Is WotC still the industry LEADER?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How can a company be a "leader" in its area?

Being the one everyone else want to partner up with?
Being partner with everyone else?
Being the one that sets new industry standards?
Being the one with the most loyal customer base?
Being the one with the largest customer base?
Being the one with the most innovative products?
Being the one with the highest production values?

I think WotC is still a market leader in many areas.

The thing they are currently being weakest at is probably something in relation to their customer base and their business practices.
They have the largest customer base, and also a very loyal one - a lot of people never look outside WotC products. But others might have an even more loyal customer base (Others = Paizo, mostly).
The PDF thing also hits on the loyality thing.

The GSL delays have caused a problem with partnership - sure, a lot of people still want to be their partner, but the first version of the GSL made it hard on many, and overall it shrinked both the numbers of partners and the desire to partner up with them.

There are also areas of their products where they disappoint in production value - namely, they have a bad reputation for failing at online ventures. The DDI as it is great, but there was promised more, and the previous failings (the most recent Gleemax) still are on peoples mind. But on the other hand - they are the only ones that even have such kind of online products, so they probably still win there. It's just that "highest production value" is not as high as we like it ot be.

I definitely thing they are still leading in other areas, for example industry standards in regards to game design process, market research, play-testing, organized play. Heck, with the OGL and the GSL, they make entire game systems an industry standard.
But note that other companies do a lot here, too - Paizo and others "experiment" with open playtests, for example. I am not sure if that is something that can be universally applies, but I think it is an approach that seems to work with smaller companies and smaller customer bases.

Their production values in book are obviously very high, and they set standards there, too. Colored Illustrations, clear layouts and organization have become more common and are expected by the customer today.

Innovation is a little harder to judge - they certainly innovated D&D with 3E and 4E edition a lot, but of course they often just picked good rule concepts from other systems - but combining various new approaches in a coherent manner is also a form of innovation - says me at least . (I suppose it's not uncommon for larger companies in an area to be innovative by "stealing" from others - Google or Microsoft for example typically do this by buying up smaller companies with an innovative idea to sell it themselves - with more money and reach the have certain advantages the smaller company wouldn't have.)

 

[S'mon]

I think that at this moment they're still the RPG industry leader, unlike say Games Workshop they haven't spun off into their own little universe. The D&D brand is still strong and the dominant force among new gamers.

That said, I am seeing a lot of hunger among new gamers for something different than what WoTC is offering. A company with the marketing reach to get to them with something like Dragon Warriors, Labyrinth Lord or (re-edited) Castles & Crusades could usurp the WoTC-Paizo high-crunch model which IME only appeals to a fairly small subset of potential RPers.

 

[Aus_Snow]

How can a company be a "leader" in its area?

I'd say any or all of these:

The earning of respect, trust, loyalty and admiration; accountability, solid ethics with regards to (for example) customers and potential customers, employees, the environment or what have you, some sort of worthy guiding principle or ideal, sound decision-making, setting achievable goals that in fact are achieved, sensible management, producing the best (or some of the best) stuff out there, breaking new ground - if that's viable. . .

So, some echoing of your own list, plus a few things I think might matter when it comes to determining true 'leaders'. But, that's just my own interpretation really, FWIW.

 

[Remus Lupin]

i will say this: I miss the minds that made the ogl happen, that saved d&d from the death throes of tsr, and that craved that sort of "if everyone wins, i win" attitude. I really wish d&d was in the hands of people who could think beyond their mba's. I understand some of their underlings are these people, so perhaps not all hope is entirely lost.

qft

 

[Remus Lupin]

I think the logical riposte to Stan!'s assertion, however is this: If WOTC is no longer the industry leader, who is?

I can see some suggesting Green Ronin, some maybe Paizo, some White Wolf. But if leadership isn't to be judged (solely) by market share, then the criterion we use to judge leadership ought to give us some sense of who fits the bill.

So my question is who has supplanted (or should supplant) WOTC as industry leader, and how would we know if (that) they've done so?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

They've changed from:

Leader (someone you follow)

to Bully (someone you fear enough to do what they say).


A bully can be a leader, to be sure, but only as long as you continue to fear him and listen. The incentive is to depose him, not to continue to follow. This is the fundamental difference I see in how WotC has changed.

 

[Glyfair]

I think the logical riposte to Stan!'s assertion, however is this: If WOTC is no longer the industry leader, who is?

There doesn't have to be one. Just because WotC stops leading, doesn't mean that another company has to take up the reins.

IMO, if WotC isn't the industry leader any more than there isn't one.

 

[Cadfan]

Well, its kind of an odd definition of "leader," isn't it?

If by "leader" you mean "the guy we all admire and want to be like and do what he does and maybe hang out near his locker and OMIGOSH HE SMILED AT ME!" then maybe they aren't the industry leader. That's awfully subjective.

I suspect that WotC's design philosophies, if nothing else, are heavy influences in the minds of developers of other games. Even if they disagree with the theories behind 4e, its still a large, reasonably coherent vision of a way to roleplay, put together by an enormous (in RPG development terms) staff of talented individuals. Even those who hate it are no doubt considering WHY they hate it, and analyzing what they would do differently and why.

So if you mean "the guys making the biggest game and forming trends to which we react," then, yeah, they're the industry leader and not liking them won't change a thing.

 

[avin]

I just want to add that, while I'm DMing exclusively 4E, my positive vibe about Wotc as a company was gone with OGL and 3.5.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, its kind of an odd definition of "leader," isn't it?

If by "leader" you mean "the guy we all admire and want to be like and do what he does and maybe hang out near his locker and OMIGOSH HE SMILED AT ME!" then maybe they aren't the industry leader. That's awfully subjective.

I don't think it's that odd. It's specific, but that's what happens when you define a term.

Stan! seems to be using it mostly in this way, and, more than that, adds to it the idea that the "market leader" would try to lead the WHOLE MARKET in a given direction, rather than just themselves. They would take others along, educate them, help them to match pace, and basically support the whole of the thing. A leader in the 4e sense of the term: they help their teammates (smaller companies in the industry) do things.

That's not very subjective, really. Do other companies want to work with WotC to grow the hobby as a whole? Or are they opening up their own paths, blazing their own trails, and going off in their own directions? That's something you can answer, more or less.