D&D 5E Given WotC plans with the RPG will 5e always be the #1 seller?

[DaveMage]

Since the ICV2 numbers are based on polling game stores, distributors, etc., it depends on if everything with the D&D name is lumped together (RPG, board games, card games, etc.). If it *is* all lumped together (even for the #1 RPG), then I expect D&D to remain #1 for a long while (presuming WotC is successful with its D&D brand diversification). If they are not lumped together, then I can see a back and forth for a while (after the initial D&D core sales diminish).

But, as I wrote in another thread, Paizo will be happy with growth, regardless of whether that means being #1 or #2 (or any other number for that matter).

 

[BryonD]

I'm reminded of the Warcraft episode of South Park.

They asked the executives at Blizzard if anyone had an WoW account they all said "No, I have a life.".
I'm certain Hasbro "pays attention" to D&D. It is a very valuable brand and the RPG is the foundation of that brand.


If WotC was making 1,000 times on MtG than D&D and D&D was just about the RPG, Hasbro would still care about their D&D investment.
But D&D isn't just about the RPG. So getting hung up on the details of the RPG would be a waste of time so long as the brand is in good hands and WotC is making money overall.
Then you move past the business side of it and into the creative and the gap vastly widens. The executives at Hasbro would probably shudder at the thought of touching D&D creative.

Somebody at Hasbro looks at a spreadsheet every week and there is a line on that spreadsheet that is D&D. They don't focus on that line unless something jumps out. Every week or month somebody at Hasbro has a conversation about prospects for the D&D brand. Often this is a very short conversation. The actual RPG almost never comes up in the conversation.

It would be a bad business practice to micromanage the creative side of D&D. They know it and they are quite content with that because they don't want to anyway.

 

[doctorhook]

That is an interesting questions. I suspect the answer will be no, especially if Wizards pays better (and I imagine they do). I have no idea was the going rate for commissioned art work or freelance writing is but I have a feeling if WotC wants to pay better having deeper pockets is going to help immensely.

Good question. There are folks on these very boards who can give us an answer too, though I highly doubt most of them would be so forthcoming (read: unprofessional enough to discuss rates in a public forum). Alas.

I made my prediction of being a sustained number 1 seller when few others, well @Sword of Spirit , was willing to do so.

Everything we have seen since has only increased my confidence.

3 years from now, 5 years from now, heck even 8 years from now, D&D will clearly be the unquestioned dominant RPG. Over that period it will be the 1 seller for most of the time.

They may have a different model. But if they know that core books are the big sellers, and player acquisition and retention (versus pilling on a shrinking base) are the key, then they know, and work from that premise. Another reason they will be #1.

I like your prognosis, and I generally agree with you, but the truth is it's really impossible to say what the market will look like five to eight years from now. By way of example: in the mid '90s, it was inconceivable that the video game console market would be dominated by anyone other than Nintendo and Sega, but five years later Sony had all but killed Sega, and eight years later Sega was virtually nonexistent, and Microsoft and Sony were major players. (Note to anyone reading: this is merely an example of the way markets are very unpredictable in the long term; an extended discussion of the video game console market is not necessary.)

 

[Maggan]

Do you have any quotes from staff on record?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...n-them/page4&p=5132836&viewfull=1#post5132836

That whole thread is a quite interesting read. Charles Ryan worked for WotC previously, and is considered a man of high integrity. So I assume that what he describes (albeit a very short description) matches the reality of the situation. And I don't really see why this should have changed since that statement was made.

If you search for more things said by Charles Ryan, I believe you will find a lot more interesting information on WotC and Hasbro to complement your knowledge from the university.

Cheers!

/Maggan

 

[Mistwell]

I'm afraid I will have to call that claim into question because I have a degree in finance and corporate business management. That is not how corporations operate. Also, that is not information that employees of a corporation would give out to non employees.

You're wrong. And while I appreciate your education, you will find over time your education is not universally informative.

Particular when you're talking about a division created by a merger or acquisition act, you will find it is very common for a corporate body to mostly divorce themselves from the operations of the target company (and I say that as an attorney who has done mergers and acquisitions for 15 years). Sometimes they reduce redundancies like the accounting and marketing and legal departments, and sometimes not even those.

In this case, we know for a fact [Edit- Hasbro] has divorced themselves from the daily operations of WOTC. They announced that during the acquisition, they've repeated it in some quarterly reports, and we've had it confirmed from former employees (some who are now at Paizo) and current ones.

And when the head of the largest and most influential and well-informed D&D news cite in the world tells you that is the case - they almost certainly know more than your suppositions based on your education. You know, given they've read everything for over a decade that's come out of that particular company division, and interviewed people working there for a very long time.

 

[doctorhook]

I'm afraid I am going to have to step in here and say you are incorrect about your comment. Hasbro most certaintly "DOES" manage it's operations. Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro so even though they are not in the same building and even in the same state, Hasbro will be there to see everything go through the way "they" want it. You don't just go and buy a company and then let it do it's own thing.

That's not how it works.

Mother company doesn't sit back and wait for the cash to flow. They have a list of everything that is going on and they will have their eyes on everything. Remember, they supply the money so they want to know how it's spent and what the plan is to get that money back and then some.

It never just "stops there". This will be doubled due to what happened with 4th edition.

Obviously yes, Hasbro oversees WotC operations to ensure that brands are being fully capitalized upon. It's very likely that WotC's new "expand the brand" approach to D&D came at Hasbro's urging (since it's very similar to what Hasbro has done with other brands). I agree with [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] that it's highly unlikely that Hasbro currently gives more than the slightest thought about the creative direction of D&D.

Back on topic: Your original comment was a response to my response to [MENTION=6756765]Rygar[/MENTION]. Since you disagree with me, are you agreeing with Rygar that 5E is unlikely to succeed because of WotC's corporate structure? You've mentioned your education in finance, so I can't imagine you find his assessment any less ridiculous than I do.

But, as I wrote in another thread, Paizo will be happy with growth, regardless of whether that means being #1 or #2 (or any other number for that matter).

Certainly Paizo will be happy with growth. Unfortunately the paradox of success is that it's difficult to keep becoming more successful when you're already the most successful. More importantly, I believe that the Pathfinder brand specifically is facing some very serious weaknesses and threats (5E, market saturation, and a fickle customer base) that are likely to burst the PF bubble before it has room to grow again.

If Paizo is fast, smart, and lucky, I could still be proven wrong.

But D&D isn't just about the RPG. So getting hung up on the details of the RPG would be a waste of time so long as the brand is in good hands and WotC is making money overall.
Then you move past the business side of it and into the creative and the gap vastly widens. The executives at Hasbro would probably shudder at the thought of touching D&D creative.

Somebody at Hasbro looks at a spreadsheet every week and there is a line on that spreadsheet that is D&D. They don't focus on that line unless something jumps out. Every week or month somebody at Hasbro has a conversation about prospects for the D&D brand. Often this is a very short conversation. The actual RPG almost never comes up in the conversation.

It would be a bad business practice to micromanage the creative side of D&D. They know it and they are quite content with that because they don't want to anyway.

I think this is a pretty good assessment.

 

[doctorhook]

In this case, we know for a fact Hasbro has divorced themselves from the daily operations of WOTC. They announced that during the acquisition, they've repeated it in some quarterly reports, and we've had it confirmed from former employees (some who are now at Paizo) and current ones.

FIFY, because I'm pretty sure that was a typo.

 

[The Black Ranger]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...n-them/page4&p=5132836&viewfull=1#post5132836

That whole thread is a quite interesting read. Charles Ryan worked for WotC previously, and is considered a man of high integrity. So I assume that what he describes (albeit a very short description) matches the reality of the situation. And I don't really see why this should have changed since that statement was made.

If you search for more things said by Charles Ryan, I believe you will find a lot more interesting information on WotC and Hasbro to complement your knowledge from the university.

Cheers!

/Maggan

The only thing I will say with regards to that comment was that it was from 2010 and a lot can change in 4 years, especially with what happened to 4th edition. While a suit will not sit down and discuss "a sorcerer's ability" for example, they will be interested to know because D&D is about creativity and that creativity must be up to the standard of D&D and be able to generate money.

Business practices change all the time, but when a company has investment in another then they will want to know the comings and goings. They will not just throw money at them and hope for the best. Even multi millionaires still shop at places like Aldi and Lidl. Just because a company is huge and has lots of money, doesn't mean they are just going to shell out millions without looking to where that money is going. Hasbro wants D&D to succeed and let's not forget something. Corporations are not your friend, nor do they trust you. This is why we have "Risk and Compliance". They are there to make money and appease the shareholders. Hasbro is no different than any other corporation giant out there.

 

[Morrus]

I've interviewed enough WotC and ex-WotC folks over the last 14 years, and touched upon this subject dozens and dozens of times. We're not talking an opinion of how we think WotC probably operates, but describing how it does operate. No number of degrees will change that. That's how it is, however much you want it to be otherwise.

Even very recently Ryan Dancey laughed at the idea that Hasbro was involved in creatives; and I covered it in my interview with Monte Cook a month or so back. The information is the same every time, and has been for well over a decade. Hasbro has no creative involvement in D&D at all.

 

[TerraDave]

...

I like your prognosis, and I generally agree with you, but the truth is it's really impossible to say what the market will look like five to eight years from now. By way of example: in the mid '90s, it was inconceivable that the video game console market would be dominated by anyone other than Nintendo and Sega, but five years later Sony had all but killed Sega, and eight years later Sega was virtually nonexistent, and Microsoft and Sony were major players. (Note to anyone reading: this is merely an example of the way markets are very unpredictable in the long term; an extended discussion of the video game console market is not necessary.)

Sure. But thats the kind of thing that could prove me wrong, a completely unanticipated development.

Thats different then all the "oh they will do well for while, but then it will fall off do to this and that and blah and etc". THAT I am trying to completely disagree with as much as possible as I can by making a prediction that you can check in 3 years, and farther, into the future.