A solution to the "core books sell" problem?

[DEFCON 1]

I am sure they would love to have that problem, where somehow their product is an unexpected breakaway hit like Cabbage Patch Kids and Beanie Babies.

But realistically, they know better. It isn't like they're working blind - they have at least some educated guesses, and the likelihood of them being off by a factor of 20 is pretty small. For a product like D&D core rulebooks, they already know they'll get a big glut of sales in the first year, that will reduce over time to maintenance level. Their goals will be set accordingly, being high initially, and dropping over time.

Generally speaking, you take your basic estimate of what you can expect to sell based on past performance and market research, and target somewhat higher than that - make the team stretch and reach a bit to hit an ambitious goal. So, generally, you're only going to exceed your goal by a small amount, if any.

I don't disagree with you here at all. All my points are just only to question other's people logic that because one guy said "4E was to last 10 years", and they instead are making 5E after five... that thus the game "failed" as so many people seem to claim.

We don't know what WotC's internal metrics were, we don't know how long they actually thought they would ride the 4E train, we don't know how much money they actually made off of 4E. All of it is speculation. But I'm just following the natural course of events. 3E went three years, then there was a new set of core books. 3.5 went five years then there was a new set of core books. 4E will go six years then there will be a new set of core books. And in fact... you throw in Pathfinder, and it means 3.5 went six years before TWO sets of new core books.

How can anyone turn around and say thus that 4E "failed" when apparently 3E and 3.5 never did (despite having shorter turnaround times before the next core books came out)... nor suggest that putting out a new set of core books after a few years is a bad idea when this will be the third time they will have done it? If it didn't work and didn't make money, don't you think they would have stopped doing it by now? But apparently, some people here must genuinely think the people who work at WotC are idiots] who know nothing of how to run a business. Well, I'm sorry to everyone out there, but I tend to trust in the actual company who is running said business, kept their lights on, and produced a metric ton of interesting and fun game product in that time, than I am to believe the remarks of a bunch of people on the internet who think they actually know what's going on (and not just talking out their rears because they've been disappointed in the company before.)

If people want to believe they know better, that's their right. But that doesn't mean the rest of us won't point out when they think their reasons are baloney.

 

[Umbran]

I don't disagree with you here at all. All my points are just only to question other's people logic that because one guy said "4E was to last 10 years", and they instead are making 5E after five... that thus the game "failed" as so many people seem to claim.

If the timing of core book releases is the evidence, I think you're right to question the claim that 4e failed, but 3e did not.

I'm just saying the whole model and discussion of the metrics is not a justification for *anything*, for either side, because it was over-simplified.

I'm happy to see discussion of how WotC could structure games and releases to the benefit of their players and business. I'm a little tired of this being structured as yet more edition warring crap.

 

[Dungeoneer]

It's not that it splits the community, it's that it splits the customer base. For every product that they produce, WotC have in internal metric: it must sell X units. (For convenience, I'm going to use 10,000 as X.)

If WotC produce a single version of D&D, they may have 12,000 sales, thus beating X.

If they produce two versions of D&D, though, they'll get some buying the first, some buying the second, and a few buying both. So, maybe they have 8,000 sales of each. The problem is that although the total sales of the two lines is greater, each individual line fails to make its target.

And thus, they've turned one successful line into two failed lines.

Now, of course, this is a massively simplified example. The reality will see different metrics used, different targets for different products, some considered loss-leaders used to push other items in the line, differing development costs, and a bunch of other factors. But the principle is largely the same: by splitting the line, they risk turning one successful line into two failed lines, even if the total sales from the two is higher.

You're not thinking like a corporation. Hasbro is going, "If you can sell 12,000 people one product, can't you sell 12,000 people TWO?"

 

[Imaro]

I don't disagree with you here at all. All my points are just only to question other's people logic that because one guy said "4E was to last 10 years", and they instead are making 5E after five... that thus the game "failed" as so many people seem to claim.

Wait, wait... wait. So it is more likely that this "one guy" somehow decided to go rogue and stick an unnecessary sentence with a random number of years that 4e was supposed to last in the PHB, and that no one higher up in WotC ever noticed it or ok'd it... and it was never noticed and thus continually printed in every PHB 1 even the latter printings?? Uhm... yeah that seems way less far fetched than they actually stated in the PHB how many years they really believed/wanted the game to last and it failed at that metric.

EDIT: We also know from later statements by Monte Cook that part of the business plan for 3.x was that revised books would be released 3 years (I believe) after the 3.0 books were released and there was no statement as to how long the 3.0 books would last in the books themselves. Perhaps WotC did plan to end 4e before 10 years were up but then that's claiming that they purposefully misled their consumers which seems even worse, IMO, than admitting it was a failure...

 

[Umbran]

You're not thinking like a corporation. Hasbro is going, "If you can sell 12,000 people one product, can't you sell 12,000 people TWO?"

We don't know the internal discussion. We don't know what Hasbro is, or is not, saying. Given that in the past D&D did not so much as merit mention on Hasbro's stockholder conference calls, I'd venture to say Hasbro's doing no such thing. Hasbro doesn't care that much about the details of the RPG division. Small potatoes.

If I had to guess, I'd say Hasbro has a much more relaxed attitude to the RPG wing. D&D is a brand, with some value. Continuing production of games helps maintain that value, and so is worth some resources over the long term. They'll be willing to invest some money in the RPG wing to do that, and consider it rather like you consider automotive or home maintenance. It doesn't have to make oodles of money to keep the brand healthy.

 

[Dungeoneer]

We don't know the internal discussion. We don't know what Hasbro is, or is not, saying. Given that in the past D&D did not so much as merit mention on Hasbro's stockholder conference calls, I'd venture to say Hasbro's doing no such thing. Hasbro doesn't care that much about the details of the RPG division. Small potatoes.

If I had to guess, I'd say Hasbro has a much more relaxed attitude to the RPG wing. D&D is a brand, with some value. Continuing production of games helps maintain that value, and so is worth some resources over the long term. They'll be willing to invest some money in the RPG wing to do that, and consider it rather like you consider automotive or home maintenance. It doesn't have to make oodles of money to keep the brand healthy.

Okay, let me clarify: I wasn't saying that Hasbro WAS saying that. I was just giving that as an example of how a profit-driven corporation tends to think.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, let me clarify: I wasn't saying that Hasbro WAS saying that. I was just giving that as an example of how a profit-driven corporation tends to think.

Sure, but it is a really broad generalization. Like the points talking about the metrics - how metrics work in some vague, general sense does not speak to the specific case at hand.

And that's really important in these discussions: distinguishing between statements of what is actually going on, and what *might*, in theory, be going on. It is often the difference between a cordial discussion, and folks digging in their heels for a war.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

But since WotC really can't do that with D&D... they can't "undersell" the game like that... their only option is to pimp the crap out of a new edition, bring in as much cash at the top as they possibly can... and ride that bus for several down years until such time as they can feasible pull out another cash cow core release five years down the line.

While I agree that underselling is not a possibility (or even wanted), I do believe that a better release schedule is feasible and wanted. If we look at 4E release, for example, we'll see that FR Campaign Guide was available merely two months after the core rulebooks. Big sellers like the martial splat, Manual of the Planes and Draconomicon also came before the end of the year, all contributing to the "magic year 1", while at the same time reducing the amount of "big hits" left for publishing in the years to follow.

One is right in hoping that the arrival of a new edition comes with huge profits for the makers of the game, but I'm pretty sure that some of that awesome impact on sales should be better managed, if possible (as I said before, all I have is my wild speculation), to help improve the staying power of a given iteration of the basic rules. If a well-planned edition can give them that while still remaining within the desired amount of profit, I see no reason for the continued "core books sell" marketing plan.

Cheers,

 

[Zardnaar]

4E technically is going to last 6 years but D&DN was announced 3.5 years in and books went out of print after 4. The production schedule on 4E material was also cut in half 2 years in and also from 2010 Mearls is on record as saying they drove off their player base. The fact that 4E also got out sold by PF on about a third of the 3.5 revenue also says a lot. Throw in the fact that D&DN is not 4.5 and they are basically retconning the Realms also says something. 2E evolved out of 1st ed, 3rd ed evolved out of 2nd ed, 4E evolved out of 3rd ed and D&DN is basically a reboot.

 

[delericho]

Wait, wait... wait. So it is more likely that this "one guy" somehow decided to go rogue and stick an unnecessary sentence with a random number of years that 4e was supposed to last in the PHB

I believe it was the Rouse, who said 8 years felt about right, here on ENWorld. So, not exactly just "one guy" - he was the Brand Manager at the time. However, it always had the feel of an aspiration rather than a commitment, and of course as soon as he left all his plans were subject to the whims of his successor.

EDIT: We also know from later statements by Monte Cook that part of the business plan for 3.x was that revised books would be released 3 years (I believe)

I believe it was 5 years. IIRC, Monte commented on his blog (the old one, which I think is now gone) that he felt 3.5e came too soon.

Perhaps WotC did plan to end 4e before 10 years were up but then that's claiming that they purposefully misled their consumers which seems even worse, IMO, than admitting it was a failure...

I would honestly be surprised if WotC had a firm plan that lasted more than a few years in advance.

As for 4e being a failure, I would be hesitant to call it that. As I said up-thread, in the hands of any other publisher it would almost certainly have been considered a runaway success.

It does seem that WoTc probably consider 4e a failure, hence the move to 5e. However, as Umbran rightly pointed out to me some years ago, even that's not certain - they might think it did well enough, but think that there is more money to be made with a different approach.