ICv2 Summer 2014 Ranks

[billd91]

When I go to the market to buy a bag of flour, I'm going to buy only one bag - one company gets the sale, the other does not.

When I go to the movies to see a film, I may pick one for right now, but that does not preclude me from seeing another film later. I can go to the movies lots of times.

These examples aren't that different. In both cases, you're going to go with one exclusive product until you're done with it and ready to buy another. That's any product, really, the difference is time scale and investment. The time investment for the movie is pretty low compared to the flour... unless you're doing a lot of baking over the weekend for the kid's bake sale. And when you're out of the flour, just like when you come out of the movie, you're ready to buy again and the previous choice you made doesn't preclude making a different choice the next time.

Producers making expensive, durable goods are the ones that have to worry that exclusivity for a longer time. 7-10 years for a car. 10+ years for a refrigerator. Decades for a house.

 

[Umbran]

These examples aren't that different.

Fine. Not the greatest example ever. I think the point still stands. The "crush the competition" idea is oversimplified.

 

[skotothalamos]

The main thing I notice on that chart is the rapid decline of World of Darkness. It seems both White Wolf and Wizards were trying to grab the WoW trend. White Wolf merged with CCP to make their IP into an MMO; Wizards transformed their game into something that could be adjudicated by computer (pushing Virtual TableTop all the way).

As bad as the 4e fallout was (and I love 4e, but I understand the market's reaction), it was not nearly as bad as the implosion of World of Darkness.

 

[danbala]

I do agree that the brand is worth alot but if the paper and pencil version fails to to grab the majority of consumers then this will probably be the end of the line for the D&D paper and pencil brand.

I think you have it backwards. The brand remains very very valuable. The game might (or might not) become a vestigial artifact but will continue on to support the brand.

 

[danbala]

And, if we want to go pie-in-the-sky, if D&D comes out with a good movie that nets a profit of several hundred million dollars, all the PnP sales will look like diddly by comparison, hardly worth considering in the grand scheme of things. Crushing Paizo in RPG book sales won't even be on the radar then.

Correct. But a more likely scenario is video game licensing. The amount that Hasbro can make with video game licensing on even a middling success makes the book sales trivial.

The difference between 4e and 5e is that this time Hasbro has deciding not to sink significant costs into the game development. That probably makes it much easier to justify the game's existence. So I expect: (1) Hasbro will continue to support 5e regardless of their sales relative to other games and (2) there release schedule will look very light compared to Pathfinder or even 4e.

That will lead some to say that "D&D is dead."

 

[danbala]

Yeah, I get that - but again, I worry that they might do a variant of what they did with 4e by focusing on the "two birds in the bush" rather than the one in hand, that is, us, the serious fans of the RPG.

I suspect that the goal is just to make sure that the fans aren't vocally unhappy -- as they mostly were with 4e. They just need to make sure the fans have positive association with the brand. Whether the game is actively played is a secondary issue because they are no longer looking to make money off subscription services or a series of "splat books."

 

[Umbran]

Correct. But a more likely scenario is video game licensing.

Given the recent court case about movie rights I am not so sure. As far as I am aware, while the trial is over, the ruling isn't out yet. I would expect WotC to wait on major video game licenses until the movie is hashed out.

The difference between 4e and 5e is that this time Hasbro has deciding not to sink significant costs into the game development.

Wha? They had people working on it for a couple of years, with a major playtesting effort - that takes people (and thus money) to organize. How much more money do you think 4e took to develop than 5e did?

 

[Morrus]

Wha? They had people working on it for a couple of years, with a major playtesting effort - that takes people (and thus money) to organize. How much more money do you think 4e took to develop than 5e did?

I have zero budget insight. But I do know that in raw numbers 4E employees were much more than 5E. This is a small team.

 

[Mercurius]

I suspect that the goal is just to make sure that the fans aren't vocally unhappy -- as they mostly were with 4e. They just need to make sure the fans have positive association with the brand. Whether the game is actively played is a secondary issue because they are no longer looking to make money off subscription services or a series of "splat books."

So the problem that could arise is if the 5E out-put is too sparse, they might lose customers. They do want/need the D&D RPG community to thrive to some extent, to at least be on par with Pathfinder. But if WotC neglects D&D-the-game too much, a savvy Paizo might come out with a Pathfinder 2nd edition with a simpler core rule set that could steal D&D players away.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno Mercurius. I think the "poaching Wotc players" ship has sailed. I mean there is still a significant number of 3e holdouts who likely won't ever go to Paizo and the ones that would likely already have.

It will be interesting to see in a year's time which way the hold outs jump.