Interesting statement from a WizO on the D&D forum:

[Cthulhudrew]

People were saying the same thing when WotC took over TSR. Didn't happen then, either.

 

[Jdvn1]

1. Unless "revision data" refers to the SRD you can not play "3.5" without 3.5 books. (And the SRD doesn't have rules for experience.) There are no comprehensive conversion rules available from WotC.

Since he said 'without shelling out any more hard-earned cash', you can pretty safely assume that he's referring to the 3.0 books plus the revision data (which I suppose could refer to the SRD, but more than likely refers to the update packets they have online), and so the statement is true (since the experience rules are in the 3.0 books).

2. If WotC collected "opinions and playtest data" before making 3.5 they did it very quietly. They kept the new edition/revision a secret as long as they thought could get away with. (3.5 was planned before the 3.0 PHB was even printed.)

WotC even said, at the time, that they were collecting opinions and playtest data as they were writing 3.5. It wasn't quiet.

 

[RFisher]

People were saying the same thing when WotC took over TSR. Didn't happen then, either.

Of course it didn't happen...right away. They know they have to do it slowly.

(^_^)

 

[diaglo]

People were saying the same thing when WotC took over TSR. Didn't happen then, either.

and don't forget to mention when Hasbro took over WotC.

same chatter.

 

[Echohawk]

It's perfectly obvious what is going to happen. WotC has made far more money on CCGs like Magic than it ever has on D&D.

Could you perhaps support this claim? I'm not aware of any public figures on the relative revenues generated by Magic and D&D, and I'd be interested to see some real figures. (Unless, of course, you are just making up facts to suit your argument ...)

 

[Thotas]

I prefer to assume there's no 4e in the works unless and until we definately hear there is, simply because creating 4e right now would be flat out stupid on the business level. 3e was a hit, and therefore a good idea, because 2e was practicly dead. There wasn't much to lose. 3.5 is strong enough and stable enough that trying to make a switch is just going to divide your market between those who go with it and those who don't, and the second group will have such bad blood toward WotC/Hasbro that the revenue from the first group won't be worth it. Sure, you'd have a surge of sales on Core Books, but your supplements are now cut reward by the percentage that didn't follow.

Of course, the fact that it would be stupid doesn't mean it won't be done. But it is a reason to think that it's less likely.

 

[JVisgaitis]

3.5 is strong enough and stable enough that trying to make a switch is just going to divide your market...

I don't know why people think this. First, WotC makes the market. They decide whether or not "we're ready" for 4e. Secondly, they're running out of ideas and the products they are releasing now are indicative of a change.

The best thing for them to do at this point is release a new edition so they can start remaking core books and create a demand again. D&D will always do well, but 3e is yesterday's game to many people. As soon as they use the words "Brand New D&D", people will be all over it for that phrase alone.

You ever see Dreamblade starters with the sticker that says "All New Game Design" on the box? Um, was there an old game design version of Dreamblade somewhere? No. They have marketing people that really know what they're doing.

 

[kenobi65]

Regarding market research and 4E:

Don't assume that, because you haven't seen any public surveys from WotC on the topic, that such research hasn't been conducted. The vast majority of the market research that WotC does is not fielded on their web site, or on any public forum. They hire private research companies to conduct it (much like the oft-quoted study that led to the development of 3E).

Also, to Echohawk: no, I can't quote numbers, but I've heard, more than once, quotes from WotC people saying that the RPG division was far smaller, with proportionally smaller sales, than the CCG division.

 

[Umbran]

I would also hazard that the feedback is hugely contradictory.

But that would be true no matter what source you take. It isn't like the messageboards will give a mixed message, but some other form of data-gathering will give another, entirely clear picture. It isn't like customer surveys will show that all players like one thing, while internet messageboards say otherwise...

The fact of the matter is that the gaming population is one of diverse tastes. It is right there in the basic maxim - you can't please all the people all the time. Whatever data they get, they'll have hard choices to make, and nobody will like all of them.

The difference between internet message boards and other data-gathering is fairly simple: Other data-gathering projects will be more conscise, and easier to tablulate and analyze, because they will have structure imposed upon them. Message board information has depth, nuance, and can answer questions the researcher didn't think to ask in the first place.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Secondly, they're running out of ideas and the products they are releasing now are indicative of a change.

People have been saying this since at least 2004. Three years later, I have to say I don't think the argument works any more.