D&D 5E Light release schedule: More harm than good?

[Nergal Pendragon]

They had the data on 3E, what worked in terms of making money, what didn't, and lots of hard data on fan feedback. With their superior information, they were better positioned as rational actors than any of us forum commentators..and then they released 4E. We all know how that turned out.

For example, here's Netflix using their superior information to hit one out of the park. And then there was New Coke. And the Edsel. And AOL Time Warner. And Apple Maps. Seriously, if you need help gathering evidence of big companies with "superior information" making laughably bad choices, you just aren't trying

P.S. For the record, I prefer the light release schedule...look at my freakin' signature, for pete's sake.

Actually, they didn't have hard data on fan feedback. They specifically mentioned they were responding to the community, but did not do any surveys of the community itself. They basically made the mistake of trusting the forums to be representative of the player base as a whole.

Notice how it is that 5E's development was chock-full of surveys, polls, playtests, revised playtests, and how they're doing another survey to see how it turned out? That's a massive change from how they operated before.

That does mean they have superior data and a greater chance of producing a successful edition than we do. It doesn't mean that they won't run the game straight into the ground. It just means they have a better chance of not doing it if they actually use that data and keep gathering more data as time goes on. So, they are better positioned than we are to make the best choice. That doesn't mean they'll actually make it, though. After all, this is a Hasbro subsidiary we're talking about.

So, if all goes well, they make good decisions based on the data they have. If all goes badly... well, we knew from experience that it could go badly.

 

[chriton227]

Gosh, if only there were some digital form these books could take...

Digital format doesn't necessarily reduce the product development costs, just the production costs after development. There is also still a distribution cost for digital goods, just lower per unit than physical goods. Digital products also have less consumer exposure (no chance of spotting that digital product and making an impulse sale at your FLGS, book store, or toy and hobby store), resulting in those product development costs having to be recouped through fewer unit sales. If digital was the magic bullet to save the publishing industry, digital would have already surpassed dead trees, which it hasn't. Digital is great for extremely limited distribution niche titles, especially ones with low development costs, like the games developed by people as a hobby that they want to share, not as a vehicle for quitting their day job. Some have managed to parlay that into larger success stories, but I think that is the exception instead of the rule.

If D&D is going to remain a living brand, it needs to find additional revenue streams. Hasbro isn't the type of company to sell off an unprofitable brand to someone who would keep it alive out of love of the brand, their track record is to mothball it and maybe dust it back off in a decade or three to see if the will do any better. The whole D&D Insider subscription model for 4e was an attempt to build an additional revenue stream. As someone who wants to see D&D endure instead of being a nostalgic memory, I hope they find success with the other revenue stream.

 

[chriton227]

And then there was Netflix using their "superior information" to knock one out of the park. And forget New Coke. And the Edsel. And AOL Time Warner. And Apple Maps. Etc, etc, etc. Seriously, if you need help finding evidence of big companies with "superior information" making laughably bad choices...well, you just aren't trying.

The thing about most of these examples of corporate failures is that they are notable because they were against the trend. Apple has become known for smashing successes in the market to the point of becoming a lifestyle brand, Coke and Time Warner didn't get to be as big as they are without lots of really good decisions, and Netflix has altered how movies and TV are consumed and even impacted the very way the companies that maintain the infrastructure of the internet conduct business with each other. And experts can't even come to any sort of consensus on why Edsel failed, especially given that many of the innovations introduced by Edsel are now standard equipment on modern cars (warning lights for the emergency brake, oil pressure, and engine temp, seat belts as standard equipment, ergonomic controls, child locks on the rear doors). There will always be bad decisions, misreads of consumer desire, and failures to predict market shifts, but with all else being equal better information results in a higher probability (not a guarantee) of better decisions.

 

[Bugleyman]

As someone with 20 years in Corporate America: Agree to disagree. As far as I can tell, most big companies survive on economies of scale, vendor lock-in, litigation, and grossly unfair competitive practices. Flipping a coin would be just effective as your typical middle manager's decision making process.

As for WotC, they're coming out of a multi-year string of comically bad decisions. "They're doing it, so it must be smart" just doesn't hold water.

 

[Bugleyman]

Digital format doesn't necessarily reduce the product development costs, just the production costs after development. There is also still a distribution cost for digital goods, just lower per unit than physical goods. Digital products also have less consumer exposure (no chance of spotting that digital product and making an impulse sale at your FLGS, book store, or toy and hobby store), resulting in those product development costs having to be recouped through fewer unit sales. If digital was the magic bullet to save the publishing industry, digital would have already surpassed dead trees, which it hasn't. Digital is great for extremely limited distribution niche titles, especially ones with low development costs, like the games developed by people as a hobby that they want to share, not as a vehicle for quitting their day job. Some have managed to parlay that into larger success stories, but I think that is the exception instead of the rule.

If D&D is going to remain a living brand, it needs to find additional revenue streams. Hasbro isn't the type of company to sell off an unprofitable brand to someone who would keep it alive out of love of the brand, their track record is to mothball it and maybe dust it back off in a decade or three to see if the will do any better. The whole D&D Insider subscription model for 4e was an attempt to build an additional revenue stream. As someone who wants to see D&D endure instead of being a nostalgic memory, I hope they find success with the other revenue stream.

I also want to see D&D endure, which is why I find their enduring ineptitude in the digital space so maddening.

 

[chriton227]

As someone with 20 years in Corporate America: Agree to disagree. As far as I can tell, most big companies survive on economies of scale, vendor lock-in, litigation, and grossly unfair competitive practices. Flipping a coin would be just effective as your typical middle manager's decision making process.

As for WotC, they're coming out of a multi-year string of comically bad decisions. "They're doing it, so it must be smart" just doesn't hold water.

I've also been in corporate America for a long time (just shy of 17 years at a Fortune 500 company). There are bad decisions made at big companies, especially when you get into decisions by committee or the impact of corporate politics and yes-men. There are also good decision made when the people in influential positions in those companies pay attention to their customers and market trends rather than making decisions based on their own ego. Big companies don't get to be big companies by making nothing but bad decisions. Once they get big, the practices you cite can help them stay there, but even that isn't flawless (look at Sears, Arthur Anderson, and Lehman Brothers). I don't think anyone is saying "they're doing it, so it must be smart", they are saying "they have more info about it than some random person on the internet, so don't assume the random person knows how WotC's should do business better than WotC".

The D&D team also isn't exactly a big corporate team anymore, the child care center where my wife works has more than twice as many full time employees as the D&D team, so if the team is given the freedom to make decisions with less of the prior influences from the larger Hasbro and WotC structures, I believe their track record can improve. We've already seen substantial changes in the way things are done; the way the 5e development and playtest was handled was radically different than anything we've ever seen from the D&D brand, and while 5e isn't perfect I think it is much better than it would have been without the playtest. We also haven't seen a bunch of untenable promises at launch of digital products like we did with 3e (character builder demo in the PHB) and 4e (DDI features like the virtual table top).

If you have completely lost faith in the ability of WotC and the D&D team to make good decisions, then I'm not sure why you haven't just cut bait and moved on to something else that you think won't be driven into the ground by it's owner.

 

[Bugleyman]

If you have completely lost faith in the ability of WotC and the D&D team to make good decisions, then I'm not sure why you haven't just cut bait and moved on to something else that you think won't be driven into the ground by it's owner.

In many ways, I have. The 5E DMG is the first DMG ever published which I have not purchased, simply because I can't watch WotC torpedo D&D again. 4E was painful enough, thanks.

On the other hand, I was here first. I've been playing D&D since the eighties. So watching WotC stumble around and @#$# up something I love feels personal, even though I know it isn't.

Don't get me wrong; I think the people who made 5E did a great job (and today some got laid off their trouble -- but that's another thread), but WotC and/or Hasbro is pretty clearly suffering from a crisis of leadership. There is no reasonable, market-driven plan which doesn't include digital books,tools. Yet year after year, they can't. get. it. done.

 

[Grainger]

Of course, as has been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere, they have an uphill struggle, in many ways. Every new edition splits the fan-base; some players will inevitably stick with the previous one, and then you have Pathfinder, not to mention competition from outside the D&D system from other "more modern" RPGs. Plus the growth of board gaming, which eats into the potential market (although there's crossover appeal here - but do the D&D board games persuade many board gamers to try D&D?).

So given that only core rulebooks are big sellers - but every time they release a new edition they effectively lose customers - what can they do?

They can bring new/lapsed players in, but it's difficult as RPGs are not an easily-understood product, nor is it easy to get started (they have done a good job at streamlining the rules, but let's be realistic about how "easy" D&D is as a game). It's not like an iPhone or Skype, where the benefit is obvious to consumers, and so you get mass uptake.

Of course, hobby games can enjoy a Renaissance - look at the aforementioned board gaming*, so it isn't impossible to grow the market - just very difficult.




*Although gamers' board games are still not truly mainstream yet, and anyway, board games are more easily understandable - and have much less prep time - than RPGs.

 

[JohnLynch]

System bloat is such a big problem for Pathfinder that Organised Play DMs have been empowered to ban everything not core from their tables. PFSOP is Paizo's biggest program to recruit new players and retain existing ones. If bloat is such a problem they recognize the need to allow DMs to use this most common house rule in Organised Play, then WotC would be well warned to avoid bloating out 5e as Paizo has done with Pathfinder.

As for me personally. I'd be happy with 1 or 2 suuplement a year (in addition to 2 adventures which I won't buy).

 

[Hussar]

I've seen a number of people talk about six supplements a year.

Ok. Well, that would mean in 3 years, you'd have 18 supplements. That's more than 1e had in its ENTIRE run. At least hardcovers. 1e managed to go 10 years with what, a couple of dozen supplements tops? Two a year, maybe, and lots of years of only one.

I'm not going to buy more than one book a year, maybe two, and I haven't since, 3.5 hit the shelves. So, for me a 2 book a year schedule is fine.