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

[timASW]

They stuck with the OGL model for about eight years and that was without having the mags under their own wing and no DDI. After less than 2 years they were turning toward Essentials and then announcing 5E in less than 3 1/2 years from 4E's release while having the mags under their own wing and having the benefit of DDI, yet PF routinely outsells them now and companies like GR and others producing highly successful OGL-modeled RPGs. That's how WotC looks at the market. I look at the market share the same way WotC looks at it, but I tend to discuss it somewhat differently.

See though (and this is funny considering I was bagging on their business sense for most of the thread) they know how much money is in their bank account.

And if the OGL had actually been helpful for those 8 years they would have done it for 4e too.

So either it wasnt helpful, it actually hurt, or its affect was so negligibly small one way or the other that they couldnt be sure what the effect actually was.


Pathfinders success is if anything indicative of the FAILURE of the OGL. It literally created a huge competitor who picked their pockets for millions of dollars in potential sales.

It was awesome for gamers, and game store owners, and 3rd party publishers. But in what way did it actually help WoTC?

And was that help equal to the harm of losing all the sales dollars went to other companies instead?

I think the answer is No. And they clearly thought so too with 4e.

No, i think pathfinder outselling them is a case of the 4e rules not being fun for a lot customers, not a case of them losing out for abandoning the OGL.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Let us note the two different points you make here...

"as long as the company breaks even or makes a miniscule profit Hasbro will keep it open for ever."

and

"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."

You're putting together two separate things. Yes, I absolutely agree to your first point that if THE COMPANY (in this case Wizards of the Coast) only breaks even or posts a miniscule profit... then Hasbro might no longer keep THE COMPANY solvent. They might eventually close down Wizards of the Coast. Because Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro... and they need to make sure their subsidiaries are profitable.

But HOW WotC maintains solvency... Hasbro (for the most part) couldn't care less. If WotC has to make X amount of profit each year... then it doesn't matter to Hasbro HOW that happens. And if by some chance Magic: The Gathering produced 95% of that profit and Dungeons & Dragons only 5%... Hasbro WON'T CARE. WotC made their profit... and thus all is good with Hasbro.

So no... I in no way believe HASBRO cares one lick about how well or poorly D&D is doing in of itself, and will take absolutely NO SAY on whether another editions gets published or sold. In fact, from the sounds of all the Hasbro investor meetings... Dungeons & Dragons is never even mentioned. It's a blip on Hasbro's radar (if at all.)

The only way the D&D brand would get shut down is if Wizards of the Coast themselves shut it down. Because the money spent on the D&D RPG department was not equaling the money being brought in to Wizards of the Coast (NOT to Hasbro). However... I steadfastly believe that for the two dozen(?) or so full-time employees who work in the D&D RPG department... the money they make on the new edition books every four or five years is enough to keep the game going. ESPECIALLY considering that the RPG (in addition to being a game) is also a marketing tool for their novels department... their board game department... their video game department, etc. etc. etc. By keeping the RPG active... they keep the D&D brand in the public eye... and thus can use the brand for other things. Things that as a whole keeps the Dungeons & Dragons brand solvent for Wizards of the Coast.

 

[timASW]

No, I don't think it will be open "forever", because that would be silly. One day, probably within the next one or two decades, but possibly sooner, there won't be a published D&D.

But that doesn't mean that the people working there NOW won't focus on what will keep them working NOW. And if they can sell the idea that $X amount of work now will sell $1.2X amount of product, they can keep their jobs for a while. And that's what most people who work DO, try and keep their jobs, because being unemployed kind of sucks.

Employees might just focus on keeping a paycheck coming. Executives and CEO's are supposed to be focusing on turning 1 dollar into a 1.10 and then into 1.20 and then into 1.30, and so forth year after year. GROWING the company. Not just barely eking by on the life created by the smarter people with a better vision who came before them.

Just assuming "one day we'll be out of business, so why bother improving" is the one and only reason they would actually be doomed.

They could absolutely turn this thing around by opening up several lines to have a broader appeal, embracing new technologies more and shaking up their corporate culture to create a group of dynamic thinkers who are focused on the market instead of a pedantic circle of self congratulators who consider themselves too elite in their thinking about games to have ever made any mistakes and blame the customers for not liking their awesome products.

Most people don't have the bandwidth to focus on the long-term big picture, because that isn't their job to do so. Even mighty corporation Hasbro has no real incentive to shutter a department that only earns a small profit, as long as it isn't losing major money and, importantly, helps to maintain the value of the IP.

1. Most people arent CEO's. Thats the difference between a leader and drone in a corporation.

2. They have lots of incentive to close any department that loses even a single dollar or earns a small profit. Those departments utilize human capitol that could be spent on a more profitable division.

The same way that no you dont need to go and get a better job as long as your existing bills are paid. But most people do WANT to get a better job to make more money in excess of just paying their bills and take steps throughout life to do so.

Companies make the same sorts of decisions with materials and financial and human capitol.

3. The value of the IP is determined by sales. The only true value anything has is what someone is willing to pay for it. And when sales dip, your IP's value has dipped. They are correlating factors.

 

[timASW]

But HOW WotC maintains solvency... Hasbro (for the most part) couldn't care less......

So no... I in no way believe HASBRO cares one lick about how well or poorly D&D is doing in of itself, and will take absolutely NO SAY on whether another editions gets published or sold.

Thats simply not true. Corporations fiddle around in their subsidiaries all the time in an effort to maximize profitability.

In fact, from the sounds of all the Hasbro investor meetings... Dungeons & Dragons is never even mentioned. It's a blip on Hasbro's radar (if at all.)

How many hasbro investor meetings have you sat in on exactly?

The only way the D&D brand would get shut down is if Wizards of the Coast themselves shut it down. Because the money spent on the D&D RPG department was not equaling the money being brought in to Wizards of the Coast (NOT to Hasbro). However... I steadfastly believe that for the two dozen(?) or so full-time employees who work in the D&D RPG department... the money they make on the new edition books every four or five years is enough to keep the game going.

ALL print media right now is in under very heavy pressure to justify its existence strongly.

If they wised up and went to E-books and thus greatly reduced the bottom line cost of the D&D brand you would be right. But there dont seem to be any plans to do that.

Although I do think Hasbro will force them to modernize before shutting them down and at least try that approach.

 

[Scylla]

A big factor in some companies getting on the 4e train was indeed timing. Wizards left the 3rd party publishers spinning their wheels for months. If memory serves, the publishers were originally supposed to receive the rules in October, then December, then January, and so on into Spring. For many small publishers, unexpectedly going 6+ months without releasing new product was paramount to a death sentence. Others, like Necromancer, disliked the harsh GSL. I think many publishers abandoned the idea of supporting 4e before they even read much of the rules.

In Paizo's case, there were seemingly a lot of factors, with timing and design playing a role. As Lisa Stevens recalled in a recent blog post, "The continued lack of information of any sort was driving us nuts..." but also, "When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for."

 

[Scylla]

(double post)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pathfinders success is if anything indicative of the FAILURE of the OGL. It literally created a huge competitor who picked their pockets for millions of dollars in potential sales.

Quite the contrary, the OGL was very successful, the failure was WotC's for jumping off the bandwagon it got rolling and going it alone.

It was awesome for gamers, and game store owners, and 3rd party publishers. But in what way did it actually help WoTC?

For 8 years it made WotC & D&D the industry leaders, everyone watched their every move and jumped to produce complementary products that would sell along side it.

And was that help equal to the harm of losing all the sales dollars went to other companies instead?

In economics, there's a concept of a 'complementary good.' If other companies are making jam, you can sell peanut butter. If everyone stops making jam, your peanut butter sales fall.

The OGL sucked a huge swath of the RPG industry into supporting d20, making products that made WotC's d20 RPG products (mostly D&D) more desirable, because there was more to do with them. It encouraged new companies to spring up just to do the same. Collectively, all those hangers-on made some money, but none of them rose up to compete with WotC or rival D&D, and WotC made /more/ money as a result.

WotC (or, perhaps, Hasbro) decided the party was over and gave the 3pps an ultimatum: if you want to support 4e, for as long as we feel like letting you, you have to give up the OGL. The alternative was staying with the OGL, which couldn't be taken away. Live or die at Hasbro's whim, or stick with a proven product line that can't be taken away from you?

It turned out to be an easy choice, and Pathfinder, with the ongoing support of the other d20 stakeholders (3pps and fans) emerged as the new premier OGL line. People even think of it /as/ D&D.

 

[Mark CMG]

See though (and this is funny considering I was bagging on their business sense for most of the thread) they know how much money is in their bank account.

And if the OGL had actually been helpful for those 8 years they would have done it for 4e too.

So either it wasnt helpful, it actually hurt, or its affect was so negligibly small one way or the other that they couldnt be sure what the effect actually was.


Pathfinders success is if anything indicative of the FAILURE of the OGL. It literally created a huge competitor who picked their pockets for millions of dollars in potential sales.

It was awesome for gamers, and game store owners, and 3rd party publishers. But in what way did it actually help WoTC?

And was that help equal to the harm of losing all the sales dollars went to other companies instead?

I think the answer is No. And they clearly thought so too with 4e.

No, i think pathfinder outselling them is a case of the 4e rules not being fun for a lot customers, not a case of them losing out for abandoning the OGL.

You clearly are thinking the way that those within WotC who championed moving away from the OGL thought when they began work on 4E. That they have begun work on 5E shows they have moved on from 4E. We will see if they are willing to take the chance that the non-OGL mindset is still intact. Whether or not they use the OGL for 5E will show if they have come to the same conclusions as you have. Whether or not non-OGL 5E does well enough to recapture the market from other OGL games will show whether you and they are correct in your assumptions. We will see.

 

[timASW]

You clearly are thinking the way that those within WotC who championed moving away from the OGL thought when they began work on 4E. That they have begun work on 5E shows they have moved on from 4E. We will see if they are willing to take the chance that the non-OGL mindset is still intact. Whether or not they use the OGL for 5E will show if they have come to the same conclusions as you have. Whether or not non-OGL 5E does well enough to recapture the market from other OGL games will show whether you and they are correct in your assumptions. We will see.

All true, I just dont think that the success or lack thereof of 4e for WoTC as company was tied to the OGL or its lack.

Keeping the OGL would probably have extended their shelf life, but it wouldnt neccesarily have put more money in their pockets.

4e players wouldnt have had more money to spend on books just because there were more books to choose from and some of those choices would have been non WoTC books.

I also think an OGL would have been very hard to do with the super tight mechanics they wanted for 4e. With 5e looking looser rules wise it definitely makes it more likely they'll be willing to cede some control of the product to 3rd party publishers but I would still be surprised by it.

 

[Mark CMG]

All true, I just dont think that the success or lack thereof of 4e for WoTC as company was tied to the OGL or its lack.

Keeping the OGL would probably have extended their shelf life, but it wouldnt neccesarily have put more money in their pockets.

4e players wouldnt have had more money to spend on books just because there were more books to choose from and some of those choices would have been non WoTC books.

I also think an OGL would have been very hard to do with the super tight mechanics they wanted for 4e. With 5e looking looser rules wise it definitely makes it more likely they'll be willing to cede some control of the product to 3rd party publishers but I would still be surprised by it.

The difference between our theories is that on the one hand you say the OGL couldn't have helped 4E while simultaneously bemoaning that PF has earned millions of dollars that WotC should have earned and while also claiming that the OGL didn't have anything to do with PF's success. You also would need to ignore the success of many other OGL lines from other companies like M&M from GR. Or you would at least have to claim that the OGL had nothing to do with their success. For your theory to be correct, you have to dismiss example after example of successful OGL products/lines, starting with 3.XE, as having nothing to do with the OGL. I find that to be a theory that struggles against the evidence.