Are we fair to WotC?

[Dannager]

Used to be, the base game is free, and the addons cost money. I doubt I ever spent $100 a year on new game books; there just weren't that many. In any case, a subscription-based online service is not the same thing as owning a book.

You're right; for the purposes of running a D&D game, it's way better.

A nitpick, though - a subscription is about $70 per year. It's only $100 if you go month-to-month, which is a sucker's proposition if you're actually running a D&D campaign.

In other words, the cost of two hardcover rulebooks at list price.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You're right; for the purposes of running a D&D game, it's way better.

A nitpick, though - a subscription is about $70 per year. It's only $100 if you go month-to-month, which is a sucker's proposition if you're actually running a D&D campaign.

In other words, the cost of two hardcover rulebooks at list price.

More like three if you're buying through Amazon.

Anyway, I disagree that the model is better. It's simply different, and YMMV. With three hardcover books that I own, I can pass them around the table, loan them to friends, share them, store them away and bring them back for inspiration five years later when the next edition comes out, etc. With a subscription, I get value only as long as I'm paying for the subscription. I certainly don't want to pay for five years of subscription price to be able to use a reference down the road.

It's really not much different than the lease vs. buy model for automobiles -- do you prefer to lease your car or buy it?

Both business models work -- it depends upon what type of gamer you are. Some of us hang on to things for a long time, reuse, etc, and thus buying is the better model. Others prefer to have the latest and greatest, and use it for a shorter time, so leasing is the better model.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You're right; for the purposes of running a D&D game, it's way better.

I don't understand how that's the case. I much prefer having the actual books, and I don't like using computers during play. I've got plenty of WotC-made products that I've gotten good use out of and that were well worth the money (as well as some that weren't), but if you told me I could have online access to them for $70 a year, I'd say no.

Now if you told me I could have free access to them, having bought the books, I might get some use out of it. But the stuff WotC makes these days isn't even worth me downloading it for free (regrettably I had to stop downloading the playtests when I accepted that they just weren't worth my time). There was a thread recently in general rpg about free products not being worth it. Value isn't solely a question of how much money you spend; it's also about what you get.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't understand how that's the case. I much prefer having the actual books, and I don't like using computers during play.

.

Same here.

As far as subscription services for RPGs, they just are not for me. If WOTC is going that direction again, then I will likely just stick with the core books or play other games (like Numenera).

 

[DaveMage]

I share the opinion that keeping a bunch of the fluff would've helped ease the continuity breach brought on by the necessary discontinuity in the crunch.

I disagree with the notion that "enough people did to cause 4E's failure." Failure depends on your goals. The revenue goals Hasbro put on the D&D brand were failed, certainly. There wasn't enough money in the RPG market to meet them, period. By those standards every RPG brand in the market is a miserable failure. I think that speaks to corporate thinking in terms of what they are trying to squeeze out of this brand and how compatible that is with a traditional D&D model of trying to turn a profit selling the same people splat-books until they burn out and tune out.

If we're talking about how long the edition lasted, I guess 3.0 was a failure. It had to be replaced in 3 years and revising the edition to fix its problems nearly resulted in an unseemly end involving pitchforks and torches. 3.5 went 5 years before 4E. 4E runs 5 years before the release of D&DNext. :shrug:

"Failure" in my comment above means both failure by WotC financial standards and the failure to hang on to a large core group of customers. And the 3.0 -> 3.5 switch so soon was also something I did not like (although ultimately I liked the 3.5 ruleset better than 3.0), but the worst part about the 3.0 to 3.5 switch from my perspective was the impact to 3PPs. Poor Atlas Games had just released the most expensive (at the time) d20 product (the Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary) which was awesome (IMO), but instantly outdated.

 

[Wicht]

I don't think that's a mistake from the company's perspective. In fact, it highlights the fact that the biggest mistake they ever made in regards to their business model was the OGL itself.

The business model we've seen since the TSR days that holds true to today is a simple cycle:
1.) Sell PHB / DMG / MM
2.) Sell splat books
3.) Stop producing new content for that Edition
4.) Repeat steps 1-3 with a new edition that's not fully backwards compatible so people buy your new line to use new content

The OGL broke that cycle horribly. The owner of the brand couldn't end-of-life the market's support of for-profit OGL content. That meant for the first time ever D&D's owners couldn't use the "exclusive new content" carrot to prod people into moving on to the new edition.

Those who crafted the OGL knew exactly what they were doing. The problem is not with the OGL; it was in WotC failure to properly utilize it (cf. Paizo's market strategy) due to a failure to appreciate what a gold mine it was. I would posit the 4 step business model you provide is a deeply flawed model and the OGL forcing a company to abandon it, even partially, is a good thing. [caveat - I don't fully buy the model described as the true model in play prior to 3rd edition, due to the fact that it was extremely easy to use AD&D books with 2nd edition. I did it all the time. For that matter, I never fully switched from 3.0 to 3.5 but used books for both interchangeably; in fact when doing design, I still use books from 3.0 and 3.5 with Pathfinder books as necessary.]

On top of which, the actual revenues generated by Pathfinder aren't anywhere near adequate to meet the revenue goals Hasbro set for the D&D brand.

And may I just say how glad I am you posted this. I've been wondering what the revenue being generated by Paizo is these days and would love for you to share the source of your insider's information, if not the actual figures themselves.

 

[Imaro]

And may I just say how glad I am you posted this. I've been wondering what the revenue being generated by Paizo is these days and would love for you to share the source of your insider's information, if not the actual figures themselves.

... I see what you did there... well played.

 

[Derren]

Absolutely. WotC took a risk on a big sea change and while it might have worked for a period of time, it wasn't sustainable over the long haul. But kudos for them for attempting the big sea change in the first place.

That they were willing to make radical changes is a good thing, but the changes they did were in my eyes not very good.
In the end they changed the direction the game evolved. In my eyes the big accomplishments of 3E was its openness (multiclassing, no forced weapon combinations, the options of wearing every armor you want, feats) and also non combat applications to allow for gameplay which previously needed to be freeformed.
I think a lot of people wanted this part to be improved and streamlined in 4E, but instead WotC shot those ideas down and swept them under the rug. So understandably people who liked 3E over, for example 2E, because of those improvements were upset.

 

[Imaro]

That they were willing to make radical changes is a good thing, but the changes they did were in my eyes not very good.
In the end they changed the direction the game evolved. In my eyes the big accomplishments of 3E was its openness (multiclassing, no forced weapon combinations, the options of wearing every armor you want, feats) and also non combat applications to allow for gameplay which previously needed to be freeformed.
I think a lot of people wanted this part to be improved and streamlined in 4E, but instead WotC shot those ideas down and swept them under the rug. So understandably people who liked 3E over, for example 2E, because of those improvements were upset.

The funny thing is I would argue that with the release of the Player's Option books that 2e was actually moving in the direction that 3e took.

 

[mlund]

Those who crafted the OGL knew exactly what they were doing. The problem is not with the OGL; it was in WotC failure to properly utilize it (cf. Paizo's market strategy) due to a failure to appreciate what a gold mine it was. I would posit the 4 step business model you provide is a deeply flawed model and the OGL forcing a company to abandon it, even partially, is a good thing.

OGL was a gold mine for some 3PPs who didn't have to invest the fixed costs of building the OGL or the OGL's built-in user base. It was never a gold mine for Wizards/Hasbro and they never showed a hint of a viable business model to capitalize on it for revenue. It was more like a community service project that crippled their traditional business model and made other companies money.

And may I just say how glad I am you posted this. I've been wondering what the revenue being generated by Paizo is these days and would love for you to share the source of your insider's information, if not the actual figures themselves.

Yeah, yeah. I know that Paizo and Wizards both like to spin their sales figures while keeping their books closed.

However, the macros are pretty easy to read in broad terms. The BookScan and Amazon sales numbers (for whatever they are worth) for Pathfinder never reached the ridiculous levels they would've needed to indicate meeting Hasbro goals. Around 2011 they were on par with or around the 2010-2011 figures for D&D - the same figures that got 4E dropped even with all the DDI subscriptions, novel sales, etc. bringing in significant additional revenues.

Yeah, they could have millions of dollars in monthly revenue coming from direct PDF sales or something. It's not realistic in this market, though.

The real point people keep overlooking is that this is a Hasbro problem in terms of revenue guidance / expectations being out of sync with the pen-and-paper RPG market. They wanted Monopoly sales or Warcraft sales, not D&D/Pathfinder sales. Likewise the OGL vs. End-of-Life is a corporate business model problem.

- Marty Lund