Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azgulor" data-source="post: 5362377" data-attributes="member: 14291">While everything you've presented is possible, none of it is at odds with the supposition that WotC chooses this policy rather than being forced to it.  There are many strategies that could be employed including the path of least resistance.  (If that's what the regular firings are.)And while I'm sure WotC has much larger operating costs & expenditures, as you said, none of us have hard data.Lacking such data or reports from former WotC employees supporting a hypothesis of "WotC is barely profitable", I'm going to reasonably conclude that isn't the case.If your theory is true, than D&D is hanging on by a slim margin.  However, I'm willing to bet that in the next Edition War/Sales-#-Speculation thread that surfaces, we'll have posters coming out in significant numbers reminding everyone how insignificant WotC's competition is when compared against the 800 lb. gorilla.  How profitable D&D is, how successful DDI is, how valuable the D&D brand is, etc.While I'm sure one could craft a scenario that fits it, it's not plausible that both operating conditions are true.  It's certainly not plausible that it's been true and sustainable in such a fashion for years.  This little anniversary process has been around since before the launch of 4e.  Since then, we've had reduced competition via the abandonment of the OGL by WotC, the introduction of the DDI subscriptions as a net new revenue stream, and the introduction of a significant (degree of significance is debatable) competitor emerge in the form of Pathfinder.  All amidst a global economic slowdown/recession.  Yet the policy has held consistent despite signficant changes in the RPG market & WotC's business model.So... IMO we're back to it being a choice rather than a necessity.  YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification