Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 7651115" data-attributes="member: 22424">Sadly, I don't think that's why Hollywood recycles movies. Making movies is so expensive that they simply can't afford to have a flop, and that means they're necessarily risk-averse. So we get endless sequels, or remakes, or star vehicles for Tom Cruise or Will Smith, or the latest film by some big-name director, or films based on best-selling novels (or comics)... or remakes.I should note that I can't blame the studios for doing this. Apparently, a film can do well if it can be made for $70,000; if not then you need $200,000,000 to have a chance against the big boys. And $200M is a heck of a risk to make, with little guarantee of success. (And it's also important to note that I've made no comment about quality. "Prometheus" and "The Avengers" amply demonstrate that a big commercial film can be done well, or it can be done badly.)I suspect much the same is at least true of D&D adventures. These are already niche products within the tiny niche that is RPG sales, and a product has to sell enough units to justify the print run. Attaching a name that people will know must no doubt increase those sales, and might be enough to take a product from "not worth bothering with" to "barely worthwhile".(Of course, the subscription model used by Paizo for selling their adventures, and also by WotC with eDungeon, significantly changes that equation. If you've got 20k subscribers, that pretty much guarantees that doing the print run is justified, and allows you to take some risks. But subscription models is another discussion for another thread...)</blockquote>

Verification