D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[Manchu]

I agree. How much money is WotC expecting to make by licensing DnD lunchboxes?

Simply put, more than they think they will make by creating table top RPG books.

Was it a successful launch?

I don't have any numbers. My evidence is purely anecdotal. The owner of my LGS says its a good seller. I have heard of more non-RPGers starting with this edition than any other. But I should clarify that I'm not just referring to sales. I think the "reception" of 5E was sort of the last contribution WotC was looking for from folks whose main hobby is RPGing. That is, they needed us to say "now that's more like it." And I think we have by and large said exactly that. Which is why we are now saying, hey can we get some more stuff already???

 

[Shasarak]

Simply put, more than they think they will make by creating table top RPG books.

Which is going to be less then producing DnD and licensing lunchboxes.

 

[Manchu]

Why? Producing more D&D stuff costs WotC money. Letting WizKids make D&D minis, Attack Wing, Dice Masters, and board games ... none of that costs WotC. But it certainly makes them money, whether or not those products do okay or do really well.

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't have any numbers. My evidence is purely anecdotal. The owner of my LGS says its a good seller. I have heard of more non-RPGers starting with this edition than any other. But I should clarify that I'm not just referring to sales. I think the "reception" of 5E was sort of the last contribution WotC was looking for from folks whose main hobby is RPGing. That is, they needed us to say "now that's more like it." And I think we have by and large said exactly that. Which is why we are now saying, hey can we get some more stuff already???

I agree that the reception was very positive... Up to January. The story shifted from how great 5e is to WotC's communications (or lack there of), their release schedule and lack of PDF/OGL/Digital stuff. From the looks of it, it will only get worse. Ultimately people will just move on at least communication aren't improved, as OGL is released or a release schedule, even anemic, is made public.

I'm not sure how long stores owners will say 5e is great. This store owner as an interesting take on 5e's release schedule. http://blackdiamondgames.blogspot.ca/2015/01/dungeons-dragons-dilemma-tradecraft.html

 

[Kramodlog]

Why? Producing more D&D stuff costs WotC money. Letting WizKids make D&D minis, Attack Wing, Dice Masters, and board games ... none of that costs WotC. But it certainly makes them money, whether or not those products do okay or do really well.

I think he ment that the core books generate X revenues. A Forgotten Realms campaign book would generate Y revenues.

X+Y is bigger than X alone.

WotC can let WizKids release all sort of stuff and make more money by release a bit more books.

 

[Manchu]

The story shifted from how great 5e is to WotC's communications (or lack there of), their release schedule and lack of PDF/OGL/Digital stuff.

The story where? Among folks whose primary hobby is playing D&D and other RPGs, yes definitely. BUT like I mentioned above, I don't think WotC is very interested in our demographic anymore. They needed for us not to be a problem at launch. Mission accomplished.

X+Y is bigger than X alone.

The relevant formula must be

X + (Y - Z) where

X = license revenues
Y = in-house revenues
Z = in-house expenses

Even if Y is more than Z, it doesn't matter if management is unwilling to fund Z. And that might make sense even if Y is more than Z. Y would have to be greater than Z by some factor in order to justify its budget being increased. I don't think it is hard to imagine Hasbro execs deciding WotC cannot achieve that kind of margin. I mean, WotC has even farmed out the D&D board games which appeared to be the most successful (or at least best received) aspect of 4E.

Meanwhile, X is self-justifying.

 

[Shasarak]

Why? Producing more D&D stuff costs WotC money. Letting WizKids make D&D minis, Attack Wing, Dice Masters, and board games ... none of that costs WotC. But it certainly makes them money, whether or not those products do okay or do really well.

So you can make more money.

Rather then less money.

 

[BryonD]

But what makes you think WotC thinks this is unwavering?

I'm not at all sure that WotC thinks that. But when the people I'm exchanging posts with suggest that it will be here whether WotC does something to maintain it or not, then they create the strong impression that they think it is unwavering.

They have just produced a new edition of D&D. By all accounts it has sold very well.

Mearls's stated goal is to avoid the problem WotC experienced with the 4e Red Box: strong initial take-up but little follow through. Sales of the 5e core books seem, so far, to be behaving the way that Mearls's wanted them to.

Presumably the first and foremost reason is because it generates a desirable return on the capital invested.

Sure, but 4E sold really well at first as well. The topic at hand is not what is happening with sales of 5E in 2015. The topic at hand is how do you maintain the brand value of D&D long term (or at least does low release rate have any impact either way).

A related reason is the one [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] gives: it is a suitable "anchor" for an enduring, low-overheads-to-maintain D&D game. This reason is related because this is part of how the game generates its return.

This reason is related in another way, because this is part of how the game is seen as maintaining its place as the notional foundation of the overall brand.

These reasons may or may not turn out to be good ones, but I think they're reasonable. They're also the answer to the implicit question "What is WotC doing to stop PF eclipsing D&D in 5 years?"

But you have not answered the question being asked which is: How does this current short term success continue without more support?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Was it a successful launch? What metric do we have that says this?

I think the relative lack of edition warring this time around is all the proof of success they really need. They have a moderate version of D&D that no one hates enough to declare a ceaseless campaign of vitriol, lies, hatred and misinformation against. That's all they need to halt the corrosion of the property. They're back to comfortably resting on D&D's 40 year history and first-RPG laurels.

With no meaningful potential for growth in the RPG market ( from the little I've heard, it may even have contracted in the last 8 or 10 years - I recall a 2005 or 2007 or so estimate of 20-25 million, today IcV2 seems to think it's only 15), and the D&D legacy no longer under active assault, they're thus free to try to grow the franchise in other areas where there is potential for growth. They can fight tooth and nail over the larger half of a 15 million dollar market (and possibly start tarnishing the brand image again), and make a few million more (compared to the hundreds of million CCGs rake in), but if they can finagle even a tiny slice of the MMO market or get even one modestly successful summer movie out there, it'll bring in tens of millions.

Sure, but 4E sold really well at first as well. The topic at hand is not what is happening with sales of 5E in 2015.

4e stayed in first place for 2 years, even while Pathfinder released it's core books. Essentials crapped out and lost the top spot. It took a quarter, but 5e has D&D number 1 again, and it's not even trying hard. The lesson to take from that is don't go screwing with your product and your design goals too soon, no matter what geeks on the internet have to say.

The topic at hand is how do you maintain the brand value of D&D long term (or at least does low release rate have any impact either way).

I'd guess that D&D's long term brand value is not based on it's TTRPG sales in a give quarter or year or even decade, but on its status as 1st RPG, and it's mainstream name recognition. Neither of those are threatened by a slow pace of releases. Neither were in the least damaged by a two year hiatus, for that matter.

 

[BryonD]

You don't think that the 21 Jump Street movie got greenlit because executives at Columbia and MGM noticed a spike in the old series' DVD sales circa 2010, do you?

No. I think it got greenlit because there has been a trend of rebuilding old tv shows into movies and it fit THAT recent marketing scheme.

Repeating the point that fantasy movies can sell and D&D is the main recognized brand still misses the question of: Does the value of that brand increase, decline or remain stable?