D&D General Darksun Adventure sales from Ben Riggs author of Slaying the Dragon

darjr

I crit!
Also WotC tried harder to grow the hobby. Also it wasn’t thier cash cow. They KNEW it was tiny profits and did it anyway in hopes of fostering a bigger industry. See just about anything the CEO of WotC posted about why he bought TSR and why he kept trying to sell D&D.

He did actually face some resistance to even making D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Bruce Heard didn’t even take issue the numbers.
You should tell Bruce Heard that.

4E43E362-F5DD-4DC2-9BB4-4E853FFEAAFA.png
 



GreyLord

Legend
Because WotC didn’t. It was a variety of companies that were not WotC. Many of which DiD go out of business.

True, but if the lines were split, that means WotC would have ALSO had that much more trouble as well. Worse than TSR.

For example, If I am Buster, and I have 20 dollars...I can only buy one book. I have a choice of 10 campaign lines. I buy one, the other 9 lose out. If that is TSR, they gain 20 dollars, and don't sell 180 dollars of product.

Take that as WotC. I am Buster...I have 20 dollars...I can only buy one book. I have a choice of 50 campaign lines. I buy one. The other 49 lose out. If it is WotC, they gain 20 dollars. They lose 180 on the other lines they are selling (Because they still have a bunch of books from other campaign settings for sale). The others also go out of business.

I dislike that this entire story is that TSR splitting the campaigns is what sunk it. It isn't. WotC's actions even show they didn't even believe that piece of hokum.

It's not even a hidden secret. These things are out there and even discussed (or at least some of it has been). The book deal and relying on those funds as set hard finances is something that has been mentioned quite frequently. That is probably a MUCH bigger deal on what sunk TSR than having put out multiple campaign settings. It wasn't the multiple campaign settings themselves being put out that was the problem.

If it were, WotC would not have been continuing to do so with ever edition ever since.

It is the financial decisions made BEHIND that support and HOW that support is done which can be problematic. If you are making a module for a line that had it's last product sell 8k units, than it would be dumb to print 20k...most likely. You MIGHT turn a profit if you sell 3k, but it might be smarter just to release a new creative setting instead (yes, that might split the line, but it might also sell better than a dying product line). Printing 20K then is a financial decision, NOT something really related to "splitting" the line. I don't see a causation between the release of campaign settings and cannibalization of product.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
None of that is Bruce claiming the numbers are wrong or that Bens sources is wrong. It’s a complaint about the presentation and format.
We must take asking someone for their source very differently then. When you make a claim and someone else demands you cite a source, they’re calling you a liar and demanding you back up your claim with proof because they don’t believe you.
 


darjr

I crit!
True, but if the lines were split, that means WotC would have ALSO had that much more trouble as well. Worse than TSR.

For example, If I am Buster, and I have 20 dollars...I can only buy one book. I have a choice of 10 campaign lines. I buy one, the other 9 lose out. If that is TSR, they gain 20 dollars, and don't sell 180 dollars of product.

Take that as WotC. I am Buster...I have 20 dollars...I can only buy one book. I have a choice of 50 campaign lines. I buy one. The other 49 lose out. If it is WotC, they gain 20 dollars. They lose 180 on the other lines they are selling (Because they still have a bunch of books from other campaign settings for sale). The others also go out of business.

I dislike that this entire story is that TSR splitting the campaigns is what sunk it. It isn't. WotC's actions even show they didn't even believe that piece of hokum.

It's not even a hidden secret. These things are out there and even discussed (or at least some of it has been). The book deal and relying on those funds as set hard finances is something that has been mentioned quite frequently. That is probably a MUCH bigger deal on what sunk TSR than having put out multiple campaign settings. It wasn't the multiple campaign settings themselves being put out that was the problem.

If it were, WotC would not have been continuing to do so with ever edition ever since.

It is the financial decisions made BEHIND that support and HOW that support is done which can be problematic. If you are making a module for a line that had it's last product sell 8k units, than it would be dumb to print 20k...most likely. You MIGHT turn a profit if you sell 3k, but it might be smarter just to release a new creative setting instead (yes, that might split the line, but it might also sell better than a dying product line). Printing 20K then is a financial decision, NOT something really related to "splitting" the line. I don't see a causation between the release of campaign settings and cannibalization of product.
No. Because the problem it caused was because TSR was the sole investor. There weren’t third party companies losing money and going bankrupt, it was TSR. That burden wasn’t spread across a bevy of OGL minions to take the hits so the main NPC could carry on.
 

GreyLord

Legend
To be fair, WotC didn't start out 3E doing thar, and they stopped pretty quick. Multiple product lines is something they have avoided hard for some time.

They tailored it. If you see the Graphs, it can become pretty obvious WHY they did so.

What the graphs posted show is that campaign settings seem to sell well and then have a steep drop off. Further re-releases or sales also tend to follow that. In that light, releasing a campaign setting is good, but you want to do it at maximum impact. Thus, a release probably ever year or so (or in Paizo's case, with AP's, ever 6 months).

You can see this start to form during 3.5, and it took over HARD for 4e. In that time, you see the idea to release ONE campaign setting per year or more if possible.

I think 5e has tried to follow this trend in a modified fashion as well, though not with campaign settings as it were, but in a fashion related to slower rules releases and adventures based on various campaign ideas.
 

GreyLord

Legend
No. Because the problem it caused was because TSR was the sole investor. There weren’t third party companies losing money and going bankrupt, it was TSR. That burden wasn’t spread across a bevy of OGL minions to take the hits so the main NPC could carry on.

If I have 200 dollars and it all goes to TSR, TSR gets all of it.

IF I have 200 dollars and now only 20 goes to WotC...but WotC is printing just as much product as TSR was...who is going to lose more money?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top