D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

[JamesM]

Or is it possible for WotC to use D&D as a way of cultivating a brand, which makes money through e.g. licensing deals, and therefore has a lower planned profit margin?

I expect this is exactly what WotC intends to do. Many of the "fluff" changes to D&D in 4E strike me, as a clueless outsider, as an attempt by WotC to shore up a "brand identity" and thereby make it sufficiently distinctive that it could turn greater profits through savvy licensing and non-gaming product spin-offs.

 

[Reynard]

I expect this is exactly what WotC intends to do. Many of the "fluff" changes to D&D in 4E strike me, as a clueless outsider, as an attempt by WotC to shore up a "brand identity" and thereby make it sufficiently distinctive that it could turn greater profits through savvy licensing and non-gaming product spin-offs.

This sounds plausible but begs a question: where do settings and their associated product identity sit, then? IOW, was Eberron a failure as a multi-media property (which was definitely an aspect of the whole setting search)?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the question then is; does WotC need D&D to turn a Hasbro level profit? I think I remember someone from WotC saying that Hasbro don't micromanage on that level, but I might be wrong.

Or is it possible for WotC to use D&D as a way of cultivating a brand, which makes money through e.g. licensing deals, and therefore has a lower planned profit margin?

Thinking we understand the WotC/Hasbro relationship from what they say, when some information would be potentially damaging to the bottom line, is unwise, IMHO. Especially given recent events.


RC

 

[Glyfair]

Thinking we understand the WotC/Hasbro relationship from what they say, when some information would be potentially damaging to the bottom line, is unwise, IMHO. Especially given recent events.

Which would be true if they were forced to give that information. However, there is no reason for those comments to have been made at all.

Every major hobby game company I'm aware of has pointed out that the "big company" never micromanaged the business. They gave the company goals and left it to the company to implement them.

Now, I'm sure that Hasbro went to WotC and did things like give them the Avalon Hill line and tell them to manage it. They might also have an effect with hiring upper management, and even force changes.

 

[Mythmere1]

To me this is the entire meat of the question about 4th edition.

The goal of WOTC is to try and get the gamer to buy a print version of the book, subscribe to the online D&D insider, and enter the codes of the books that you have bought to unlock electronic version of the products. Being able to have the clarifications from the equivalent of Sage Advice immediately incorporated into the core product to correct problems would be a good benefit. This isn't any different than reading the print magazine and incorporating clarifications and corrections into your table game.

Why I chose the above quote is that this electronic model does not easily support customization. If we really look at all of the great electronic D&D support products that are out there, how easy is it to support customization to allow you, the consumer, to put your favorite rules into their character generator? Will WOTC be motivated to do this in D&D insider tools? What are the legal ramifications of incorporating the (pick your favorite company's name and insert it here) rules/classes/monsters/skills/etc. into the D&D insider web site tools?

The real criticism of this model is that when you play through the D&D Insider site or use those tools, I suspect that it will be difficult to incorporate homebrew or OGL stuff. Bringing electronic support into the 4th edition may effectively undermine the OGL unless the publishers give up product identity claims and allow their content to be merged with the WOTC content (assuming WOTC is willing to incorporate any other companies' content into their site and tools).

I think that the fear that the other D20 companies will go off and make version 3.75 to compete with 4.0 is unfounded. I think instead that the publishers should be worried about how they are going to capture any of the new audience that WOTC is trying to attract, since they won't necessarily be able to offer integrated electronic support.

If you are a GM or player that likes products from other D20 publishers, maybe you have been fired.

This hits the nail on the head.

 

[JamesM]

This sounds plausible but begs a question: where do settings and their associated product identity sit, then? IOW, was Eberron a failure as a multi-media property (which was definitely an aspect of the whole setting search)?

I have no idea if Eberron was a "failure," since I'm not sure the metric by which WotC would measure success in this case. I do recall that part of the intention behind the setting search was to create a multi-media property and, in that respect anyway, I don't get the sense that Eberron proved very successful.

On the broader point, I think settings are intended to be variations on a common core, different "interpretations," if you will, of D&D tropes and themes. In principle, they should each highlight some elements and downplay others but be immediately recognizable as D&D regardless. I think the biggest indicator that 4E is shifting its emphases and indeed diverting somewhat from the old thematic core of the game is that the Realms is being altered, whereas Eberron is not. This suggests to me that the Realms is being "brought in line" with 4E's thematic and stylistic core, which wasn't necessary in past editions, where even RSE like the Time of Troubles mostly altered the mechanical presentation of the Realms rather than its overall content.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which would be true if they were forced to give that information. However, there is no reason for those comments to have been made at all.

Nor was WotC forced to deny rumours that 4e was imminent; yet they did it. If there are enough accusations that Hasbro micromanaged WotC to the point of saying X product line must make a Y% profit to be retained, and WotC thought that this was damaging said profit, it would make as much sense for them to deny it (regardless of reality) as it did to deny that 4e was imminent when trying to sell 3.5 books.

 

[Glyfair]

Nor was WotC forced to deny rumours that 4e was imminent; yet they did it.

But they were asked it at a seminar. Anything they did, even avoiding the question, would be translated as an answer. (And, that wasn't the question, or the answer - it was misreported to the internet).

The comments about lack of micro-managing were volunteered, typically in response to people griping about "Hasbro's plan" for D&D.

 

[Maggan]

Nor was WotC forced to deny rumours that 4e was imminent; yet they did it.

Just a tangent to your post here, but I think that the comments I was referring to come from ex-WotC employees with no vested interest in the current business.

/M

 

[Raven Crowking]

But they were asked it at a seminar. Anything they did, even avoiding the question, would be translated as an answer. (And, that wasn't the question, or the answer - it was misreported to the internet).

The comments about lack of micro-managing were volunteered, typically in response to people griping about "Hasbro's plan" for D&D.

I honestly see no real difference between people asking in a seminar, and people gripin gin a forum, insofar as WotC's PR goes, if the forum is an important one to the industry. Perhaps you could explain why silence here is better than silence there?


RC