D&D to become entirely online?

[Darrin Drader]

Outsource Dragon and Dungeon? No, they'd never do that.

Dump Greyhawk? No, never.

Lay off most of the people who made 3rd edition a success? Inconceivable!

Release a half edition just three years after the new edition's launch? What are you smoking?

Randomized miniatures? Who are you kidding?

Kill off the magazines entirely? No, they'd never do that.

Release 4th edition after just eight years after the last edition change? Forget it.

Effectively end open gaming? No way.

See where I'm going with this? No, I haven't heard any such plans, and I think that doing so would be bad for gaming, but never underestimate the short-sightedness of Hasbro.

 

[jdrakeh]

See where I'm going with this? No, I haven't heard any such plans, and I think that doing so would be bad for gaming, but never underestimate the short-sightedness of Hasbro.

The only problem is that, while you may personally dislike most of the decisions that you allude to, almost all of them proved to be good business decisions (with the possible exception of discontinuing Dungeon and Dragon mags in print). Let's run down that list:

• Outsourcing Dragon and Dungeon?

Paizo made Dungeon and Dragon both more popular than they had been for a very, very, long time. In retrospect, this seems like a good call to me, if not a great call.

• Dump Greyhawk?

As the default setting? Sure. It wasn't exactly selling the core books, after all. When was the last time that you heard a total newcomer to RPGs say "I think we should play D&D because Greyhawk is the default setting!" (alternately, when was the last time that you heard anybody say this)? Dumping it as a 'Living' D&D 3x campaign? Again, that seems like a smart decision given that they're no longer going to support D&D 3x.

• Lay off most of the people who made 3rd edition a success?

Probably not the best choice, but in the current economic recession WotC is only one of hundreds of companies implementing layoffs or firing staff in order to keep their doors open. Does it suck? Sure. Was it an economic necessity? Most likely, yes -- which makes it a good business decision.

• Release a half edition just three years after the new edition's launch?

Well, as many people revolted against this decision, even more people went out and bought the D&D 3.5 core books -- which makes this another pretty good business decision on the part of WotC.

• Randomized miniatures?

These have been wildly popular since day one, even spawning an entirely new collector's market that persists even today. For the record, I hate them, too -- but I also realize that I'm in the minority.

• Kill off the magazines entirely?

An obviously bad decision in my eyes, given that the replacement is still not working as advertised. They should have kept the print mags in production at least until the DDI was 100% operational.

• Release 4th edition after just eight years after the last edition change? F

If sales of 3x and many third party products hadn't started tanking in 2006 and continued to decline with relatively few exceptions, I'd agree that this was a pretty bad idea. But they did. This makes the release of a new edition not just a great idea but one of the only things that would have generated enough new public interest to keep the game from dying completely.

• Effectively end open gaming?

While I intensely dislike the new GSL, I understand why it happened the way that it happened. There was a lot of 3rd party crap published under the OGL. Wholesalers raised hell about it, retailers raised hell about it, and consumers raised hell about it. WotC listened and implemented some honest to god QC -- sadly, this meant a more restrictive license, though the tradeoff will probably make everybody but publishers happy in the long term.

So, by my estimation, you have one really bad decision on that whole list, four likely good decisions, and three fantastic decisions. That's not quite the track record of Horrible Business that many people make it out to be.

 

[Dice4Hire]

See where I'm going with this? No, I haven't heard any such plans, and I think that doing so would be bad for gaming, but never underestimate the short-sightedness of Hasbro.

Yeah, I see where you are going. Pure ranting. You hate them. Fine. But they made sense for Wiards to do so, and put a lot of money in their pocket.

 

[naturaltwenty]

I definitley agree with all of your excellent points. I tend to think though that WotC isn't as kind-hearted to the retailer or consumer. The premise of the OGL was to allow others to get in on the action of making supplements/adventures and what not and WotC would still get revenue from selling core books.

The OGL and full release of the SRD allowed companies to make alternative (and in some cases more robust/better) versions of D&D. True20, Castles & Crusades, Blue Rose, Mutants & Masterminds, BESM d20, Silver Age Sentinels, etc to name a few, diluted the revenue that WotC could reap from it's core book sales. D&D, while still strong in it's brand identity, was overshadowed at times by variant games.

I also think that the OGL and SRD directly caused the 3.0 to 3.5 change and ramped up WotC's hard-cover splat book release. It was the nuclear escalation to compete with all of the other companies producing splat books. The GSL will put a halt to that post haste!

WotC had to reign in the GSL or suffer the same fate with the release of 4e. Is it as friendly as the OGL? No effing way but it was necessary from a business standpoint and at-the-end-of-the-day WotC's responsibility is to the share-holders of Hasbro.

*Note: I like 4e and am excited about it. Having run it once already I've seen some definite sparkle in the eyes of both old and new players.

There was a lot of 3rd party crap published under the OGL. Wholesalers raised hell about it, retailers raised hell about it, and consumers raised hell about it. WotC listened and implemented some honest to god QC -- sadly, this meant a more restrictive license, though the tradeoff will probably make everybody but publishers happy in the long term.

 

[Jhaelen]

An acquaintance claims to be a freelance game designer and discuss things frequently with several WotC staff members.[...]
I've never heard such a thing, but this guy claims that he's "in" with several WotC staffers, and that he's a Hasbro shareholder (he's always complaining about how bad D&D is doing).

Ah, THIS guy!

Yeah, I met him several times over the past 25 years. He always looked different but you could recognize him because of the BS he was spreading was always just that: BS. Sad guy, really.

 

[Psion]

The only problem is that, while you may personally dislike most of the decisions that you allude to, almost all of them proved to be good business decisions (with the possible exception of discontinuing Dungeon and Dragon mags in print).

Be that as it may, being a good business decision doesn't make most of those decisions--or the one being hypothesized here--any less noisome to those affected by such decisions.

That said, many of the so-called things you are calling good business decisions aren't demonstratably so, because we don't have the alternate case to compare it against.

 

[Maggan]

Yeah, I met him several times over the past 25 years. He always looked different but you could recognize him because of the BS he was spreading was always just that: BS. Sad guy, really.

A bit like the Eternal Champion? I've had that guy tell me secret truths I didn't know about stuff I was writing myself. Ah, what fun it would be if "this guy" actually was the same guy all the time.

/M

 

[Mark]

D&D to become entirely online?

Well, "entirely" suggests a level of control that just isn't there, if one is suggesting that WotC was going in that direction. However, even MMORPGs, CRPGs, and other such games have books and magazines dedicated to them despite being played online or primarily using a computer and by persons sitting alone in some location. It is true that if WotC wishes to continue this trend toward emulating aspects of such games they will eventually come to the conclusion that the lion's share of money to be made on such a game is not in dead tree products, and that books and magazines are, in essence, advertisements for those types of games every bit as much as they might be supplemental to actual gameplay. WotC would certainly need to go outisde of the company to garner adequate technical expertise do move further in that direction. Your friend was likely listening to some theoretical discussions not actually witnessing a longterm planning and strategy meeting.

 

[drothgery]

• Lay off most of the people who made 3rd edition a success?

Probably not the best choice, but in the current economic recession WotC is only one of hundreds of companies implementing layoffs or firing staff in order to keep their doors open. Does it suck? Sure. Was it an economic necessity? Most likely, yes -- which makes it a good business decision.

I think he's talking about way back shortly after the 3e launch when Monte and some more prominent people left. Almost all of the big names who were at WotC for 3.5 are still there for 4e.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think this idea is absurd as some people would like to make it out to be. Both I and my brother work in IT and we were just discussing this the oither day. Our musings led us to some startling thoughts...

1. DDI as a test bed for financial profitability. If WotC can get enough people to sign up for DDI on a long term basis they will have a steady flow of cash instead of the pick and choose purcases of actual books. Assuming success I think this would be a go ahead to move more towards an online model.

2. With 5th ed. WotC still sells books, but you can sign up for a subscription model, where the books are delivered in a PDF format, before they are released into distribution as well as garnering the benefits of a DDI type model. Overall charged to a lesser cost than purchasing the books, but WotC saves plenty in printing costs. The same way Dragon and Dungeon moved to PDF format (again a test bed to see how this is accepted). And for those who talk about piracy...so what, 4e has already shown this won't have a significant effect on purchases (I wouldn't be surprised if they were leaked on purpose to test this out).

3. With 6th ed. move to a totally online format, where the books can only be purchased through a subscription model or individually(for a higher price). An enhancement of the DDI features so that it is actually more common to play online than offline. People can test the new edition of the game online instead of only at conventions or through special demos (for a small fee of course, that will be rationalized as KotS was). And with the increase in income they now have "professional DM's" that can run games, again for a small fee, for anyone who wants to play.

This doesn't seem a stupid route (if done in a gradual way), or a bad business decision where finances are concerned...on the other hand I wouldn't be playing D&D anymore if this is ultimately where it's headed.