Analyzing WotC's 4E Product publications

[Mercurius]

First, a key:
Hardcovers – pretty self-explanatory. A D&D book with a hard cover.
Softcovers – includes digest-sized books, non-digest soft covers, adventure sleeves and folders, etc.
Box sets – again, self-explanatory. However, I am not including the Dungeon Tile Master sets here but in accessories.
Accessories – non-book D&D items such as dungeon tiles, character record sheets, dice, DM’s screen, etc.
Other – Everything else that is vaguely D&D related. This includes miniatures, non-D&D games like Gamma World, board games, Heroscape, and one or two books that aren’t directly part of the rules (e.g. The Dummies book); it does not include novels or non-D&D related WotC products.


There are other ways to break this down but for the purposes of this discussion I think format is important. I also want to thank TerraDave, whose official D&D 4E products list proved very helpful.

Now some numbers:

2008
Hardcovers – 9
Softcovers - 6
Box sets – 1
Accessories – 5
Other - 3



2009
Hardcovers – 16
Softcovers - 5
Box sets – 0
Accessories – 6
Other - 5

2010
Hardcovers - 12
Softcovers - 10
Box Sets - 3
Accessories - 6
Other - 12

2011 (announced)
Hardcovers - 2
Softcovers - 0
Box Sets - 3
Accessories - 4
Other - 3

Let’s take a look at that in a chart form; for the sake of simplicity I’m going to combine hardcovers, softcovers, and box sets into one category, Books, because they are all of a general kind for the sake of this analysis: readable, D&D products:

Now given that there may be items in 2011 that haven’t been announced, especially in the 3rd and 4th quarters, lets look at 2010 and the first half of 2011 by quarter:

2010, Q1
Books - 5
Accessories – 2
Other – 3

2010, Q2
Books - 6
Accessories – 1
Other – 2

2010, Q3
Books - 10
Accessories – 1
Other – 2

2010, Q4
Books - 4
Accessories – 2
Other – 5

2011, Q1
Books - 0
Accessories – 3
Other – 2

2011, Q2
Books - 3
Accessories – 1
Other – 1


And here's the chart:

COMMENTS:
The big obvious sore thumb is the drop in the Books category in 2011. There was a huge spike in Q3 of 2010 due to the Essentials line, but then a plummet and an entirely book-less quarter to begin 2011. This includes a five month gap between the last book of 2010 (Monster Vault in mid-November) and the first book of 2011 (Heroes of Shadow in mid-April), as well as an eight month gap between the last non-Essentials book, and thus truly new material, in August (Psionic Power) and Heroes of Shadow.

The publication history shows that WotC has released an average of just over 20 books each year of 4E (62 total, including 16 in 2008, 21 in 2009, and 25 in 2010), with only 5 books announced for 2011. The Accessories and Other categories look to be more consistent, with miniatures replaced by board games and possibly other products. Now even if, say, a book is added in 2011 Q2 and maybe 2 in each of the last quarters, we're still looking at a huge drop in books to somewhere in the 5-12 range, or about half the out-put or less of each of the first three years.

Now I don't have the numbers but it is worth noting that even the 2008-10 numbers are down from the 3.5 days, which saw 30-40 or more books published each year; if you go back to the 80s and 90s, it is many more again. Even if D&D Insider can make-up for some of the lost book content, I think it is undeniable that Dungeons & Dragons is in noticeable decline.

Finally, it would be interesting to follow up with at least two further studies: One, breaking the same info down by type of content rather than format (e.g. core rules, expansions, settings, themes, adventures, etc); two, comparing all of this data with earlier editions. Maybe when I have the time...

 

[deinol]

It's hard to read too much into incomplete data. We don't know what else will be coming out this year.

The picture I see is this: Wizards decides to use Essentials to try and bring in new customers. It didn't do as well as expected. When the 2010 Q4 numbers are in Wizards decides to shift in a new direction. That causes delays which pushes 2011 Q1 releases out. There is still time to announce more Q2 releases.

The key clue I'm basing this hypothesis is the book they decide to switch from digest format into traditional hardcover. We'll have to wait and see what their new direction will be. My guess is they are still having meetings trying to figure that out. We'll see how things shake out in another couple months.

 

[cdrcjsn]

This analysis left out DDI.

Considering that DDI is producing millions of dollars of gross profit for WotC (estimate based on current subscribers that also use WotC forums, so in fact might be much higher), I think this analysis falls short of seeing the whole picture.

 

[kitsune9]

The graphs show that WotC's has shifted gears in 2010; however, I do agree with Cdrcjsn that in order to see a more comprehensive analysis we'll need to see where DDI fits in. However, we can make something a speculation by adding three new scenarios with DDI.

1. The first scenario assume DDI increases from 2008 and projected to continously increase in 2011. What would this mean? Well, it could that WotC's plan is changing from the physical product to more DDI.

2. The second scenario assumes DDI pretty much remains flat. In 2008, it starts up, rises and falls, rises and falls. What could this mean? Well, it could be that WotC is scaling back because of outside economic factors on the physical product and haven't come up with a solid plan to drive DDI to continue to rise.

3. The last scenario assumes DDI is in decline as well. In 2008, it starts up, maybe had a major momentum in 2009, but in 2010 and projected 2011 it's in decline. What could this mean? That WotC is scaling back operations and cost-cutting.

Does any of these mean anything bad? Not really (except maybe #3, but retrenching and cost-cutting are normal cycles of business if a business finds that it bit off more than it could chew).

Now the things here that I cannot infer from the analysis is whether WotC is in trouble or if there is a general failure. What we can see is their strategy on making changes with their current business plan which is interesting. I'll be more interested in seeing the projected 2012.

 

[Dedekind]

The next step would be to count the number of articles published each year? Sounds like a lot of work.

 

[shadzar]

Since this is playing with the future, I have a question if it exists or can be done.

Compare and contrast the quarters of the years we have no moving into Esentials after some books are to be coming out, with the same quarters at the time 3.5 came out to see if the rate is similar.

I would bet a jump due to 3.5 initial core books, but was there also a drop after that before things picked back up?

 

[Nagol]

Since this is playing with the future, I have a question if it exists or can be done.

Compare and contrast the quarters of the years we have no moving into Esentials after some books are to be coming out, with the same quarters at the time 3.5 came out to see if the rate is similar.

I would bet a jump due to 3.5 initial core books, but was there also a drop after that before things picked back up?

Here's a link to one of Echohawk's terrific graphs that shows hardcover publication over time.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/298694-class-compendium-gone.html#post5412197

3.5 was released Mid 2003. There was no pullback following it. Quite the opposite.

Here is another of his graphs showing total publications over time:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/298694-class-compendium-gone.html#post5412666

Again 3.5 spurred an increase not a pullback.

 

[shadzar]

Here's a link to one of Echohawk's terrific graphs that shows hardcover publication over time.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/298694-class-compendium-gone.html#post5412197

3.5 was released Mid 2003. There was no pullback following it. Quite the opposite.

Here is another of his graphs showing total publications over time:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/298694-class-compendium-gone.html#post5412666

Again 3.5 spurred an increase not a pullback.

This could suggest then that 3.5 was full steam ahead from the onset, pretty much as should be expected, but releases for 4th were planned, then changed to Essentials as the "core" products to develop to continue with and there is NOTHING ready as more Essentials material so things have to be converted to reflect Essentials rather than 4th design before they will be released?

 

[Nagol]

This could suggest then that 3.5 was full steam ahead from the onset, pretty much as should be expected, but releases for 4th were planned, then changed to Essentials as the "core" products to develop to continue with and there is NOTHING ready as more Essentials material so things have to be converted to reflect Essentials rather than 4th design before they will be released?

I know little about 4e past the first 3 books and less about Essentials, but a common meme on these boards is Essentials is 4e as there were few/no changes to game rules, previously published classes, or game conceits with the Essentials line.

It that meme is correct then there is little to no reason to "Essentialise" any planned release is there?

 

[shadzar]

I know little about 4e past the first 3 books and less about Essentials, but a common meme on these boards is Essentials is 4e as there were few/no changes to game rules, previously published classes, or game conceits with the Essentials line.

It that meme is correct then there is little to no reason to "Essentialise" any planned release is there?

I don't know, but someone posted a link and quote form a July Ampersand that was along the lines of Essentials will be what future products are based off of....for what is it worth.

As well someone has posted somewhere around here, that Essentials removed Vancian casting from non-casters in 4th edition, whatever that means to classes as well as how compatible they are or integratable with each other enough.

Why move forward with Essentials as the base, rather than the original 4th if they are the same?

I know little about Essentials just like you so just asking and trying to extrapolate information via speculation from the data the graphs present and other known information.