WotC President Chris Cocks Talks Magic and D&D

[Parmandur]

They did a follow-up panel interview, nothing revelatory, but it made really identify with and like the guy, he seems to really get the games:

"When I discovered D&D, it really just lit a creative flame inside of me. And I started reading. I read the Lord of the Rings series. I read the Shannara series. I started writing for the first time. I start making my own games. It pointed me into a new direction that I think has made me a much more successful and complete person as a result of that. And when I told people about that at work, I can’t tell you how many people said: “That happened to me at the exact same age, at the exact same time.” And it’s just such an honor to be able to share something that had such a positive impact on you and not just bringing smiles to your face but helping you complete yourself as a person. And that’s what really gets me going, when I wake up in the morning and get to go to work."

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/just-brings-fantasy-life-wizards-coast-president-dd-magic-whats-next/

 

[MechaPilot]

30+% growth for 4 straight years, on a product 40 years old is unheard of

I wasn't aware that 5th edition was now 40 years old.

 

[gyor]

I wasn't aware that 5th edition was now 40 years old.

I think Bedir Than mean D&D in general by 40 years, not 5e spefically.

 

[MechaPilot]

I think Bedir Than mean D&D in general by 40 years, not 5e spefically.

If so, then that's not a product selling for over 40 years. D&D hasn't been a single cohesive product. Even ignoring edition changes, video games, films, comics, novels, and toys, D&D has been a line of individual but interrelated products, not a single product.

 

[bedir than]

If so, then that's not a product selling for over 40 years. D&D hasn't been a single cohesive product. Even ignoring edition changes, video games, films, comics, novels, and toys, D&D has been a line of individual but interrelated products, not a single product.

if you want to delve into the depths of product line differentiation we could definitely do that.

You would be stuck trying to prove that to someone unfamiliar with the product that there is a great set of differences between all versions of D&D, again, to the outsider. This is like when Starbucks claims that every ground coffee is a different product. A vast majority of consumers don't actually think that. They see it as minor variations on a theme, rather than a separate line of products.

D&D, the RPG, is like Starbucks whole bean coffee. It's 40+ years old, and the vast majority of consumers don't see any variation between then and now.

 

[eayres33]

Another thing to consider, in addition to continued strong sales on Amazon and in local stores: D&D Beyond got up and running in the past year, and they seems to be doing brisk business, as well, without slowing down the print game. Also, DMsGuild, Fantasy Ground, Roll20 and other chain stores like Barnes & Noble or Target (the Starter Set is well placed in the toys section) carry the game.

This actually was a big moment for my wife and I a few weeks ago when right next too, well 3 ft away, from Cards against Humanity was the D&D starter set.

On a side note we hurried to wrap up a 5E game I was playing to free up the next group at a coffee shop. From the group I play in the complaint is everyone wants to play 5E.

Not a bad position for Wizards to be in.

 

[MechaPilot]

if you want to delve into the depths of product line differentiation we could definitely do that.

You would be stuck trying to prove that to someone unfamiliar with the product that there is a great set of differences between all versions of D&D, again, to the outsider. This is like when Starbucks claims that every ground coffee is a different product. A vast majority of consumers don't actually think that. They see it as minor variations on a theme, rather than a separate line of products.

D&D, the RPG, is like Starbucks whole bean coffee. It's 40+ years old, and the vast majority of consumers don't see any variation between then and now.

The IP and the brand is 40+ years old. Certainly. That the brand is still yielding appreciable profits is impressive, and does seem to be in no small part tied to the renaissance of nerd culture that's seen more "ordinary" people developing or admitting to "nerdy" interests. Hopefully, the movie (assuming that's still coming) won't suck.

While some may look at D&D and mistakenly see as a single product that's existed 40 years, public misperception doesn't make all of D&D a single product. Products have a generally defined life-cycle, with stages differentiated by the features, pricing and distribution of the product.

The argument that each edition is it's own product is easily made, with each edition having fit with the profits curve generally observable during a product lifecycle. And it's certainly not the only product that works this way. Coming up with add-ons that expand the usefulness or increase the customization of a product (in D&D's case, the various splat and setting books) is a storied strategy for enhancing profits at the maturity stage, or staving off the decline phase of a product's lifecycle.

 

[bedir than]

The IP and the brand is 40+ years old. Certainly. That the brand is still yielding appreciable profits is impressive, and does seem to be in no small part tied to the renaissance of nerd culture that's seen more "ordinary" people developing or admitting to "nerdy" interests. Hopefully, the movie (assuming that's still coming) won't suck.

While some may look at D&D and mistakenly see as a single product that's existed 40 years, public misperception doesn't make all of D&D a single product. Products have a generally defined life-cycle, with stages differentiated by the features, pricing and distribution of the product.

The argument that each edition is it's own product is easily made, with each edition having fit with the profits curve generally observable during a product lifecycle. And it's certainly not the only product that works this way. Coming up with add-ons that expand the usefulness or increase the customization of a product (in D&D's case, the various splat and setting books) is a storied strategy for enhancing profits at the maturity stage, or staving off the decline phase of a product's lifecycle.

Even the vernacular of "edition" denies that it is a different product, as the companies themselves just refer to it as simple advancement of the same concept rather than a new product. Your argument would be the idea that the 2018 Tesla is a new product as opposed to the 2017 Tesla. They aren't.

The changes are minimal, and the 30% y2y increase is incredible.

 

[Parmandur]

The IP and the brand is 40+ years old. Certainly. That the brand is still yielding appreciable profits is impressive, and does seem to be in no small part tied to the renaissance of nerd culture that's seen more "ordinary" people developing or admitting to "nerdy" interests. Hopefully, the movie (assuming that's still coming) won't suck.

While some may look at D&D and mistakenly see as a single product that's existed 40 years, public misperception doesn't make all of D&D a single product. Products have a generally defined life-cycle, with stages differentiated by the features, pricing and distribution of the product.

The argument that each edition is it's own product is easily made, with each edition having fit with the profits curve generally observable during a product lifecycle. And it's certainly not the only product that works this way. Coming up with add-ons that expand the usefulness or increase the customization of a product (in D&D's case, the various splat and setting books) is a storied strategy for enhancing profits at the maturity stage, or staving off the decline phase of a product's lifecycle.

Granted that each edition is a separate product line, it is unheard of in D&D for year four to be the biggest year of an edition. 3.0 and 4E were already gone by the same point, and 5E is on Pace to surpass 3.5 timr in print in a matter of months.

 

[MechaPilot]

Even the vernacular of "edition" denies that it is a different product, as the companies themselves just refer to it as simple advancement of the same concept rather than a new product.

Don't fall into the trap of letting a marketing-based naming convention determine facts for you. Calling an electric drill a "2nd edition screwdriver" doesn't make it a screwdriver (even if you can use an add-on to make the product drive screws).

Your argument would be the idea that the 2018 Tesla is a new product as opposed to the 2017 Tesla. They aren't.

No. The 2018 and 2017 Tesla can be the same product, the same product with different add-ons, the same product with improved (or worsened) components, or an entirely different product. It all depends on what exactly has changed between the two vehicles.

My argument is that products have observable life-cycles, that the introduction, growth and decline of each edition can easily be mapped to their own separate life-cycles, and that each edition is its own separate product with add-ons (splats and settings) being used to enhance the profitability of the maturity phase and to stave off the decline phase.