D&D 5E Are you happy with how WOTC's D&D department interacts with the fans (Frequency/ Transparency/Methods)?

[TheDonger]

Jester,
I sympathize with you and your desire for more communication from the WoTC guys, but you have to realize that the world is bigger than you (or I). Have you considered that too much public communication may be in fact risky or harmful from the company's perspective? The DnD team is part of a billion dollar company (Hasbro) that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ, so any public communication from them has the potential of affecting the company's stock price (negatively or positively). So that's just to say there's probably a reason why the DnD folks may, in your words, pursue a "one-sided form of communication" or build a "wall" up.

 

[Jester David]

Jester,
I sympathize with you and your desire for more communication from the WoTC guys, but you have to realize that the world is bigger than you (or I). Have you considered that too much public communication may be in fact risky or harmful from the company's perspective? The DnD team is part of a billion dollar company (Hasbro) that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ, so any public communication from them has the potential of affecting the company's stock price (negatively or positively). So that's just to say there's probably a reason why the DnD folks may, in your words, pursue a "one-sided form of communication" or build a "wall" up.

You say yourself, Hasbro is a billion dollar company. D&D is a brand whose value is measure in tens of millions of dollars.
D&D has ZERO effect on the stock of Hasbro. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.

You can look at Hasbro stock and compare it to every major D&D event and there's no correlation. The launch of 4e occurred a stock dip for Hasbro and this time last year stock prices were all over. They certainly didn't spike with an interest in D&D.
First, because people tracking Hasbro stock are unlikey to connect it with WotC, let alone D&D. Second, D&D is small peanuts compared to every other thing Hasbro and WotC does. Magic the Gathering makes literally a hundred times more money than D&D. Similarly, any one of the other major brands of Hasbro likely more more in a couple months than D&D makes all year.

Unless the D&D staff accuses the Hasbro CEO of doing untoward things to goats, no one there likely gives a crap what they say. Because they're too small to make a difference. Insignificant.
You can look at the Habro quarterly reports:
http://investor.hasbro.com/results.cfm
Despite sales of the Core books going strong and Princes of the Apocalypse being released, revenue for the games department of Hasbro declined as there was no major MtG set, and D&D isn't even mentioned.

And it's not likely I'm asking them to do something they haven't done before! That's the annoying bit. I'm just asking them to keep doing what they were doing a year ago, and maybe pop onto the occasional forums, and return to doing interviews for podcasts.

 

[Cybit]

They seem pretty tight-lipped and poker-faced about a lot of things. For example, I'm curious if the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide is going to be the only regional setting book for the FR (I'm guessing it is) before they move on to another setting (which I think they will). Also, it wouldn't hurt to tell the fans about which settings they are considering publishing things for in the future (I'm sure they already know at this point anyway).

Other things bother me too like the whole idea of the conversion document being held up by one guy doing jury duty. I know many here take this explanation at face value but I don't. It just doesn't make sense.

Chris Perkins saying in an interview that the new setting material would be released in "new and exciting ways" and then it turns out to be a hardcover setting book anyway (although with a tighter focus on a specific region than we're used to). That's not exactly good communication either.

I don't know, when it comes down to it, WotC is just another company trying to make money. I don't fault them for that but expecting them to have a genuine interest in their fans that goes above and beyond the dollar sign is maybe a little naive. Good communication came out of them during the playtest because they needed the help of the fans... guess what, now that the playtest is over, they don't need us quite so much.

It also is amusing that many of the people clamoring for more communication seem to badly misinterpret the communication they do get. Heck - who says the SCACG is a "new setting book"? Hell, by definition, SCACG isn't a "new" setting book - it is the established setting, IE, Forgotten Realms.

I can't say I blame them for holding off on communication at this point - people tend to apply their own existing beliefs towards their communication and either love it or hate it regardless.

 

[TheDonger]

You say yourself, Hasbro is a billion dollar company. D&D is a brand whose value is measure in tens of millions of dollars.
D&D has ZERO effect on the stock of Hasbro. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.

You can look at Hasbro stock and compare it to every major D&D event and there's no correlation. The launch of 4e occurred a stock dip for Hasbro and this time last year stock prices were all over. They certainly didn't spike with an interest in D&D.
First, because people tracking Hasbro stock are unlikey to connect it with WotC, let alone D&D. Second, D&D is small peanuts compared to every other thing Hasbro and WotC does. Magic the Gathering makes literally a hundred times more money than D&D. Similarly, any one of the other major brands of Hasbro likely more more in a couple months than D&D makes all year.

Unless the D&D staff accuses the Hasbro CEO of doing untoward things to goats, no one there likely gives a crap what they say. Because they're too small to make a difference. Insignificant.
You can look at the Habro quarterly reports:
http://investor.hasbro.com/results.cfm
Despite sales of the Core books going strong and Princes of the Apocalypse being released, revenue for the games department of Hasbro declined as there was no major MtG set, and D&D isn't even mentioned.

And it's not likely I'm asking them to do something they haven't done before! That's the annoying bit. I'm just asking them to keep doing what they were doing a year ago, and maybe pop onto the occasional forums, and return to doing interviews for podcasts.

Not sure why you believe DnD is an "insignificant" part of Hasbro. Established business publications such as Forbes have reported on the business impact of DND and 5E, but I guess that doesn't count. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/

Also, Hasbro's President and CEO has reported on the financial impact of 5E, as documented in this old thread (which you popped in), but I guess that's not relevant either. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?443728-Hasbro-CEO-quot-D-amp-D-is-Really-on-a-Tear-quot

But even if you discount the financial impact of DnD 5E to Hasbro's overall business, the fact of the matter is "Dungeons & Dragons" is a globally recognized brand that goes beyond the tabletop game and touches books, video games, toys, media properties, etc. Point is the DND folks know this and endeavor to protect their brand by not straying too far from their script.

 

[Morrus]

It also is amusing that many of the people clamoring for more communication seem to badly misinterpret the communication they do get. Heck - who says the SCACG is a "new setting book"? Hell, by definition, SCACG isn't a "new" setting book - it is the established setting, IE, Forgotten Realms.

I said that. It's a new book which is a setting, not a book about a new setting.

 

[Jester David]

Not sure why you believe DnD is an "insignificant" part of Hasbro. Established business publications such as Forbes have reported on the business impact of DND and 5E, but I guess that doesn't count. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/

The Forbes blogger who specializes in writing "about games, hobbies, and people's passions" who penned the book Of Dice and Men wrote about D&D?! Shocking.
Now, if it was an actual article in the print magazine.

Also, Hasbro's President and CEO has reported on the financial impact of 5E, as documented in this old thread (which you popped in), but I guess that's not relevant either. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?443728-Hasbro-CEO-quot-D-amp-D-is-Really-on-a-Tear-quot

As I said in that thread, he commented because its profits were up. It's one of the few times D&D has been mentioned in the many, many years of Hasbro ownership.
However, if you look closer at the full transcript and context, you'll see that despite D&D being "on a tear" and launching a new edition that was its most successful edition in 30 years, growth in the larger games division was "flattish". So D&D didn't boost their profits in a meaningful way for them to see any real growth. Financially, D&D is a rounding error.

But even if you discount the financial impact of DnD 5E to Hasbro's overall business, the fact of the matter is "Dungeons & Dragons" is a globally recognized brand that goes beyond the tabletop game and touches books, video games, toys, media properties, etc. Point is the DND folks know this and endeavor to protect their brand by not straying too far from their script.

D&D is a globally recognized brand that people will respond with "oh yeah, that was big in the '80s. Is that still around??" It had a box office bomb 15 years ago, a cartoon 30 years ago, and a few popular video games a decade ago but hasn't really been in the public's eye for a generation.
Hasbro has several globally recognized brands. Pound Puppies. Jem. G.I. Joe. Transformers. My Little Pony. Littlest Pet Shop. Compared to them, D&D is nothing.
And they have a wealth of other properties from the '80s and 90s. BeyBlade. Inhumanoids. Visionaries. MASK. Glo Friends. COPS. GoBots. And so many more. D&D is forgettable among all those. To Hasbro, it's irrelevant. They didn't even buy WotC for D&D, they got it as a perk in exchange for Magic the Gathering.

 

[Cybit]

I said that. It's a new book which is a setting, not a book about a new setting.

My understanding was that Perkins was referring to "new setting" books (ala Al-Qadim), rather than "new book for an existing setting"?

One could also argue that releasing a video game to go with the SCACG is generally much bigger than the typical book release.