Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 5767737" data-attributes="member: 59411">Tough questions, but I'm going to go the optimistic route and say yes, they see what they have, because once you stop obsessing on the Dancey-quoted expectation of 50 million a year, I think WotC has a successful RPG and solid chassis on which to build, explore, and eventually progress. I have no actual proof, but I'd like to believe Monte was brought in to further explore the options, and that DDi will continue to develop, each iteration, perhaps, casting a wider and wider net- not by designing specifically to other editions, but by offering things that have more universal appeal like the VTT and various IP material. Pleasing who they have, breaking bread with lapsed players without diverting from the current edition, further improving the technology, utilizing social networking, reacquiring video game licensing, I could see a future where WotC supports who it has and offers items and services of interest to all fans of fantasy RPGs.The sabre rattling over the idea that WotC didn't need its 3e fans any longer (which there was a lot of overly-defensive shouting on all sides) made little sense, agreed. How could anyone say WotC doesn't need extra customers and believe themselves? However I've heard just as much, if not more, and especially in recent years, sabre rattling from earlier edition camps that 4e failed- and I don't really think it did unless you're holding to Hasbro figures. After reading Dancey's latest article, I'm inclined to believe it was a necessity for the game to change- WotC simply was not pulling in the numbers needed to survive under Hasbro with 3e. Their new edition pitch was probably the first measure taken to prevent plug pulling, if the articles are accurate. Now that doesn't mean Paizo didn't succeed brilliantly with spinning 3e into a multi-million dollar business, it did, but put Paizo under Hasbro and I think it'd be called a failure too. I honestly don't have any real idea of the numbers playing one or the other, but I'm confident 4e has a healthy gamer base by the standards of other RPGs.Maybe I'm sniffing too much glue, but imagine Mearls with a little bit of leeway from WotC and Hasbro. Magic is at an all time high, after all, why couldn't Hasbro change its tune with D&D if there was even a chance, in time, it could turn into a flourishing property ala the 80s? It's costing Hasbro very little, sadly even less given the recent layoffs, to keep D&D alive I imagine.No longer focusing on 50 mill a year, Mearls slows production of rushed products and focuses on quality. He begins to explore new ideas and approaches to 4e on the chassis (not sure if Essentials was his baby or not, but if it was that makes sense as an experiment and not as a frantic emergency release to save the edition). He calls in Monte to help. DDi begins to get its sea legs again. Facebook game releases, and the video game license is won (that wasn't Mearls doing, but hey it helps). The quality of the magazines increases. Comics release. Minis make a comeback... I've looked at it all in a negative light too long. Until D&D flat lines and it's official, I'm taking the recent steadying of the ship as a good sign for the current game. I think they do know what they have, and what they don't, and what could be gained from a long-term study of D&D (Legends and Lore, maybe) and a dedication to creative, quality products.</blockquote>

Verification