D&D 4E Hasbro, Greyhawk, and 4E speculation

[Henry]

While quite a few people did get laid off, those specific three left of their own free will, if memory serves. I'm certain Monte did and 99% sure Valtera did, at any rate; less so Reynolds.

To be specific: Monte left voluntarily, planning to be his own boss and get out of the corporate culture; Sean was terminated, but had previously announced to his company that he was taking a job in Cali beforehand (and they even gave him a severance to boot!); and Anthony left for personal reasons (he was planning to leave before they even revised the System Trademark License!)

That's my understanding based on previous forum posts by them.

 

[Henry]

If my surmise is correct, one of two things will happen.

Scenario 1:
D&D is permitted support and a team as long as it makes a profit. When it no longer makes a profit, everyone is laid off, and D&D becomes a moribund property, consisting of a library of products and a brand name. I suspect this will be soon, because endless-release churn drives more and more people away.

I was with you up until here. The thing is that D&D as a name is making Habro a pretty decent amount of money, as much as any of their other sideline businesses, if we believe what is out there, but not from the RPG sales. The Tabletop RPG sales hold their own and turn a profit, but not as much as other lines, and in no way could their schedule be called "endless release churn", because they still produce only one-third to one-fourth what TSR did in its self-destruct days. From what we've seen, they set obtainable schedules and keep sufficient distance between product lines. What makes it seem more than it is is the third-party companies' activities on top of WotC's.

However, the speculation about licenses? That I could believe. If there is a sale planned, it would make some sense to clean up the licensing. However, I'll only believe it when I see them recall or buy back more than one or two licenses. But right now, Minis sales, computer game sales, etc. all mean that there's still a good bit of life left in the bird, and with as many future projects still being turned in and worked on, I don't forsee D&D going anywhere for at least two to three years.

Though I wouldn't complain if Peter Adkison did somehow pick up D&D again...

 

[Rasyr]

First off, Hasbro/WotC has been shopping the D&D brand for several years now. They actually almost sold it back in 2002, but the other company pulled out for some reason (I know who the other company is (and no, I am not gonna say), but not why they pulled out). The general asking price back then was about $30 million.

However, at that time, WotC did not own the electronic rights (they had been sold, not licensed). So, the re-aquisition of those rights (and subsequent licensing of them back to the folks they were purchased from) is very significant.

However, one thing being overlooked here, is that with the rpg being OGL at the moment, that does lessen the value that other will pay for the brand as a prospective buyer might not want to purchase a game that others may freely do products for. The type of companies with the capital to purchase the brand tend to be very proprietorial about their IP. It is quite possible that nobody will purchase it as long as the brand is using the OGL. This would then almost require that the next version of D&D not be released under the OGL, as it would strengthen the brand in the eyes of prospective purchasers.

Just a few thoughts....

 

[Henry]

However, one thing being overlooked here, is that with the rpg being OGL at the moment, that does lessen the value that other will pay for the brand as a prospective buyer might not want to purchase a game that others may freely do products for. The type of companies with the capital to purchase the brand tend to be very proprietorial about their IP. It is quite possible that nobody will purchase it as long as the brand is using the OGL. This would then almost require that the next version of D&D not be released under the OGL, as it would strengthen the brand in the eyes of prospective purchasers.

It's not really "published" under the OGL right now, though. They're effectively two separate entities, and the portion of the fanbase who knows the truth is limited to the roughly 25 or 30,000 people or so who frequent boards like these. I don't believe John Q. Gamer even knows there IS an OGL. Unless you're talking about changing the core mechanics drastically (changing from a d20 to another mechanic, for instance), in which case that really COULD serve to kill the brand. After all, the jury's still out on even Vampire and Shadowrun for what they've done recently, and that's not even a big change...

Alternately, you're talking about them killing the STL, which they COULD do, and that would kill any link at all to D&D, and the public at large likely wouldn't bat an eye.

 

[Staffan]

So, that brings up the following question: Who do you want to buy D&D??

Peter Adkison is the name that comes to mind as both potentially having enough money to buy it, and the combination of business-sense and gamer-fu to do something good with it.

 

[Umbran]

There was a thread sometime back mentioning that the value of the Dungeons and Dragons line was perhaps $30 million ot $35 million...

Hr. There's a logical problem here - the property is only worth that much if you can get that much out of it on a reasonable timescale. If the D&D property is proving so unprofitable for Hasbro that they want to ditch it, that tells buyers that they are unlikely to make back their investment any time soon. So, they wouldn't pay that much for it, and so it really isn't worth that much.

On the other hand, if it is making reasonable profits, there'll be no motivation to sell that has it's roots in the property itself. Any motivation to sell would have to come from somewhere else - If there's some other reason Hasbro wants money, for example.

 

[Rasyr]

It's not really "published" under the OGL right now, though. They're effectively two separate entities, and the portion of the fanbase who knows the truth is limited to the roughly 25 or 30,000 people or so who frequent boards like these.

True, to a certain extent. The combination of the OGL (SRD) and d20STL (logo) gives the average gamer the impression that all the third party products using the logo are for D&D (which just happens to be the case for the most part).

I don't believe John Q. Gamer even knows there IS an OGL.

Quite likely. All the average gamer knows is that if it has the d20 logo, then it is "D&D" even if it does not say D&D on the cover.

Unless you're talking about changing the core mechanics drastically (changing from a d20 to another mechanic, for instance), in which case that really COULD serve to kill the brand.

I seriously doubt that the mechanic will change much from what it currently is. However, like Phil, I do believe that 4E will be much more minis oriented. There is a big "toy" factor involved with minis, and that is something that Hasbro quite likely wants. Have you never wondered why so much effort has been put into the minis side of things? The first minis game pretty much tanked (i.e. did not do well enough to suit the company), and yet they came back and tried it again, with a slightly different take on things, adding in the collectible aspects, etc.

Alternately, you're talking about them killing the STL, which they COULD do, and that would kill any link at all to D&D, and the public at large likely wouldn't bat an eye.

Killing the STL is the easy part. The market for 3.5 is already fragmenting (Arcana Evolved, Mutants & Masterminds, Spycraft 2.0, Iron Heroes, Castles & Crusades, True20, etc..), so if they can find a method of de-fragmenting that player base, they are likely to take it, and that kinda says 4E (not released under the OGL). It will garner the majority of players, those that follow the D&D brand, and if that happens, the d20 STL is almost certainly going to be pulled so that it cannot be used with 3.5-based products.

As I pointed out above, the OGL can be pulled as well, from those companies in violation, and like it or not, most companies are in violation of the OGL to one degree or another. So, that could be used to shut down many of the companies still using the OGL after 4E is released. I am not saying that this is probable or even likely (personally, I don't think it is), but it is possible, and something that companies do have to think about.

Personally, I do not WANT to see 4E until around 2010. Unfortunately, what *I* want doesn't enter into the equation, and I expect to see 4E no later than 2008 (and believe that 2006 is quite possible, with 2007 (GenCon's 40th anniversary) being a close runner-up.

Again, just a few thoughts...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Interesting thread. I've figured that 4e would be much more like DDM than 3.x since the miniature game was released. I think that would make a lot more sense to a corp like Hasbro than the current D&D model. Either way I don't really care. I've gotten off the D&D train so to speak.

 

[Quasqueton]

Dungeons & Dragons [current edition] is the one true game. All previous editions were just attempts to achieve this level of excellence.

Quasqueton

 

[Vigilance]

Of course, I could be wrong. I could just be a doomsday cultist. Could be.

Jesus, what is it with these threads people?

Is Wizards in trouble?

Is the market dying?!

Is 4th edition on the way?!?

Is Hasbro about to sell D&D because Wizards is in trouble, the market is dying and 4th edition is on the way?!?!?!?

I really REALLY want to know why these threads come in waves.

Full moon?

Equinox?

Sheesh.

Chuck