It feels to me like Hasbro has lit a fire under Wizards of the Coast, and given them

[Starfox]

Forked Thread:

It feels to me like Hasbro has lit a fire under Wizards of the Coast, and given them an ultimatum: Perform or Be Sold Off.

Would this be a bad thing?

Edit

Windjammer did not say that, the guy he was quoting did. He might not appreciate having it attributed to him.

^ This

 

[wedgeski]

Yes, because 4E is a great game that deserves a long life.

Also, Windjammer did not say that, the guy he was quoting did. He might not appreciate having it attributed to him.

 

[Coldwyn]

Forked Thread:



Would this be a bad thing?

Very bad.

Whatever company would buy WotC would demand some instant high sales figures right now, to compensate for the investment.
As we all know (or at least infer) by now, only core products really sell well, so this would mean a rushed new core version, like a 4,5 to get those instant sales numbers.

 

[Windjammer]

Also, Windjammer did not say that, the guy he was quoting did. He might not appreciate having it attributed to him.

Thanks for saying that, really appreciated. That said, now that it's pointed out I think we've warded off the risk of misattribution.

My personal opinion focuses less on 'would it be a good thing?' but more on 'is it actually the case?'. I don't think it's the case. The quoted claim was based on a certain interpretation of DMG 3 and Arcane Power 2 not coming out this year, owing to WotC putting their effort into the Essentials line. I think D&D Essentials was planned for ever since early 2009 (if not earlier) to drive more sales to the "Core" supplements, and that recent supplements like Hammerfast and the Dragonborn Race Codex are good indication of WotC' plans to create materials that can be easily used with the Core game and the Essentials game - not to mention edition neutral material like Dungeon Tiles (where we're about to receive the best sets ever since their introduction). The frequent claims of the Essentials line supplanting, and competing with, the Core line of the D&D game seem to me fundamentally mistaken. On my reading of the product development, WotC wants to consolidate the customer base around the Core line and DDI, not fragment it.

Finally, we are in a recession in the boardgame market (see the recent discussions on FFG pulling the plug on BattleLore since the economy can no longer sustain production costs it could a couple of years ago), which means the market needs to adjust to this situation rather than just fold up. (Even prior to Hasbro buying WotC (and by extenuation, D&D), I've always thought the lifeblood of RPGs to be tied to those of boardgames.)
In other words, if Hasbro has put pressure on WotC, and would then give up the D&D brand, this would have less to do with 4E in particular, and quite a bit with short sighted planning - or, perhaps, a pessemism on the boardgame market's ability to recover in a couple of years.

Returning to the OP's own question, the question is I guess if there can be life for D&D after Hasbro. Of course there can - D&D will always find a publisher. And going back to a smaller scale could even re-invigorate the D&D brand by focusing on its core customers, pedalling back quite a bit from the current trend to open up the market.

Would this be bad for 4E? On the direct level, certainly. It would mean the end of product support. However, just as with D&D 3.5 I don't hinge the quality of the game on an endless supply of supplements. Perhaps the Core 1's didn't deliver the complete game to everyone, but anyone who's got the Core 2's on his shelves as well ought to have everything that's needed to keep him going for years on a solid game to boot.

 

[Prism]

I think its bad to judge if this is the case based on the games popularity in B&M stores. Wizards to me seems primarily focused on the direct sales model of DDI for the future. What I imagine they are doing is evaluating revenue from B&M stores vs internet stores vs DDI. Before anything drastic was to happen, one of these streams may be pushed over the others. I could see the big questions being 'how long to we continue publishing books?' and 'if we did so how many more people would switch to DDI?'

For me, by their very nature reference books are ideal in an online environment. Our group has almost completely stopped buying books - just the odd birthday present for each other.

So in answer to the original question. If Wizards dropped d&d I'd be sad even though there is enough content for me play for many years. If they dropped publishing books I wouldn't mind at all

 

[Jhaelen]

So, ... Magic doesn't sell anymore?

 

[Dice4Hire]

So, ... Magic doesn't sell anymore?

Compared to what multi-national conglomerates consider sales?

No, not at all.

 

[AllisterH]

Um, people do KNOW of a little game called Magic:The Gathering?

Perhaps ANOTHER game called DuelMasters a.k.a "we regularly switch month to month with Pokemon as the most popular CCG in all of Asia" might help?

 

[Umbran]

That D&D doesn't rate mention in the Wall Street Journal by no means suggests a "sad state" for WotC. While the brand seems like a big deal to us, in the business world it has always been small potatoes.

As AllisterH points out - while M:tG may no longer be the biggest thing on the block, DuelMasters does well.

It may well "feel" to someone that WotC's been given some marching orders, but the feelings of someone who isn't in the company itself really aren't an indicator. Sorry.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's probably not an actual thing, but for the sake of the thought experiment...

I think it wouldn't be a truly horrible thing. I could see it forcing more dramatic moves on WotC's part, but that's about it. They're a profitable division, and even when the market is taking a beating, I'm pretty confident in their ability to turn something of a profit.

If it's not enough for Hasbro, I'm sure it would be enough for some other company out there.

The question HAS might ask itself is, "Do we really want someone else tapped into this revenue stream?" Even if it's not much, it's better to flow into their coffers than someone else's.