A solution to the "core books sell" problem?

[ExploderWizard]

While his words don't need to be taken as absolute truth, Mark Rosewater (head designer of MtG) once said that Hasbro has little to no direct input in the way WotC runs the properties under its belt. They do have influence, but not as much as all of us would want it to be each time the D&D team does something we deem bad for the game.

Cheers,

No direct input doesn't really mean anything. If Hasbro says 'do whatever you want with the brand but it has to meet these revenue goals and nothing gets a greenlight without an anal probe by the legal dept', then there is a hell of a lot of influence even without direct input as far as content goes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They were not selling books was the problem. In 40 yeas of D&D there has never been a cap of 2 years of no new product being available for sale.That includes when TSR went under anfd was bought out by WoTC where the disruption was for 6 months or so IIRC.

Don't you think that if WotC NEEDED to sell more RPG product right now, that they would? After all... they did it last time. They produced several books for 3.5 that were random new ideas or basic adaptations of what they were doing for 4E. Book of Nine Swords, Magic of Incarnum etc. They were wringing out that towel as much as they could while working on their new product... the one who three core books were going to make them more money than anything else they were going to produce.

Now sure... you can make the argument that the reason they aren't producing any products right now is because nothing they make is going to be worth the money spent to create it. Whether that's because that's a "failure of the 4E game" or merely because all the worthwhile supplemental books have already been made is up for debate. But the flip side is that the reason they aren't producing anything "new" right now now is because they have enough other streams of revenue from D&D that they don't HAVE to spend money making other obsolete books. The board games, the DDI subscriptions, all the old the stuff selling on dndclassics. That might more than cover the expenses of the R&D department that they can put ALL their efforts into working on the new edition, rather than splitting time creating a couple new things to bring in those last gasps of coinage from the previous edition.

But regardless of why they are or are not making new product now... that still doesn't explain why producing a new set of core books is a bad idea. Or a financially unsound idea. Or an idea that will negatively affect WotC other than a bunch of gals and guys being mad at them because they aren't supporting the version of the game they want them to.

 

[delericho]

Or the other reason given by the people is that it "splits the gaming community".

It's not that it splits the community, it's that it splits the customer base. For every product that they produce, WotC have in internal metric: it must sell X units. (For convenience, I'm going to use 10,000 as X.)

If WotC produce a single version of D&D, they may have 12,000 sales, thus beating X.

If they produce two versions of D&D, though, they'll get some buying the first, some buying the second, and a few buying both. So, maybe they have 8,000 sales of each. The problem is that although the total sales of the two lines is greater, each individual line fails to make its target.

And thus, they've turned one successful line into two failed lines.

Now, of course, this is a massively simplified example. The reality will see different metrics used, different targets for different products, some considered loss-leaders used to push other items in the line, differing development costs, and a bunch of other factors. But the principle is largely the same: by splitting the line, they risk turning one successful line into two failed lines, even if the total sales from the two is higher.

 

[darjr]

I think the best policy would be to sell the core books and then with a small support team to find something else that is D&D and sells. I think iterating the version every few years is a bad idea, my opinion.

Paizo is trying it with subscriptions and adventure paths. I think WotC originally pre-hasbro was trying to do it but with D&D as a kind of loss leader, like they were trying to slowly grow the hobby and write it off as an expense that would pay dividends some other way.

I think WotC now is going to try something similar, but with movies and toys and tv (maybe movie and tv) and boardgames and novels and video games and other branded products. I think a big part of that is also continuing to sell older edition things if people are still buying them. For instance I think the new encounters seasons are still going to support 4e and 3.5 for the foreseeable future.

RPG's are not video games with limited play and advancing technology to keep up with. They are a lifestyle investment that could support other iterative games and products.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's not that it splits the community, it's that it splits the customer base. For every product that they produce, WotC have in internal metric: it must sell X units. (For convenience, I'm going to use 10,000 as X.)

If WotC produce a single version of D&D, they may have 12,000 sales, thus beating X.

If they produce two versions of D&D, though, they'll get some buying the first, some buying the second, and a few buying both. So, maybe they have 8,000 sales of each. The problem is that although the total sales of the two lines is greater, each individual line fails to make its target.

And thus, they've turned one successful line into two failed lines.

Now, of course, this is a massively simplified example. The reality will see different metrics used, different targets for different products, some considered loss-leaders used to push other items in the line, differing development costs, and a bunch of other factors. But the principle is largely the same: by splitting the line, they risk turning one successful line into two failed lines, even if the total sales from the two is higher.

Okay. Now taking your example, if their target is indeed 10,000 = X... let's say in Year One in a new set of core books, they sell 20X. 200,000 copies. Are you telling me that because Years Two through Five might end up being below X since everything got front-loaded into Year One... that they now have a "failed" game line? It would have been better for them to have sold X for 10 years for a total of 10X just to be able to say the game line "succeeded"? I don't think so. Why? Because I'm pretty anybody would take 20X and a perception from a bunch of dudes and gals on messageboards that the game failed, over 10X over 10 years with everybody singing kumbaya around the game table about how wonderful this game was. Especially considering that in Year 5 of the first scenario... they sell another 15X when they release another new set of core books.

I really don't see how "game perception" actually matters when they still sell core books for every new edition they release. The brand of D&D is making money. It allows them to keep the lights on in the R&D department. It's only if and when they release a set of core books for a new edition that sell worse than any set of splatbooks they would have published over the subsequent several years for the previous edition, that I'll be willing to say that a new edition ended up being a bad idea.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Okay. Now taking your example, if their target is indeed 10,000 = X... let's say in Year One in a new set of core books, they sell 20X. 200,000 copies. Are you telling me that because Years Two through Five might end up being below X since everything got front-loaded into Year One... that they now have a "failed" game line? It would have been better for them to have sold X for 10 years for a total of 10X just to be able to say the game line "succeeded"? I don't think so. Why? Because I'm pretty anybody would take 20X and a perception from a bunch of dudes and gals on messageboards that the game failed, over 10X over 10 years with everybody singing kumbaya around the game table about how wonderful this game was. Especially considering that in Year 5 of the first scenario... they sell another 15X when they release another new set of core books.

That doesn't work like that. We know, for example, that MtG used to have a core set released every other year, until that point where Hasbro people came in and asked: "Look, why does our game sells X in even years and 3/4 of that in odd ones?" And that's why we ended up in the current model, where core sets rotate every year instead of rotating once every two years.

So, I'd say that if X equals a satisfactory number of sales, it's much healthier for WotC to offer Hasbro a product that manages to turn a X profit every year for 10 years than to offer them something that turns 20X in the first year and can't pull that same number in the following years. Chances are that they would end up with Hasbro folks asking: "Hey, remember those times where this product could sell 20X this amount? Bring us back to that point, please."

Unless WotC is willing and capable of delivering a D&D edition every year that sells 20X, I believe they should just try and reach the X "soft spot" and find a way to make it last. I suggested selling other RPGs, someone else talked about DDI, selling boardgames and other stuff with the D&D brand is an idea as well. Creating new editions whenever current sales seem to be below the desired amount is the strategy adopted from 3e to Essentials, and I'm not sure it worked as intended. I see some merit in trying something else.

Cheers,

 

[delericho]

Okay. Now taking your example, if their target is indeed 10,000 = X... let's say in Year One in a new set of core books, they sell 20X. 200,000 copies. Are you telling me that because Years Two through Five might end up being below X since everything got front-loaded into Year One... that they now have a "failed" game line?

It depends on the specific details of how the metrics are defined, and how failure-averse the company is. However, when times get bad, corporations are not known for looking at historical success. They're prone to asking, "What have you done for me lately?"

So, yeah, if the line does 20X in year one followed by four years below X, then if Hasbro hits a sales blip they might well look at those four years of "failed to meet target" and cancel the line without a second thought - and they might do that even if the next edition is due to hit next year and do another 20X sales.

It would have been better for them to have sold X for 10 years for a total of 10X just to be able to say the game line "succeeded"? I don't think so. Why? Because I'm pretty anybody would take 20X and a perception from a bunch of dudes and gals on messageboards that the game failed

No, not "a bunch of dudes and gals on messageboards". Hasbro beancounters with targets to meet and bonuses to win. In the hands of any other RPG company, including Paizo, 4e would have been considered a runaway success. The indications are pretty strong that in the hands of Hasbro it is considered a failure.

Look, I'm not saying that supporting multiple editions would definitely split the player base in this regard. But it is a risk, and it has caused problems in the past. (See 2nd Eds multiple settings and the demise of TSR. And yes, I know that wasn't the full story.)

Would I like to see all the editions getting supported? Yes, I would. But if the price of doing that is that there's a significant risk of D&D (the RPG) disappearing entirely, then I think I'd rather they focus all their efforts on one edition - even if that one is my least favourite edition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Unless WotC is willing and capable of delivering a D&D edition every year that sells 20X, I believe they should just try and reach the X "soft spot" and find a way to make it last.

I'm with you for the most part here, in that yes, I imagine the bean-counters would prefer a steady stream of revenue each year over 10 years. The X "soft spot" as you put it. And this I think goes along with what delricho is also preaching. I'm pretty sure in one of the other threads I'm saying the exact same thing as you here (which admittedly seems like I'm contradicting myself.)

But here is the reason why. WotC can't reach the X "soft spot". I don't think it's possible. And the reason being is that a new edition of D&D is just too popular. As much as they probably would like to have X per year... the simple fact is that the brand is just too strong to not have a HUGE Year One. Even if WotC were to cut back on things like marketing and such. Dungeons & Dragons has just too much market penetration to expect and rely on a "soft release", and then have other people "find the game" over the intervening nine years to satisfy the X soft spot for sales.

Yes, Paizo has done that with Pathfinder... because it was a "new" game line with no market penetration. They've relied and been able to expect the X soft spot for sales because each year more people discover it-- especially in places like Barnes & Noble and other major stores where their shelves actually have a goodly amount of Paizo's product.

But since WotC really can't do that with D&D... they can't "undersell" the game like that... their only option is to pimp the crap out of a new edition, bring in as much cash at the top as they possibly can... and ride that bus for several down years until such time as they can feasible pull out another cash cow core release five years down the line. It'd be like Marvel not advertising Avengers 2 at all-- it's still going to make $150 million regardless just because of the number of people who know and care that it's coming... it just might not make the $400 million it might've been capable of. So they might as well pimp it as hard as they can to try and reach it.

I think it's the only way they can consistently bring in as much money as possible to their D&D RPG line. And like you said Giltonio... if that meant actually releasing a new edition every year that brought in 20X? You can be darn sure they would do it, complaints from the proletariat be damned.

 

[Zardnaar]

Paizo has been getting 30% growth rate each year from 2009-2012 so year 1 for them was their worst year. Its a difference of scale though.

 

[Umbran]

Okay. Now taking your example, if their target is indeed 10,000 = X... let's say in Year One in a new set of core books, they sell 20X. 200,000 copies. Are you telling me that because Years Two through Five might end up being below X since everything got front-loaded into Year One... that they now have a "failed" game line?

I am sure they would love to have that problem, where somehow their product is an unexpected breakaway hit like Cabbage Patch Kids and Beanie Babies.

But realistically, they know better. It isn't like they're working blind - they have at least some educated guesses, and the likelihood of them being off by a factor of 20 is pretty small. For a product like D&D core rulebooks, they already know they'll get a big glut of sales in the first year, that will reduce over time to maintenance level. Their goals will be set accordingly, being high initially, and dropping over time.

Generally speaking, you take your basic estimate of what you can expect to sell based on past performance and market research, and target somewhat higher than that - make the team stretch and reach a bit to hit an ambitious goal. So, generally, you're only going to exceed your goal by a small amount, if any.