Hasbro CEO: "D&D is Really on a Tear"

Sorry, that laugh was a result of clumsy fingers on my phone.

 

[Mercurius]

And a conservative release schedule being *wise* is entirely the point. There is a LOT of time to release books, as we haven't even reached the end of Year One yet.

Yes, agreed, but...

Here was the release schedule for 4E:...

As [MENTION=58401]doctorhook[/MENTION] pointed out, your memory is rather selective - there were a lot more releases for 4E. Actually, both 3.5 and 4E seemed to go with the basic idea of one major release in the form of a hardcover every month, and one or two minor products to go along with.

Right now, we have no idea if 5E will see this same amount of support.

Yes we do. I think we can say, with a good deal of certainty, that 5E won't see the same amount of support as 2E, 3E, or 4E - and that's probably a good thing. But the folks at WotC have essentially said as much.

My guess is when we look back on 5E from a decade or so in the future, it might end up getting up there. The only difference being those eight core books (or publications on par with those kinds of books) are going to be spread out over Years One through Five, rather than entirely crammed into Years One and Two. And yeah... that's annoying players who like a fast publication cycle because they now have nothing to read and instead are just stuck playing the game instead... but from everything we've heard from the Powers That Be... that's the new paradigm for this newest edition and we all just gotta accept it.

A couple things. One, doctorhook already pointed out how your numbers are a bit off - so these years don't really compute. I also think you're a bit cynical in there. Part of the reason people want some of the main sourcebooks to be published sooner than later is that certain styles of campaigns rely upon specific "secondary core books" - like Manual of the Planes, for instance. Even so, so what if they simply want to buy and read? This doesn't mean they aren't actually playing.

But I do find it funny hearing the myriad of people who keep spouting here on the boards that if WotC doesn't publish faster that the game is going to die on the vine... cause I think it was proven quite conclusively that doing it the other way during 4E didn't work either. And I would suspect that the men and women in the D&D department of Wizards also know this.

I haven't been reading the boards that much so can't really speak to these alleged people spouting doom and gloom - I haven't seen much. Anyhow, what you say above exhibits a degree of the either/or fallacy. It doesn't have to be either bare minimalism or outright gluttony. There is a middle-ground possible, and given the lack of communication, I think it is a fair assessment to think that WotC is taking the bare minimalist approach in reaction to the outright gluttony of past editions. I personally think this is unfortunate if true, that a middle ground is the better route.

I agree. My point lately has been that I really believe WotC would be releasing more books right now if they had the budget to develop them, and more fundamentally, if they thought those books would be suitably profitable. We know that 4E was ultimately not great for the brand, and I definitely feel that WotC has not been in a gambling mood with regards to 5E's release schedule; we got a starter set (cheap but with a strong adventure), three core books (top notch quality overall), then two outsourced adventure paths, and currently silence about what's next. In the past, we always new about some other book coming down the pipe within six months, and while I'm sure stuff currently is under development, the fact that they no longer want to announce their plans suggests they don't want to make any commitments until profitability is assured. (Obviously books are a diminishing and TTRPGing is a diminishing hobby, but IMO there's still more demand for new D&D books than they appear to be capitalizing upon for now.

Yes, very well said. My guess is that we get a major release at GenCon - either a FR campaign setting or a major splat or, more conservatively but also more likely, the next story arc.

I definitely do not advocate a return to this level of output, but to me it does feel like 5E has left us hanging.

Yes, agree - yet for some reason many people seem stuck in the either/or view.

I think you're oversimplifying here. 4E was a failure because of a bunch of factors, and their release schedule was only one part of that. Many of us want to buy more products exactly because we're enjoying 5E as much as we are (and in a couple cases, because it feels like certain options were not given the same breadth of development that others were). If we're standing here with our wallets open, what's wrong with asking for more?

I just can't disagree with you, good doctor .

This is basically what kept me from ever getting into PF: it had all the problems of 3E (including the bloat), but newer, more often, and more expensive. I didn't find that compelling.

Again...more agreement. That said, I will say that I've bought tons of Paizo product because they're just damn good, high quality, with lots of stuff for reading pleasure and idea-mining.

 

[Shasarak]

Good on you DnD, a high five from the CEO - nice job!

 

[Saplatt]

I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:

"I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."

?

Infinity and beyond.

 

[Uchawi]

It really comes down to if you enjoy 5E, then buy it. For other like me, I hope success will prompt others to release something a little more complex, and level the playing field for martial versus caster classes for flexibility of choice. But the true test, regardless of what I think, is whether they can get over the initial tear of play testers and nostalgia folks buying it. What matters is long term success, and if it is successful then congratulations!

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Dungeons & Dragons, Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE and OUIJA"

This just seems like such an odd, unrelated list, at first glance. Sure, all owned by Hasbro, all 'games' (though very different games). They are all 'old' games, though. Two of them originally from the 19th century, only D&D less than 50 years old, and it the venerable 'first' RPG.

Yes, board games have had a big resurgence, and that's come from more modern games. Interesting point about Hasbro's classics being along for the ride - I don't know if this is the case. I've also seen it put down to the recession - people are staying in, and leaning on traditional things they may find comfortable (and if that's board games, then it's probably games from their childhood). This would all be speculation, though.

Sure, but speculation is fun if you don't get too attached to it.

All the games on the list being 'old,' could support the speculation that the recession is driving people back to traditional, cheap forms of in-home entertainment.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but speculation is fun if you don't get too attached to it.

The thing is, that's a big "if". There is a well-known phenomenon that, once a person has taken a position publicly, it can be very difficult for them to acknowledge that it was incorrect, even if it didn't really mean all that much to them at the time they said it. Admitting you were wrong, even in idle speculation, is not something people in general are very good at.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The thing is, that's a big "if". There is a well-known phenomenon that, once a person has taken a position publicly, it can be very difficult for them to acknowledge that it was incorrect, even if it didn't really mean all that much to them at the time they said it. Admitting you were wrong, even in idle speculation, is not something people in general are very good at.

What, even when posting anonymously on-line?

 

[hbarsquared]

Can I just call attention to the civility of this thread?

I don't know if it's the Grand Unifying Force of Fifth Edition, the current subscriber make-up of ENWorld, or the simple fact that we're all getting older, but I feel like I'm noticing a trend. The sheer amount of "XP given to such-and-such poster" is crazy, and this thread isn't the only one.

So, thank you to everyone posting in this thread, and in the ENWorld forums, of late. Apologies for misunderstandings, recognition of alternative viewpoints, appreciation for others' ideas...

I've been a regular here for years, but I have to say... this is a pretty nice place to hang out again. So, thank you.

 

[doctorhook]

Shout out to my boy [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], with whom I am apparently one mind.

Personally, I never claimed to have any idea how 5e was gonna go either way.

Nothing is stopping you, friend. You have eyes, ears, experience, and opinions, haven't you? You're definitely correct that self-awareness is healthy, but it's natural to hope and speculate for the future, especially about one of your interests. We here talk about the future of the hobby because we care about it, that's all.

 

[KarinsDad]

While it's cool that he singled out D&D for an adjective ("on a tear"), D&D sales in Q1 2014 were likely... non-existent. And it's uncertain if he knows a new edition was released (he doesn't call out 5e). So he might just be comparing the numbers and seeing the *huge* spike in revenue without context.

I suspect that this might be the case. Having extremely low sales in Q1 and Q2 (mostly novels and such), and then suddenly the Starter Set, the PHB, MM, and HotDQ in Q3, and RoT and DMG in Q4 (and the MM was released at the end of Q3, so a fair percentage of its sales might have been in Q4). It would definitely look on the surface like D&D was on a tear.