Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CharlesRyan" data-source="post: 2590482" data-attributes="member: 5265">Why does the roleplaying hobby (or at least the online community of RPGers) have such a low opinion of itself?I see threads here and elsewhere on the net speculating about D&amp;D and 4E and Hasbro all the time. One assumption that seems to underlie all of them is that D&amp;D is a penny-ante little brand, and RPGs a penny-ante little category. Hasbro is going to do this, that, or the other thing because D&amp;D isn't worth keeping, or is so small that it doesn't warrant good management, or it's simply forgotten and lost in a corporate attic somewhere.(Except, of course, when people speculate that the &quot;suits&quot; at Hasbro have made/are making/will make WotC do this, that, or the other thing to ratchet up revenue; when it comes to who gets to make the decision on a revision or new edition, suddenly everybody thinks we're the central focus of the entire Hasbro Board of Directors!)I got news for you guys: By any standard, including the standards of a large corporation like Hasbro, D&amp;D is a valuable and sizeable brand, and the RPG category is a valuable and sizeable business.There's another possible explanation for why the D&amp;D license to Atari might be handled differently than other Hasbro properties. Hypothetically, of course, it just might be possible that D&amp;D got a different deal not because it was the least valuable brand for electronic gaming in the Hasbro lineup, but because it was the most valuable. Just speaking hypothetically.As for &quot;reacquiring&quot; licenses, well, let's just keep in mind that there are two parties in any licensing deal. Why assume that the decision to end a license was made by one particular party?As for those who think that a mysterious body of Hasbro &quot;suits&quot; runs the D&amp;D show: Yeah, I have a boss. And my boss has a boss. And my boss's boss has a boss. I bet it's the same for you at your job. But the D&amp;D business is run by the D&amp;D business team, and as long as we do our jobs well, nobody on the Hasbro Board of Directors is interested in micromanaging D&amp;D RPG releases, big or small.I hope that clears up a few things. If we're going to use up all this bandwidth speculating about the future of D&amp;D, we might as well work from a few valid assumptions.[Oh, and one last thing for the guy who said that D&amp;D has been for sale for the past several years: Huh?]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CharlesRyan, post: 2590482, member: 5265"] Why does the roleplaying hobby (or at least the online community of RPGers) have such a low opinion of itself? I see threads here and elsewhere on the net speculating about D&D and 4E and Hasbro all the time. One assumption that seems to underlie all of them is that D&D is a penny-ante little brand, and RPGs a penny-ante little category. Hasbro is going to do this, that, or the other thing because D&D isn't worth keeping, or is so small that it doesn't warrant good management, or it's simply forgotten and lost in a corporate attic somewhere. (Except, of course, when people speculate that the "suits" at Hasbro have made/are making/will make WotC do this, that, or the other thing to ratchet up revenue; when it comes to who gets to make the decision on a revision or new edition, suddenly everybody thinks we're the central focus of the entire Hasbro Board of Directors!) I got news for you guys: By any standard, including the standards of a large corporation like Hasbro, D&D is a valuable and sizeable brand, and the RPG category is a valuable and sizeable business. There's another possible explanation for why the D&D license to Atari might be handled differently than other Hasbro properties. Hypothetically, of course, it just might be possible that D&D got a different deal not because it was the least valuable brand for electronic gaming in the Hasbro lineup, but because it was the most valuable. Just speaking hypothetically. As for "reacquiring" licenses, well, let's just keep in mind that there are two parties in any licensing deal. Why assume that the decision to end a license was made by one particular party? As for those who think that a mysterious body of Hasbro "suits" runs the D&D show: Yeah, I have a boss. And my boss has a boss. And my boss's boss has a boss. I bet it's the same for you at your job. But the D&D business is run by the D&D business team, and as long as we do our jobs well, nobody on the Hasbro Board of Directors is interested in micromanaging D&D RPG releases, big or small. I hope that clears up a few things. If we're going to use up all this bandwidth speculating about the future of D&D, we might as well work from a few valid assumptions. [Oh, and one last thing for the guy who said that D&D has been for sale for the past several years: Huh?] [/QUOTE]

Verification