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

Vigilance said:
Maybe you haven't been around long enough to realize this, or maybe you dont see it this way, but TSR/WOTC's handling of Greyhawk has been bizarre for decades.

This isnt new news.

Uh, yeah, spare me the condescension, please.

The handling of Greyhawk has made perfect sense, when one accounted for the motivation of the personalities involved. This time its not a personality issue, its a business decision, which is why it is so strange.

And while the handling of Greyhawk is what spurred this line of inquiry, it isn't my only data point.

If your hat of 4E threads is so strong, why are you here? If it is to shut such threads down, you have clearly failed utterly. In fact, everytime you make a new post, you bump the thread to the top of the column, which only heightens the visibility of the thread.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Sanguinemetaldawn said:
Uh, yeah, spare me the condescension, please.

The handling of Greyhawk has made perfect sense, when one accounted for the motivation of the personalities involved. This time its not a personality issue, its a business decision, which is why it is so strange.

And while the handling of Greyhawk is what spurred this line of inquiry, it isn't my only data point.

If your hat of 4E threads is so strong, why are you here? If it is to shut such threads down, you have clearly failed utterly. In fact, everytime you make a new post, you bump the thread to the top of the column, which only heightens the visibility of the thread.

Lol, actually it isnt a hat of 4E at all. I can honestly say I have absolutely no opinion on 4E until I see it and see how it's handled.

What I disagree with is the notion that

A) 4E has anything to say about the current state of D&D one way or the other, except that monetarily it makes sense to have a new edition- the World of Darkness has gone through editions faster than D&D- a new edition doesnt speak to the hobby either way

B) The fact that Greyhawk is being handled badly means anything about anything (as I pointed out- and as you agreed with- Greyhawk has almost *always* been handled badly). You say the handling of the system in the past made sense because of the "personalities" involved.

Except that what I see is a bunch of designers who never got why people wanted to run or play in the Greyhawk setting, because they as a designer wouldn't have created such a world.

This doesn't make them bad people- just means they dont get it. Not everyone gets everything.

C) Im not trying to shut anything down. I think commenting on a thread while disagreeing is far from bolting the door.

Chuck
 


mearls said:
D&D isn't for sale. I have yet to see a single rumor or idea in this thread that has any basis in truth.

Do you think from a monetary standpoint it would be better for the bottom line of Hasbro to have D&D tightly integrated with the random miniatures line in the next edition? Or would the possible monetary gain, if any, be too small to have a major design impact on the next edition?
 

Sanguinemetaldawn said:
And the conclusion of your model is that nothing would ever be sold in the business world, because anything worth buying would not be for sale. However, this is clearly untrue.

Completely incorrect.

If it isn't profitable, it isn't worth that kind of cash. If it is worth that much, it isn't being sold for being unprofitable, but may be sold for some other reason (f'rex, the ocmpany doesn't want to be in book publishing, the company doesn't want to be associated with RPGs, the company wants to make a bunch of cash for other projects, or what have you).

In essence, I find the statements "It is worth $35 million dollars" and "it isn't profitable" to be incompatible. That kind of price tag only goes on things that make money.
 


Sanguinemetaldawn said:
The handling of Greyhawk has made perfect sense, when one accounted for the motivation of the personalities involved. This time its not a personality issue, its a business decision, which is why it is so strange.

I don't buy this either.
Yes, much of the reason Greyhawk was sidelined had to do with the personality issues involved.
However, even in its heyday, Greyhawk was never the phenomenon that FR was and is.
Additionally, WotC has pretty much determined that FR and Eberron are the stars they are hitching their wagon to.
They apparently feel, and I agree, that introducing another campaign setting will dilute sales of their existing settings.

Why do they make this assumption? Because that's exactly what happened in the dark days of TSR.

Greyhawk is a great setting. It's got a lot of internet "buzz" and triggers the nostalgia factor for a lot of players.
However, the facts are it never sold as well as FR, and WotC doesn't want to draw attention away from its "real stars."

The decision to sideline Greyhawk makes perfect sense IMO.

Sanguinemetaldawn said:
D&D is certainly not a "toy" in the traditonal sense.

Neither is anything in their candy line.
I wouldn't call their VideoNow line a "toy" either.
Their book line doesn't seem to be toys either, although in all fairness, it's nothing but a promotional vehicle for their toy lines.

Which is really the most likely way for Hasbro to think about the D&D rpg - it's a gateway drug for the collectible minis.
 

Sanguinemetaldawn said:
And the conclusion of your model is that nothing would ever be sold in the business world, because anything worth buying would not be for sale. However, this is clearly untrue.

No, the conclusion of his model is that generally no one will pony up $30-35 million for something that is not a profitable property. Businesses sell various profitable properties all the time, but the things they sell are usually profitable when they sell them, because they have a hard time finding buyers willing to shell out cash to purchase junk that doesn't make money.
 

Remove ads

Top