A solution to the "core books sell" problem?

[Giltonio_Santos]

Making a new game that is not called D&D or a new game that is called D&D comes with the same costs for development or marketing. But a game not called D&D wouldn't make nearly as many sales as a new game called D&D.

If you read through previous discussion, you'll see that the reasoning around this approach is not selling as well as D&D core books, but make an alternative that allows WotC to burn more slowly through the sourcebooks that really empower a D&D edition. If you release "generic sci-fi game" this month, you can release "Complete Warrior" next month instead of releasing it now. The wanted result is to stretch the edition cycle, which I believe is a good thing, as explained below.

And for customers, it doesn't really matter either. Either you get 50 releases for D&D 5th edition spread over 5 years and another 50 releases for 6th Edition for the following 5 years. Or you get 50 releases for 5th Edition and 50 releases for other games spread over 10 years.
The only difference is, that the second variant takes longer to release those 50 books. And since they are books, you can always buy them later and not right on release.

Maybe it doesn't matter for you, but it surely matter for those of us who still believe that it's good for the game to have major revisions after a cycle of rules releases. For myself, I believe that 5 years is too early to make major revisions, but if the D&D Next cycle lasts for 8-10 years, I'll probably be ready for a major revision, not before that. In fact, I believe that the number or revisions and their intensity since the beginning of the d20 age is more of a issue in the fracturing of the community than the edition wars.

Cheers,

 

[Jan van Leyden]

If you read through previous discussion, you'll see that the reasoning around this approach is not selling as well as D&D core books, but make an alternative that allows WotC to burn more slowly through the sourcebooks that really empower a D&D edition. If you release "generic sci-fi game" this month, you can release "Complete Warrior" next month instead of releasing it now. The wanted result is to stretch the edition cycle, which I believe is a good thing, as explained below.

Remember the ruckus when people couldn't play a gnome or a bard in 2008? You model would assume that D&DN's complete core is already available, isn't it?

Now, "complete" and "core" are completely subjective at the core.

 

[Dungeoneer]

6th Edition is so yesterday. It's all about 12th Edition now. Or is it 13th?

Yes. 13th Age​.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Actually, I've seen surprisingly few references to 6e for the past year or so.

Not 6e, but the general idea that whatever edition WotC releases won't last, because core books sell and a .5 (or "essentials", IMMV) after 3 years and a new edition a few years later are what one should expect now from D&D product lines. I have seen people come to this conclusion quite a few times around here, and honestly, I don't think they're wrong.

and I'm pretty sure this is outdated as well. It's actually not entirely clear what WotC's strategy for 5e is, but for the past few years they've made a huge amount of money from DDI subscriptions. Indeed, they're still making lots of money from DDI subscriptions, which is probably why D&D can almost stop producing new materials and not be cancelled.

I disagree. If DDI subscriptions were making WotC lots of money, what would be the point of releasing D&D Next so soon with a huge public playtest that basically sent their current edition into a weird limbo status? Great corporations don't do this to their cash cows (at least not in Brazil, but I don't know a lot about US corporate culture, I must say). Right now I'm not seeing WotC treat DDI as their chief offering, I'm pretty sure they tried that with 4E, but someone there probably miss the days when D&D was selling more actual books than Pathfinder.

The next problem is this: Core Rulebooks with the D&D logo sell better than anything else. It's worth noting that "d20 Modern" never got a new edition, despite being ripe for one. The "Star Wars" license was allowed to lapse. The new "Gamma World" had to be sold under the D&D brand, and did well enough that WotC never quite did another not-quite-D&D game in the same vein.

I believe at some point their product schedule pointed to a Ravenloft RPG in the works, but D&D Next changed things "a little bit". As I pointed earlier, I don't think non-D&D games have to be as viable as D&D core books, only as viable as the most viable D&D sourcebooks.

Define "thriving". Because Hasbro have requirements of their various properties, that D&D can just about meet, and it appears that no other RPG can.

I'm sorry to pour cold water on your suggestion, but I'm afraid that that's the reality that we're dealing with. If it's not huge, Hasbro just aren't interested.

If Hasbro looks at WotC RPG division as a single entity, does it really matter if they're selling more D&D rules supplements or standalone games? Don't think so.

OTOH, think about what it represents to the hobby (and to WotC's position within it) to have their designers focused in different games, ideas, mechanics and design explorations, instead of trying to fulfill the minimum of 20 new feats, 10 new backgrounds and 5 new subclasses in the December release? Numenera and The Strange are both products of creative minds that were there at WotC a few months ago; between those two games there's almost U$1 million in kickstarter money!

I don't expect WotC to try anything even remotely related to the approach I'm suggesting, but it's a serious possibility nonetheless, and better than trying to reinvent D&D every 5 years.

Cheers,

 

[Umbran]

I don't see other projects outselling D&D, the fantasy RPG will remain as the chief offering from Wizards, but I see a lot of potential for non-D&D games outselling "Complete Scoundrel" and "Magic of Incarnum".

But outselling in and of itself isn't enough. The end question is, "How much does it sell compared to how much it takes to produce?"

If non-D&D game takes double the resources to produce, but doesn't make twice as much money as "Complete Scoundrel", then this is not a win in a business sense. The problem is that entire games cost more to create than supplements.

So, if WotC releases a weird space horror game between Complete Warrior and Draconomicon, it takes more time to arrive at "Draconomicon III: Gem Dragons", and more time between two editions of D&D. Obviously, this is all speculation of my part, but as I said before, other companies seem to thrive with their non-D&D games.

"Thrive" is subjective. It takes far less for two guys in a garage to thrive than for WotC. WotC has a major market position. Using it to achieve the same success as a smaller, less-well-known company is not a good use of what WotC has.

But, as I've been writing, I've been thinking, and there might be a strategy that splits the difference...

Assume, for the moment, that WotC succeeds in the goal of Next - create a set of core rules that manages to support a broad range of playstyles. Instead of creating entire new games to bolster the revenue stream, you create games in other genres, but based on the Next core. If, under the hood, that weird space horror game is D&D with some modifications, the development time and costs are kept down around the costs of other supplements, and may yield content that can be compatible with D&D - which reduces the "competing with your own lead product" argument as well.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Remember the ruckus when people couldn't play a gnome or a bard in 2008? You model would assume that D&DN's complete core is already available, isn't it?

I expect D&D Next to have all classic classes, races and monsters at release. Using metallic dragons, frost giants, druids, bards and half-orcs as selling points of sourcebooks released later was a cheap marketing maneuver, I don't see it happening again...

Cheers,

 

[delericho]

Not 6e, but the general idea that whatever edition WotC releases won't last, because core books sell and a .5 (or "essentials", IMMV) after 3 years and a new edition a few years later are what one should expect now from D&D product lines. I have seen people come to this conclusion quite a few times around here, and honestly, I don't think they're wrong.

No, I can't say they're wrong either. But I'd actually be surprised if anything could change that - even if 5e did WoW-like business, I suspect we'd still see a new edition within 5 years.

I disagree. If DDI subscriptions were making WotC lots of money, what would be the point of releasing D&D Next so soon with a huge public playtest that basically sent their current edition into a weird limbo status? Great corporations don't do this to their cash cows

The current estimate is that DDI has, IIRC, about 80,000 subscribers, which at the minimum subscription level means it has an income of $480,000 per month. There is maybe one other RPG that can match that.

Numenera and The Strange are both products of creative minds that were there at WotC a few months ago; between those two games there's almost U$1 million in kickstarter money!

Yes, Numenera did fantastically well on Kickstarter. I'm sure Monte and his team are absolutely delighted with the response, and rightly so - it's pretty phenomenal what they have achieved.

A conservative estimate suggests that DDI makes that in 2-3 months, and since it's almost purely in a maintenance mode it costs a whole lot less to produce. We're talking about almost completely different worlds.

 

[Umbran]

No, I can't say they're wrong either. But I'd actually be surprised if anything could change that - even if 5e did WoW-like business, I suspect we'd still see a new edition within 5 years.

Quite possibly. The fact does remain that RPGs are a small market, and saturate pretty quickly. Slowing the pace of publishing supplements may help, but it may not - part of saturation is in the customer's head, and that doesn't measure just the dollars spent, or the number of books bought, but also use and time. Die-hards aside, most customers have a limited span over which they'll be enthusiastic about new products on the same old line.

Simply put, after 5 years, do I really *care* if there's another supplement?

 

[the Jester]

I am all for WotC making their own games, and not calling them all D&D. 4E in particular should have been called something else. If it were, it would not be in the position of being tossed out in the edition churn, nor causing the shitstorm that it did.
It's annoying to see all this development go into new systems that are not actually D&D, and have the label slapped on them. This is why we have edition wars. Label confusion. D&D is already written and done. Do something else already.

What is authentically Dungeons & Dragons design* ends with 2E. The excellent games that follow are not that game. 3E has its home and renaming with Pathfinder - a much better name for that system. Maybe 4E will get re-christened with its own clone one day.

* fairly rules light & assumed mini-less (although accommodating to mini use).

I'm not sure why you think you're an authority on what "TRUE D&D!!" is, but you're not. While it's fine for you to love or hate whatever editions you choose, adding a "Oh, but you guys don't play REAL D&D because you aren't playing old-skoool enough" is neither accurate nor constructive- it's edition warring at its finest, and frankly, it's insulting to everyone who loves the game in its post-TSR iterations.

The game says "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. The company that owns the brand put it out. Therefore, it is indeed D&D. It may not be D&D to your taste, but claiming that your tastes dictate whether something is "true D&D" or not is just ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as claiming that Sandman isn't a comic because it doesn't have superheroes and it's not an old EC Horror book. It's like saying that the new Star Trek movies aren't Star Trek because Shatner.

The fact is, neither I nor you get to decide what Dungeons and Dragons, comic books or Star Trek are. The guys who own the game decide what D&D is; all we get to decide is whether we're playing, whether we like it and whether to move on with the new edition when it comes out. That's it. Claiming that your taste dictates whether a game is or is not D&D is ignoring the fact that people have different tastes and playstyles and have since the very first days of D&D. It's also taking it for granted that you are not just right for your own tastes, but somehow have some magical objective sense of what D&D is to all other people. Clearly, you don't- because you are discarding two of D&D's editions, each of which has a lot of fans (not to mention a lot to offer the game as a whole!), and all those fans would disagree with you.

So, in short, while it's fine to hate on later editions, please don't act like your way is the One True Way To D&D. It isn't, and acting like it is insults everyone who plays 3e or 4e D&D. "Your game isn't D&D, it's just another RPG" doesn't fly either. It's the sort of contemptuous backhanded attack that says, "Oh, do it your way, but you're doing it wrong."

No. If someone is playing the game (in ANY version) and having fun, you don't get to paint "NOT D&D" on their game.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, I can't say they're wrong either. But I'd actually be surprised if anything could change that - even if 5e did WoW-like business, I suspect we'd still see a new edition within 5 years.



The current estimate is that DDI has, IIRC, about 80,000 subscribers, which at the minimum subscription level means it has an income of $480,000 per month. There is maybe one other RPG that can match that.



Yes, Numenera did fantastically well on Kickstarter. I'm sure Monte and his team are absolutely delighted with the response, and rightly so - it's pretty phenomenal what they have achieved.

A conservative estimate suggests that DDI makes that in 2-3 months, and since it's almost purely in a maintenance mode it costs a whole lot less to produce. We're talking about almost completely different worlds.

Dancey gave the figure of 25-30 million ayear in a thread, the context was the lead up to 4E circa 2006. They decided to try and hit 50 million a year which adjusted for inflation BECMI and AD&D combined almost managed to do in 1983 (48 million).

As of 2012 Paizo was getting 11.2 million per year, WoTC maybe 6-7 million in DDI subs+ whatever they are getting with reprints. So 4E maybe lost about 70%+ of 3.5 revenue stream with the largest % of that going to Paizo. If Paizo maintains their 30-35% annual growth rate into 2014 with no competition except for reprints from WoTC they will have close to 18 million in sales, DDI will make up 6-7 million whih means most of the D&D revenue stream will be accounted for. If that happens or close to it D&DN fate will come down to how many 3.x players they can win back or how many new people they can bring to the hobby. If Paizo has a bad couple of years and have their growth rate cut in half they will still have 15 million of so of that 25-30 million pie. WoTC seems to be trying a new recipe to bake a bigger pie.