D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Yora]

But HOW WotC maintains solvency... Hasbro (for the most part) couldn't care less. If WotC has to make X amount of profit each year... then it doesn't matter to Hasbro HOW that happens. And if by some chance Magic: The Gathering produced 95% of that profit and Dungeons & Dragons only 5%... Hasbro WON'T CARE. WotC made their profit... and thus all is good with Hasbro.

So no... I in no way believe HASBRO cares one lick about how well or poorly D&D is doing in of itself, and will take absolutely NO SAY on whether another editions gets published or sold. In fact, from the sounds of all the Hasbro investor meetings... Dungeons & Dragons is never even mentioned. It's a blip on Hasbro's radar (if at all.)

People always say that, but if I were at charge at a publically traded company like Hasbro and had both stock owners who decide my pay and how long I keep my job on the one side, and on the other side I have subsidaries like WotC, then I would care a great deal what's going on at WotC.

If every quarter the numbers from WotC say "Magic made a plus of 1000, D&D made a minus of 600, and Pokemon TCG a minus of 20", then the stock holders will ask the very justified question: "If we would just discontinue D&D, wouldn't that mean 600 more profit that can be cashed out to us?"
And as mangement you could hardly tell them "well, those guys really enjoy spending your money on a product that doesn't make a profit and I think we should let them keep doing it".

 

[Scribble]

People always say that, but if I were at charge at a publically traded company like Hasbro and had both stock owners who decide my pay and how long I keep my job on the one side, and on the other side I have subsidaries like WotC, then I would care a great deal what's going on at WotC.

If every quarter the numbers from WotC say "Magic made a plus of 1000, D&D made a minus of 600, and Pokemon TCG a minus of 20", then the stock holders will ask the very justified question: "If we would just discontinue D&D, wouldn't that mean 600 more profit that can be cashed out to us?"
And as mangement you could hardly tell them "well, those guys really enjoy spending your money on a product that doesn't make a profit and I think we should let them keep doing it".

This assumes the stockholders actually see a breakdown of numbers by department- I doubt they do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This assumes the stockholders actually see a breakdown of numbers by department- I doubt they do.

DING!

That's be like the stockholders of Proctor & Gamble getting investor breakdowns on how well the Mach 3 razor is selling compared to the Fusion because Proctor & Gamble owns Gillette razors.

P&G might care how GILLETTE is doing, compared to some of the other 60+ brands it owns... like Pampers, Clairol, Febreze, and Vicks... but they'd leave it to the VP in charge of Gillette to determine how the razors division runs itself.

 

[Yora]

I'm not an economist, but I think that's where all those bonuses come into play.

It is decided that the people in charge get extra pay if certain departments improve their profits and less if the departmens perform more poorly than in the past.
And at some point there will be someone who sees those numbers and who is thinking "if I can get these numbers to improve, I get paid a bonus, advance my career, and secure my employment." Because someone will be in charge of monitoring the work of the departments and his job depends on making sure the department generates a steady stream of profit. And if Johns supperior sees that the department overseen by John is doing more poorly every year, the superior might not care why this is the case, but just find someone else to do his job.

 

[Mark CMG]

Things I find unbelievable:

Why people think that they know which editions are bad?

Why people think their preferred edition is the correct one?

How people know so much about a game that they never owned?

Which game out sells others when NO such info is published?

Why people bash everything they don't like?

Why playtest D&D Next if you HATE WOTC so much?

Why so much hate against you fellow D&D fans?


...This is NOT directed at you, just a few things I find unbelievable.

Oh, I know it isn't since none of it really applies to me, and I second your asking of the questions. Many of them get to the very heart of the disagreements we routinely see among us as a fanbase.

 

[Mark CMG]

I didnt say anything of the sort. The OGL was the cause of pathfinders success. However, whats good for pathfinder was NOT neccesarily good for WoTC.

Again, this seems to be an example of requiring your theory to struggle against the evidence whereby the simple explanation is applied in one case but not in another.

However since gaming isnt a communist collective where they all share profits with WoTC none of that is neccesarily good for WoTC as a business.

Funny. I assume you mean this as a sort of humorous reductio ad absurdum argument so I'll take it as such with the chuckle you likely mean to elicit.

Thats why you dont see Apple handing out their technology to competitors left and right hoping that people will buy their stuff anyway because they really love that cool apple logo on it.

I don't think the two markets have the parallels you feel support your contentions.

 

[timASW]

I'm not an economist, but I think that's where all those bonuses come into play.

It is decided that the people in charge get extra pay if certain departments improve their profits and less if the departmens perform more poorly than in the past.
And at some point there will be someone who sees those numbers and who is thinking "if I can get these numbers to improve, I get paid a bonus, advance my career, and secure my employment." Because someone will be in charge of monitoring the work of the departments and his job depends on making sure the department generates a steady stream of profit. And if Johns supperior sees that the department overseen by John is doing more poorly every year, the superior might not care why this is the case, but just find someone else to do his job.

My god. Theres at least one other man with a JOB in this dicussion. Who understands how that works.

 

[Emerikol]

I'll be the first to say tha 4e lost a lot. But they are still either #1 or #2 in sales rpg wise. Thats more than enough revenue to sustain a company. They may be a fat and inefficient company but someone out there can make D&D for 25million profit a year. Hey I'd give it a try for 5. .

 

[Emerikol]

Things I find unbelievable:

Why people think that they know which editions are bad?

Since a games sole purpose is fun. I know if it's good or bad for me with 100% accuracy and thats all that matters. I agree though that this is subjective.

Why people think their preferred edition is the correct one?

I think few people truly think any edition is perfect. Rather they like one better than another. Again thats back to the subjectivity of it. For me 3e is better than 4e because for me it would be more fun. The exact opposite though might be true for someone else.

How people know so much about a game that they never owned?

I've owned everything since the red box including a lot of 4e. I think it is a myth that all that many PF players didn't buy a single 4e book.

Which game out sells others when NO such info is published?

I agree exact sales figures are off. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that 4e did significantly worse than 3e sales wise. Not a shocker since Pathfinder exists now and didn't then and PF is at least in the neighborhood sales wise. 4e still sold well by any games standard but D&D.

Why people bash everything they don't like?

it's the internet. People are here to debate.

Why playtest D&D Next if you HATE WOTC so much?

Now here is one I totally agree with. The way some people talk abut WOTC why would they ever do business with them.

Why so much hate against you fellow D&D fans?

The pre-4e crowd is looking for someone to blame for "their" game being stolen. I though have found that over time I develop a fondness even for my most bitter opponents on these boards and the WOTC boards. I do find it useful despite being acrimonious. You just have to filter. I know myself far better now than I did a year ago when it comes to what I want out of a roleplaying game.

4e was the first time I felt the game system failed me. I think my last campaign failed because of the system. All of us just didn't want to keep playing with those rules. Prior to that event, I had never encountered this phenomena.

 

[timASW]

Again, this seems to be an example of requiring your theory to struggle against the evidence whereby the simple explanation is applied in one case but not in another..

Heres the evidence.

Pathfinder pre-OGL. 0 dollars from WoTC's bottom line.
Pathfinder Post-OGL. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from WoTC's bottom line.

The absolute only way you can argue that is saying that somehow the very existence of OGL products improved awareness and sales enough to balance out those lost millions.

But since there wasnt a single non-gamer who woke up one morning and just magically knew "now theres an OGL, I have lots of choices".....

and there were no commercials on TV, Radio, or Internet advertising saying it existed one has to ask themselves.... HOW DID A SINGLE NON GAMER KNOW ABOUT THE OGL????

Heres the answer. They didnt.

Not one new person who had never gamed before was brought into the hobby because there was an OGL. Not one. It sold more books to existing gamers. And gamers who were existing customers continued to bring new people into the hobby because thats what we do. We didnt do it because there was an OGL. We did it because we wanted to keep full gaming tables.