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

[DEFCON 1]

Fair enough. That said, Paizo has decided that it is a worthwhile endeavor to start up their own MMO, using their (presumably lesser) resources and their (definitely less valuable) IP.

Oh, don't misunderstand me... I think there's a lot to be gained by releasing a video game based upon your property (same as releasing a series of novels or whatnot). You're absolutely right that if Paizo thinks making an MMO is a worthwhile endeavor and a good use of their resources... then they should try it.

But my comments were referring back to what timASW originally said, which was that one of 4E's failures was because they didn't have a video game using the 4E ruleset being released alongside the RPG's launch. As though there's EVER been an RPG who had a book and a video game released at the same time using the same ruleset. Heck... even this Paizo MMO is only now starting development several years after Pathfinder's release and having been proven a success. I doubt anyone at Paizo was clamoring to put together the video game while they were still in their open beta playtest several years ago.

 

[Yora]

Yes, and when not enough people buy it to justify the resources that go into them, you stop producing them.
Small companies produce their stuff even if it's just enough to break even because they enjoy working on it. But Wizards is owned by a huge public corporation. They make D&D because somewhere higher up people have decided that D&D has a good profit margin for them.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Actually I didn't buy the 4e books (or know anyone who did). I read them carefully first, which is what I did with all D&D books before my local bookstore closed.

You definitely have a knowledge of 4e. My primary point was the initially 4e sale for the core books was much better than expected. The core books when through several printing, IMO, giving them the impression the public accepted 4e with vigor. WOTC does not release exact sale numbers, so we will never know for sure when 4e sales began slacking.

The 4e release was actually what got my to buying a whole load of great rpg books, just not 4e ones; the secondhand market was fantastic around that time and there were a number of interesting new games.

And I'm definitely not a grognard.

(I do suspect the early 4e sales figures were fairly strong; just short-lived).

The Trouble must have started after the first year, essentials was a response to the many complaints of 4e. After the first few Essentials books (IIRC) the next few had their release dates pushed back, then a few just vanished off the release list.

I believe the old school crowd, those which never purchased 4e, maybe dislike 3e, have a very incorrect impression of the typical 4e player. 4e character are not super heroes with capes & masks.

 

[Yora]

I'm a long time 3rd Edition player and it still seemed to me that way.

 

[timASW]

Do you even know the name of "the Baldurs gate company"?

The company is called 'Bioware'. And THAT was all the "existing name recognition" players needed to know that Dragon Age: Origins (or, as Bioware referred to it "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate") was probably going to be good.

And do you know WHY Bioware was not making another Dungeons & Dragons video game? It's because THEY ALREADY DID IT. TWICE. Once with the Baldur's Gate series, and once with Neverwinter Nights. And Bioware specifically said they were no longer interested in working with another company's IP and wanted to create their own... which is why Mass Effect and Dragon Age were created, rather than going back for another NN sequel or Baldur's Gate 3.

So no... WotC WAS NOT going to spend the money to buy the video game rights to D&D off of Atari... WAS NOT going to get Bioware to make a new video game for them... and WAS NOT going to earn 440 million dollars through any sale of "D&D 4E" video game. And to believe otherwise is to not have any idea of how the video game industry actually works.

Once again... yes, I trust the business sense of Wizards of the Coast much more than some random dude who apparently didn't even know the name of the largest RPG video game company in the country (or 'countries' as it were, as Bioware is mainly based in Edmonton).

LOL WoTC are a bunch of morons who have made nothing but one big blunder after another.

Of course I knew the name bioware. I have about 6 of their games sitting on my shelves right now. But NO the average game consumer does not follow company names very much. Every studio has some good games and some stinkers and everyone knows it.

They almost certainly COULD have gotten bioware to do it. They said they werent interested in working with another companies IP right after the rights sold out from under them to Atari. You think maybe they were trying to save a little face publicly?

And most importantly in any business EVERYTHING is negotiable. There are other good companies making great games as well. They could have gotten it done and made that money.

Now you can go out of your way to be defeatist and assume a simple thing like getting a video game made for a large franchise thats done ALL THE FREAKING TIME was for some reason completely impossible for WoTC.

But making that argument only goes even farther to show what morons they are when it comes to business. And makes you look like an apologist for failure and not a rational, thinking human being.

Mod Note: New posters sometime stumble on the civility rules around here. Please cut a little slack, until the message gets through. Thanks, all. ~Umbran

 

[timASW]

There's nothing wrong with going all in, especially with a great hand, but it doesn't have the same payoff if you then fold.

Its only going all in if you have a chance to win the pot.

That was more like flashing your hand and then trying to bluff.

 

[timASW]

Where did you get your info about 4e? WOTC marketing was so poor that The sales of the 4e PHB were 'above expectations'. Soon aftet launch, the 3 core books went in to a 'reprinting' .

I suspect the only people who never purchased the 4e books early on, are the grognards who never purchased 3e nor 3.5. either.

"Above expectations" is nothing but marketing speak. You find out how many you actualy sold and then leak a number of "expected sales" below that to make it look like you over performed. Its pretty much marketing 101 when it comes to product releases.

Although from what I recall WoTC couldnt even get the 2nd part of that equation right and just claimed without any supporting facts whatsoever that they were "above expectations".

You would also be completely wrong about the "grognards" cheap shot. Out of 3 dozen or so gamers I know in vegas only 3 of them bought the 4e books. One of them ME. And I'm on the only one of the group who played anything before 3e.

**side note, i gave mine away on CL after trying a few sessions of the new game.

 

[Mark CMG]

Its only going all in if you have a chance to win the pot.

That was more like flashing your hand and then trying to bluff.

By most accounts of which I am aware, D&D had more of the market through use of the OGL than they had since the days when they were the first and one of the few RPGs on the market at all. They only gave away that advantage again by turning their back on the business model that got them there and re-instituting the isolationist policies that saw that market slip away in the 90s. Now they are trying a new approach to bringing everyone back into the fold. Whether that will work as well as the OGL business model remains to be seen. The OGL model remains a very strong one without them being on board. Now they will be competing with their own business model. Now they are going all in against a strong hand that they know they do not hold. We will see what happens.

 

[Mark CMG]

I suspect the only people who never purchased the 4e books early on, are the grognards who never purchased 3e nor 3.5. either.

You don't believe that the half of the market that WotC lost to PF, most of whom never purchased 4E, were previously 3.0/3.5 users?

 

[timASW]

Can't XP you, but I agree entirely.

WotC's goal should be to sell enough books to pay their salaries, the printing costs, the overhead, and a tiny cherry on top. If selling 3 editions does that, then they should do it. If only selling the latest attempt at the platonic ideal of D&D makes the most money, than do that.

Now which answer is correct.... I have no idea. For me, I wish it was the plan that gave me the option to buy the most books I like.

You both seem to think that as long as the company breaks even or makes a miniscule profit Hasbro will keep it open for ever.

Thats delusional IMO. Hasbro isnt looking for a "break even" or a "tiny cherry". Their looking for a healthy and respectable profit margin and if they dont get it consistantly then sooner or later they will absolutely shelve the product