Is Wotc Slipping?

[nnms]

Another thing to remember is that Wizards still makes the vast majority of their money from Magic: The Gathering. Sometimes I get the impression that people want Wizards to lose money and go out of business just so they can be right on the internet. You may have to settle for the minimizing of D&D products instead as I don't think WotC's M:tg revenue is going anywhere any time soon.

So let's assume your dreams have already come true. That the vast majority of D&D creative staff has been pulled off of D&D and put onto M:tg. That products being cancelled and redesigned for DDI release is a sign of Wizards not wanting to invest any more capital in D&D than necessary. That Essentials basically tanked but now they have enough to truly be an evergreen product without reprinting and that Wizards is willing to accept lower revenue from book sales and is concentrating on M:tg and DDi.

So now what? What did this get you? Is Wizards patrolling enworld looking for people who are right on the internet about hobby products to help save D&D for 5E? Or will Wizards be happy with a trickle of money coming in without much in the way of additional investment and just keep trucking along with a D&D that you don't like?

What does your victory actually look like? Is being able to post "I told you so!" the end goal?

 

[Wicht]

Sometimes I get the impression that people want Wizards to lose money and go out of business just so they can be right on the internet.

I think you are reading too much into the motives of people. Either that or you are taking the viewpoint of a very, very small minority and extrapolating it to be the viewpoint of anyone who is critical or analytical.

My impression is that...
1)... the majority of us want Wizards to succeed in the RPG field.
2)... a good many of us, if we were honest, would like for them to succeed by catering to our particular tastes.
3).... and some of us feel strongly that the available market evidence is that they are not succeeding as they should be, for a number of reasons.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you are reading too much into the motives of people. Either that or you are taking the viewpoint of a very, very small minority and extrapolating it to be the viewpoint of anyone who is critical or analytical.

My impression is that...
1)... the majority of us want Wizards to succeed in the RPG field.
2)... a good many of us, if we were honest, would like for them to succeed by catering to our particular tastes.
3).... and some of us feel strongly that the available market evidence is that they are not succeeding as they should be, for a number of reasons.

Also, some of us don't need WotC to fail to be right on the internet.













Besides, for all we know, 5e will be an epic win for all parties!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

While I honestly think PF is a better game, for me at the least, I also think that picking a game based solely on how pretty it is ranks as pretty darned silly.

Depending on what you mean by "solely."

Presentation is not perfectly correlated with professionalism and quality in other areas of production, but there is a correlation.

And even beyond that, there is a perceptual linkage between art (and other aspects of correlation) and other preferences. Just for example, one of the players in my game like Wayne Reynolds' art -- he especially loves the iconic barbarian -- and he links that art to what he thinks he will get to enjoy in Pathfinder.

That's not necessarily accurate -- I, for one, hate those ridiculous over-sized weapons, and so when I DM he won't be experiencing that -- but I also wouldn't call it "silly."

Finally, IMO "enjoying the look" of RPG materials is a non-negligible part of enjoying the hobby for many people (me included). IMO, Pathfinder books are so much prettier than 4E books (or 3.5 books) that I get more enjoyment out of using them ... completely aside from system content.

 

[BryonD]

Another thing to remember is that Wizards still makes the vast majority of their money from Magic: The Gathering. Sometimes I get the impression that people want Wizards to lose money and go out of business just so they can be right on the internet.

Actually, I'm rather certain (as much as we can be..... ) that Wizards is making a bunch of money of 4E. (which in no way disputes your M:tG point)

I make no claim whatsoever that they are not. On that question, I specifically claim the opposite.

But, it seems clear to me that they have lost some of their former market share. Two related, but different points.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly, BryonD, I think you are changing your position rapidly here in order to find ways to criticize those you are in disagreement with.

That is absurd. My point has been exactly consistent throughout and remains the same now.

What you are saying right now is very at odds with the actual criticism you offered towards ProfessorCirno:

First, it should be clear that I have not been critical of ProfC here. I've been critical of praise of his statement coming from the same source as dismissive comments towards other statements. (Not that I'm not frequently critical of him, just have not been here)

"We get data point after data point so often they are practically touching. But we get this "enlightened" refrain of "you can connect those dots, that's just guesswork." And sober heads nob in stern agreement.

Then we get a single source anecdote of a claim of one person's behavior and a single source anecdote of a claim of one store closing. And a direct line of association is drawn between the two. And he gets XP for it from one of the people who don't think we know enough about PF/4E."

That seems to very much be criticizing, not the anecdotes themselves, but the follow-up question. You are directly equating accepting the various 'data points' about 4E sales as indicative of a larger truth about the industry with drawing a single conclusion about a single local event.

Now you suddenly are backing off and saying that it isn't about the conclusions or follow-up questions at all, but just about the trustworthiness of the source.

But that is certainly not what you were arguing yesterday.

Yesterday I was not directly responding to Umbran's mixing and matching. That is a separate point, but they are compatible and consistent.

This is doubly humorous considering your defense when I showed your double standard was little more than "no it isn't".

 

[TerraDave]

I think WotC slipped and fell, then got up but with feet slipping and arms waving, fell again, and are now getting up very carefully.

 

[tuxgeo]

So you've got a product line that doesn't sell to new roleplayers; doesn't sell to existing 4E players; and doesn't bring ex-customers back into the fold.
That's a product line with some problems.

That sounds vaguely familiar.

I'm hoping that Paizo manages to avoid the same problems with their new "basic set."

From what I can tell, they need to have...
1) Enough new stuff in it to make it worthwhile, even to existing customers (I think they are going to be good to go here if the box has as much as they say).
2) A lower price point than the Core book ($35 is lower than $50 so again its good).
3) Enough shiny to appeal to a walk-by buyer.

4) REPLAYABILITY! (Why does anyone ever forget this main, salient point?)

Replayability is key! -- If the product offers the prospect of, "Buy this box in order to learn what the game is like; then ignore this box, and buy other things if you ever actually want to continue playing the same game," then there will be little need for many people to buy the box. (They can talk with their friends, instead, to learn whether the game might be something they would like to play.)

 

[Herschel]

That is actually the biggest problem that the local Borders is having with Essentials - They got in a dozen of each, two dozen of Heroes of the Fallen Land,

A: It's one, local Borders
B: Borders has a LOT bigger problems than RPG book sales. They're having trouble competeing period (Hence teh Chapter 11 filing)

I gave up reading after a few pages because I got tired of being delayed by edition warriors. There are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Amazon sales figures are crap. They're simply too narrow in focus to give us the big picture.

2. Paizo and WotC customers are not mutually exclusive. Sure a few of the most fervent edition warriors go out of their way to avoid anything having to do with WotC but they're irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. Most Paizo accessories work with Wotc products and vice verse. By design (duh!)

 

[xechnao]

I think WotC slipped and fell, then got up but with feet slipping and arms waving, fell again, and are now getting up very carefully.

Albeit with a broken leg.