? So long as you have some cash and show up at someone's door, you can buy whatever you want, cause the guy will automatically sell it to you? Interesting business theory you've got there.

Well yeah. To quote Walter White... "Name one thing in this world that isn't negotiable..."

Whether or not the amount would have made any kind of profitable business sense... That's another question.

 

[billd91]

I would like to see 2 or more games officially supported and dont find it to be some unreasonable, unattainable goal either.

Ultimately D&D is a game. Hasbro has lots of games, they dont tell people "sorry no RISK for you... We're only supporting Monopoly now. Play monopoly or your out of luck".

I dont see any reason at all they couldnt have more then one RPG going at once. One for more tactical, powers based gaming and one more old school. Hell add on a full on wargame line too while your at it. Games workshop has some of the worst all around marketing of any company in history (possibly excepting WoTC). Take them on at their own game with a more widely recognized name and get a piece of that market.

OK, there's a huge difference between putting out both Monopoly and Risk and contemplating putting out significantly different, multiple flavors of D&D. The development work on both Monopoly and Risk was done decades ago. Occasionally they receive a facelift in the printed materials and tokens. That's not the case with D&D... unless one of the versions consists of virtually nothing but reprints.

Many games Hasbro puts out are also designed out of house, greatly reducing the amount of in-house work done compared to D&D. And once that development is done, little follow-up is necessary. They print whenever they feel they need to or sales warrant it.

The bottom line is it's a lot easier to put out multiple board games and not worry about spreading your resources too thin to be sustainable.

 

[underfoot007ct]

The real issue is -- are there really just two camps. I for one do not think so. And while if forced to vote I vote 3e over 4e, I would definitely steal ideas from all versions.

...................................... to speak for all sides.

I think we are getting closer to reality here. Even within each edition, we have play-style variation. I was unaware of the number variations, camps as you put it. I wonder just how many camps there really are?

Sadly, I'm not really pleased the direction Next is going, so far it is failing to unite myself. I am beginning to doubt in D&D Next can "unite" even half of us.

 

[timASW]

Really? Just like that? So long as you have some cash and show up at someone's door, you can buy whatever you want, cause the guy will automatically sell it to you? Interesting business theory you've got there.

Yes, they could have bought the rights back. Of course they could have.

The president of Atari wasn't sitting there with a white cat twiddling his thumbs saying "no WoTC you shall not have your IP, mwahaaaaa".

Thats just ridiculous. Atari bought the rights in the first place to make money and if they werent or couldnt produce another game with the license they could have made much more money by selling it back then by sitting on it.

If you knew the first thing about business you would never have tried to suggest otherwise.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sadly, I'm not really pleased the direction Next is going, so far it is failing to unite myself. I am beginning to doubt in D&D Next can "unite" even half of us.

So long as the less-than-half remaining spend enough money to keep the D&D brand operational, that's all that really matters.

"Uniting the fanbase" is halfway just marketing spin anyway. Based upon the easily-bruised gaming populace (many of whom still moan about James Wyatt's "boring parts" comment more than 4 years ago)... they are being more careful about what they say because goodness knows they never hear the end of it when they don't.

But anyone who really thinks WotC will create a game that everyone will love and play is fooling themselves. Not even they believe that. They just don't want to alienate any players with their comments about the game... they'll wait and let the game itself do that when the time comes.

 

[timASW]

OK, there's a huge difference between putting out both Monopoly and Risk and contemplating putting out significantly different, multiple flavors of D&D. The development work on both Monopoly and Risk was done decades ago. Occasionally they receive a facelift in the printed materials and tokens. That's not the case with D&D... unless one of the versions consists of virtually nothing but reprints.

Many games Hasbro puts out are also designed out of house, greatly reducing the amount of in-house work done compared to D&D. And once that development is done, little follow-up is necessary. They print whenever they feel they need to or sales warrant it.

The bottom line is it's a lot easier to put out multiple board games and not worry about spreading your resources too thin to be sustainable.

Actually no its not significantly different. If we're talking an old school feel game and a newer 4e style game that its pretty much exactly the same.

Most of the design work for the old school game WAS done decades ago. And lots of it WAS produced out of house (OGL). All they need is someone competent to go through the books, edit the best bits together, do some new work to tie it all together and then back away.

Keep the 4e team doing 4e.

Have the splat book people trade off products. Rather then doing all 4e or all DDN have them do one, and then the other. Reducing the speed of splat bloat for both systems without reducing the overall work load.

Your professional designers should be capable of putting together adventure modules and new splats for more then one D20 ruleset. Especially considering how many home DM's create stuff for more then 1 system every week or two.

Oh and they do more then facelift Risk. I saw one in barnes and nobles a few months ago that had space bases, water cities and lots of additional rule work. So they do actually re-design parts of that game at least. Not just a basic reskinning.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, they could have bought the rights back. Of course they could have.

The president of Atari wasn't sitting there with a white cat twiddling his thumbs saying "no WoTC you shall not have your IP, mwahaaaaa".

Thats just ridiculous. Atari bought the rights in the first place to make money and if they werent or couldnt produce another game with the license they could have made much more money by selling it back then by sitting on it.

If you knew the first thing about business you would never have tried to suggest otherwise.

I thought the first thing about business was don't spend more money than you're going to take in. "Profitable" is the term, I believe.

And the fact WotC chose NOT to drop a heap of cash on Atari to buy back the rights to D&D video games in order to turn around and spend another heap of cash to actual produce a video game to be released alongside 4E... tells me that "profitable" would probably not be the term used for that endeavor.

I happen to trust the business sense of a company like Wizards of the Coast much more than random people on internet message boards. Call me crazy...

 

[timASW]

I thought the first thing about business was don't spend more money than you're going to take in. "Profitable" is the term, I believe.

And the fact WotC chose NOT to drop a heap of cash on Atari to buy back the rights to D&D video games in order to turn around and spend another heap of cash to actual produce a video game to be released alongside 4E... tells me that "profitable" would probably not be the term used for that endeavor.

I happen to trust the business sense of a company like Wizards of the Coast much more than random people on internet message boards. Call me crazy...

LOL you "trust the business sense of WoTC"? Have you been awake the last few years? Or ANY of the years of their company?

3.0 then immediately 3.5?
giving away their IP to the world for free with the OGL?
The entire marketing campaign of 4e that was so bad it turned off half the player base from even trying their new game?
Then essentials? An attempt to get 3e people back that totally fell flat on its face and doesnt seem to be well liked by a lot of 4e players either.

Oh and advertising their new game 2 years in advance of its coming out, pretty much guaranteeing a nosedive in sales and profits from their existing line in the meantime?

Firing half the designers every single year?

Letting the virtual table top die a sad, unremarked death? (yes I know the tragic story. Get another designer or just license and adapt one of the existing VTT's)

Just which of these "brilliant" business moves gives you so much confidence in them?


Dragon age sold 4 million games at 60$ a pop, most of them also bought the add on for another 50$ thats 110$ X4 million.

You think WoTC could have used another 440 million dollars? Maybe?

And whose to say thats the limit? It was put out by the Baldurs gate company, so clearly they know how to do D&D games and theres no reason to think those guys couldnt have done as good a job or better with a D&D franchise.

And DA had no existing name recognition. You slap a recognized name like D&D on that and you'll get another half million sales, easy. Probably more.

Good video games sell and make a huge profit, AND would have given a bounce to the initial sales of 4e.