Eric Noah's Info

[Eytan Bernstein]

From my point of view, as a current freelancer for WOTC, it'd be easier (for me) if 3.5 continued for years. It's just simpler to design using a ruleset with which you are extremely familiar. That said, I have learned other rulesets in the past quite well - Shadowrun 1E, 2E, 3E, planning to read up on 4E, World of Darkness in its various incarnations, Palladium, etc...

If 4E is being planned for 2007, I certainly haven't heard anything about it. As recently as the last few months, I've been working on project(s) slated for 2007 (some confirmed by the catalog). It's certainly possible that 4E is coming - I wouldn't be among the early people to know about this by any means. I hope that if it does come along, the current freelancers (including myself) will continue to work on the new edition's books.

It'd be real nice if in the big change, there was room for more full time positions, but I don't do my design work under that assumption. While it would keep me (and many other designers) in a comfort zone if 3E/3.5 continues, I am ready, if need be, to move on to a new edition. This is the reason that my company, Silven Publishing, along with many other small press companies, is trying our hand at putting out supplements that are not D20 based (sometimes not setting based at all). We are still doing some d20 content - which is our bread and butter and the focus of our upcoming several book print run - but we are diversifying so that we can make the transition when it happens.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Well, for what its worth a co-worker of mine was a former WoTC employee, and he confirmed thet 4E was moving in the direction stated on the front page. He did not have a clear time line, but he said it was in the works when he left, which was about a year ago now.

Just an expansion on an earlier thought, maybe 4E will not be called 4E, but something else, and will be more of a table top stratagy game made from the ground up to be just that. They could run both side by side for a while, and then drop active 3.5E production if it isn't profitable. Might lessen customer resentment.

 

[Nightfall]

Not for me. I'm already resentful enough. My avatars prove that.

 

[Banshee16]

And, you are not the market where the $ is at I'm guessing.

Why not? Plenty of us who have spent $100's of dollars, or $1000's will be unwilling to change without good reason. We're not the market? Most gamers don't spend nearly that amount on games.

The only thing this might do, is cause me to update my core rulebooks to the 3.5 printings, as my 3.0 versions are starting to get old and beaten.

Banshee

 

[Pants]

What's with all the people coming out of the basement and saying they *know* WotC employees who have confirmed the existence of 4e? Did I just miss them all in previous threads or is this a recent thing?

As for my opinion:
Wait and see.

 

[Nightfall]

Banshee,

yeah but consider how much some kids that were our ages are now shelling out on console video games, cell phones, etc...and then there's RPGs. So yeah we're not a market any more. Since now these kids are taking it from us! *is being slightly sarcastic*

 

[rounser]

Just an expansion on an earlier thought, maybe 4E will not be called 4E, but something else, and will be more of a table top stratagy game made from the ground up to be just that. They could run both side by side for a while, and then drop active 3.5E production if it isn't profitable. Might lessen customer resentment.

Extremely unlikely, IMO.

It would confuse newcomers about their brand, and split the market, which is why WOTC dropped the D&D/AD&D distinction and the majority of campaign settings, from what I gather.

 

[Nightfall]

What's with all the people coming out of the basement and saying they *know* WotC employees who have confirmed the existence of 4e? Did I just miss them all in previous threads or is this a recent thing?

As for my opinion:
Wait and see.

Yeah but see if Eric has the rumor, some of us are inclinded to believe it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have a question, if "all the money" comes from Magic: The Gathering and Miniatures;

Where are the M:TG miniatures?

And the M:TG D&D setting, sourcebook and monster book.

 

[Banshee16]

No, it isn't. "Overhead" is your cost of doing business. Higher overhead means you need greater gross income to cover costs. Since profit is what you get after you cover your overhead, it doesn't need to be bigger.

Profit is your difference between your revenue and your costs...correct. But profitability targets are set by Hasbro management, who are responsible to Hasbro's shareholders, who really don't give two figs about D&D, as long as it makes them money. That being said, the overhead in a larger company such as Hasbro means that they have to do *that much* better, to make a profit.

A smaller, leaner company, with lower expenses, could generate a higher profit. That's what I'm getting at.

It's basic for business. As businesses grow, some things that they used to do become harder and harder to do cost-effectively enough to generate a profit.

Hasbro might have all kinds of things that smaller companies don't need to worry about....higher salaries, more generous vacation and time off policies, health plans, share purchasing plans, higher rent for their offices etc. All of these cost money, and are less likely in smaller companies...hence, lower overhead.

If you can only theoretically sell a D&D book for $35, and it's costing you $20 to make it, and another company will sell it for $30, but only take $10 to make it because they've got fewer staff, employees are working during their time off to make a project succeed etc. then the smaller company will be more successful at publishing that book. Maybe not more successful as a company, but more successful with publishing that type of product. It just becomes a matter of the company's expenses outgrowing the product line.

Traditionally, RPGs have been a niche market - they don't sell enough units to take real advantage of the economy of scale Hasbro has available. So they are a poor fit for the company. They'd prefer to invest in something that can make real use of their massive production and distribution, like Pokemon and Magic cards could.

I don't agree with Wulf, insofar as I don't think matching a smaller product with a larger company will tend to be a winning proposition for either. For best results, the product line ought to seem big for the company that owns it, rather than small. That means the company will be more likely to have the good of the product foremost in it's mind. Our favorite thing really needs to be someone's favored baby, not the weakling stepchild that never measures up to it's siblings

Correct. I think Hasbro is too big for D&D. The game doesn't garner enough attention, and they either need to yank prices to the point that sales start dropping, find some way to cut costs maybe by using cheaper printers, outsourcing the writing to India, or revising their business model to make it more like CCGs, in order to generate the profit they want. In so doing, they might irreparably damage the game. It is a gamble. Hence, I'd prefer they sell it to a smaller, financially stable company, who will treat it as their most important job, instead of job #314.

Banshee