D&D 5E Is 5E Special

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And I'm sure WotC can account for scale. Do you really believe they aren't aware or purposefully ignore the more popular products made by other companies for 5e? There have been multi-million dollar kickstarters for 5e, and you're telling me no one at WotC paid them any mind. I find that logic hard to follow.
I didn't say that. I would bet that they have someone looking over every DMs Guild product for good ideas that the 3rd party site can't realize on its own. Number of copies sold wouldn't be that metric, though. A lot of good ideas can be lost in other bad ideas that kill a product. They will be looking at what is done and making the decision themselves. The success or failure of the 3rd party product would be nearly worthless to look at.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I mean, a big part of that marketing budget is market research to determine what people actually want. WotC spends tremendous time and energy on that.
My man, if I, as a literal indie publisher, could somehow randomly gain $100,000 for literally just market research and advertising, let alone the millions WotC commands, I would be far more successful. You can't tell me you don't see how ridiculous you're being. Me and literally every other 3PP publisher, even those that get million dollar Kickstarters, cannot compete with WotC in any way when it comes to advertising.

Sorry man, but that's reality. You're literally telling me that I can compete with HASBRO if I just study a bit more. C'mon.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
My man, if I, as a literal indie publisher, could somehow randomly gain $100,000 for literally just market research and advertising, let alone the millions WotC commands, I would be far more successful. You can't tell me you don't see how ridiculous you're being. Me and literally every other 3PP publisher, even those that get million dollar Kickstarters, cannot compete with WotC in any way when it comes to advertising.

Sorry man, but that's reality. You're literally telling me that I can compete with HASBRO if I just study a bit more. C'mon.
...? No? Who said that? I said they have the resources to get accurate market information, and so have better evidence on their hands as to what will sell than their gut feelings or a conspiracy to hurt 4E fan's feelings or something.
 

Imaro

Legend
The issue isn't that WOTC doesn't see it.

The issue is that WOTC decided in 2014 to do a very slow release schedule with alot of ideas crossed off the list of possibilities and stuck to it. The way 5e is released, they has to be big ideas they're missing out on making oodles of cash on.

However they have decided to stick with the plan. I mean it took them 6 years to "fix" the ranger because they had a policy that they wouldn't edit the PHB or DMG except to clarify completely broken or confusing rules.
Weren't campaign settings crossed off the list initially... now we have how many official setting books?? Strangely enough it was also an area where 3PP have been able to and still do flourish...
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The issue isn't that WOTC doesn't see it.

The issue is that WOTC decided in 2014 to do a very slow release schedule with alot of ideas crossed off the list of possibilities and stuck to it. The way 5e is released, they has to be big ideas they're missing out on making oodles of cash on.

However they have decided to stick with the plan. I mean it took them 6 years to "fix" the ranger because they had a policy that they wouldn't edit the PHB or DMG except to clarify completely broken or confusing rules.
But that's the thing: they wouldn't necessarily are "oodles of cash" I'd they released whatever, whenever. And spending $7 to make $10 instead of $3 to make $8 isn"leaving .only on the table": spending more and having a lower profit is losing money, even if revenue goes up somewhat.
 

But that's the thing: they wouldn't necessarily are "oodles of cash" I'd they released whatever, whenever.
You're doing that thing again where you take "criticism of the status quo" and treat it as "inversion to a strawman opposite."

Saying, "Man, the game's release schedule is glacially slow, that sounds like it probably cost them quite a bit in sales" is not the same as saying "they should've been releasing 12 books a year every year." Rebutting the idea of WotC "releas[ing] whatever, whenever" is specious at best, because no one is asking for that.

It is possible to critique a position and ask for a moderate change, rather than wild abandon, which is what you immediately assumed here.

And spending $7 to make $10 instead of $3 to make $8 isn"leaving .only on the table": spending more and having a lower profit is losing money, even if revenue goes up somewhat.
This, at least, is a more cogent point....but you have no data to base it on. Would it have cost them 2.33x as much to only gain 1.25x the money? Or would it have cost them 1.25x as much to make 2.33x as much money? We literally cannot know. WotC doesn't even know.
 

Weren't campaign settings crossed off the list initially... now we have how many official setting books?? Strangely enough it was also an area where 3PP have been able to and still do flourish...
Not sure how it could be, considering the very first supplement was SCAG, an official setting book...less than a year after the DMG was published. Meaning it had to have been in the works before the DMG was published.

If the plan was "no setting books at all," it was abandoned before the game even hit the shelves.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
You're doing that thing again where you take "criticism of the status quo" and treat it as "inversion to a strawman opposite."

Saying, "Man, the game's release schedule is glacially slow, that sounds like it probably cost them quite a bit in sales" is not the same as saying "they should've been releasing 12 books a year every year." Rebutting the idea of WotC "releas[ing] whatever, whenever" is specious at best, because no one is asking for that.

It is possible to critique a position and ask for a moderate change, rather than wild abandon, which is what you immediately assumed here.


This, at least, is a more cogent point....but you have no data to base it on. Would it have cost them 2.33x as much to only gain 1.25x the money? Or would it have cost them 1.25x as much to make 2.33x as much money? We literally cannot know. WotC doesn't even know.
Neither of us have data to base it on: WotC, however does, and it is their business to run. I see no reason to suspect that this is not the moderate approach.
 

Neither of us have data to base it on: WotC, however does, and it is their business to run. I see no reason to suspect that this is not the moderate approach.
"One, perhaps two books a year" is not a moderate approach.

Particularly when we know that critically-important documents, like the edition conversion stuff, got derailed for over a year because one person had jury duty.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Not sure how it could be, considering the very first supplement was SCAG, an official setting book...less than a year after the DMG was published. Meaning it had to have been in the works before the DMG was published.

If the plan was "no setting books at all," it was abandoned before the game even hit the shelves.
Yeah, you are right. Theybalways said that they had Settings in the wings, but were initially working on a new format approach. Which ultimately became the Ravnica and Eberron approach.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
"One, perhaps two books a year" is not a moderate approach.
More moderate than "None." And 5E has always had a faster release schedule than that, at any rate, neve dipping below 3 big books a year. Additionally, they have sped up the release schedule significantly lately, at any rate, so there you go, moderate change.

Moderation has to do with achieving the ideal mean between extremes, and if the ideal balance is 2 or 3, that is moderate.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
But that's the thing: they wouldn't necessarily are "oodles of cash" I'd they released whatever, whenever. And spending $7 to make $10 instead of $3 to make $8 isn"leaving .only on the table": spending more and having a lower profit is losing money, even if revenue goes up somewhat.

Can you say with absolute certainty that if WOTC released one additional book per year, that the sum of the sales potential books they made in the 8 years of 5e would make money than the cost and time to make them?

You making the assuming that WOTC didthe researchand missed absolutely zero of the big money making ideas. That WOTC did all the good ides already. Something that literally cannot be true because WOTC is still making new books.
 

More moderate than "None." And 5E has always had a faster release schedule than that, at any rate, neve dipping below 3 big books a year. Additionally, they have sped up the release schedule significantly lately, at any rate, so there you go, moderate change.

Moderation has to do with achieving the ideal mean between extremes, and if the ideal balance is 2 or 3, that is moderate.
"More moderate than none" does not make it moderate. That is like saying "eating 100 calories a day is more healthful than eating 0 calories a day!" That doesn't make it healthy to eat 100 calories a day. When you are using as an index literally one of the most extreme values you can (because negative publication is, thankfully, not possible.)

This is the "fallacy of relative privation." Just because something is more moderate than the worst possible case, and less immoderate than an antithetical extreme, does not actually make it moderate.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Weren't campaign settings crossed off the list initially... now we have how many official setting books?? Strangely enough it was also an area where 3PP have been able to and still do flourish...
Setting books where never off the plan. FR and Eberron books came early.

Remember they originally tried to make the Artificer a wizard subclass in order to print no new classes.

The issueis this was planned so hard that the Eberron books risked flopping if they didn't make an new class. Proof that will all their research, their plan was a mistake.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Can you say with absolute certainty that if WOTC released one additional book per year, that the sum of the sales potential books they made in the 8 years of 5e would make money than the cost and time to make them?

You making the assuming that WOTC didthe researchand missed absolutely zero of the big money making ideas. That WOTC did all the good ides already. Something that literally cannot be true because WOTC is still making new books.
Potentially. They would be in the best position to know what they can expect to sell on books, not us. Could they do better? Probsvltz and they have constantly adjusted over the past 8 years.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
"More moderate than none" does not make it moderate. That is like saying "eating 100 calories a day is more healthful than eating 0 calories a day!" That doesn't make it healthy to eat 100 calories a day. When you are using as an index literally one of the most extreme values you can (because negative publication is, thankfully, not possible.)

This is the "fallacy of relative privation." Just because something is more moderate than the worst possible case, and less immoderate than an antithetical extreme, does not actually make it moderate.
You are simply assuming that 5 or 6 books a year (the current rate the past couple yeqrs, if you count them up) is not the equivalent of a 2000 calorie diet. Fact is, there is a moderate ideal, and 3-6 a year may well be it. Do you have any hard data that suggests otherwise....?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Setting books where never off the plan. FR and Eberron books came early.

Remember they originally tried to make the Artificer a wizard subclass in order to print no new classes.

The issueis this was planned so hard that the Eberron books risked flopping if they didn't make an new class. Proof that will all their research, their plan was a mistake.
Ehrm...5E was on the market for 5 years before Rising from the Last War was published. That not "early," 5 years into 3.5 4E was being published and 5 years into 4E the Next Playtest was winding up.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Potentially. They would be in the best position to know what they can expect to sell on books, not us. Could they do better? Probsvltz and they have constantly adjusted over the past 8 years.
My point from the very beginning is that

The shift of demo in age, gender, race, culture, location and other characteristics in the D&D audience during 5e was massive.

It was caused by the circumstances of 2014-2022

WOTC didn't expect this shift. 5e was designed as a coming home edition for previous players.

WOTC did not adjust their schedule enough to match this extreme change. However the circumstances of 2014-2022 was a lo more forgiving than the circumstances of 2000-2008 and surely 2008-20014. It allowed the 5e policies to not be an edition killer.

Other editions would have loved the attitude of 2014-2022.
We'd be previewing 6e if WOTC kept their policies but have the atttudes of 2008-2014 or 2000-2008.
 

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top