Obective look at WotC's history with D&D

[BriarMonkey]

I think it's important to remember that the WotC that saved D&D from TSR no longer exists.

That WotC was run by Peter Adkison and was its own company.

The WotC of today is a subsidiary of Hasbro.

The WotC run by Peter Adkison gets kudos, but the subsidiary of Hasbro has become a very, very poor custodian of the brand (as evidenced by the OP). Had Hasbro not taken over, I think WotC today would look very similar to how Paizo has turned out to be.

I don't think D&D will ever thrive again (as it once did) under the auspices of Hasbro. It will take a smaller company where D&D is special, not just another brand that needs to make huge profits to justify its existence.

With XP turned off, all I can do is say thanks for that post as I think it's fairly accurate.

And if I understand the initial question correctly, I'm not sure you can get the real facts about why there is such ill will toward WotC. I say that because facts will be interpreted by one based on their own world view.

For instance, it is a fact that WotC released a 4th Edition of D & D. Now, depending on your point of view, this release caused a schism, or divide, in the player base of D & D. Then again, some claim the release of 3.x caused this schism, which was exacerbated by 4E.

Similarly, 4E can be considered a step forward, or a complete departure, for D & D. For me, 4E is not D & D - it is a tactical skirmish game, and for that, I lost faith that WotC was going to ever produce a version that would appeal to me. When Pathfinder came out, I went to that camp. So, from my point of view, the release of 4E was a bad thing. But for those who enjoy the game, the release of 4E was a good thing. Hence, the fact of 4E's release means different things to differing folks. But it's all based on a neutral fact.

*shrug*

I think really, if you boil down timelines to facts, you will really just end up with a release schedule and press notices - which is really pretty non-descript in nature.

 

[billd91]

Insofar as I'm aware, the creation of Paizo had nothing to do with any sort of "investment" being generated by WotC's sale to Paizo (unless you want to say that being sold to Hasbro was a motivating factor for WotC's initial decision to drop their periodicals, which set things into motion).

Well, since Lisa was surely one of those "principals" that Rick Marshall mentions, considering she was referred to as WotC Employee #1, the Hasbro buyout would have left her with some capital - capital that would then contribute to the establishment of Paizo.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's important to remember that the WotC that saved D&D from TSR no longer exists.

That WotC was run by Peter Adkison and was its own company.

The WotC of today is a subsidiary of Hasbro.

The WotC run by Peter Adkison gets kudos, but the subsidiary of Hasbro has become a very, very poor custodian of the brand (as evidenced by the OP). Had Hasbro not taken over, I think WotC today would look very similar to how Paizo has turned out to be.

I don't think D&D will ever thrive again (as it once did) under the auspices of Hasbro. It will take a smaller company where D&D is special, not just another brand that needs to make huge profits to justify its existence.

If we had a functional XP system you'd have got one for this.

Adkison WotC was run by gamers, for gamers; or at least that's the impression they gave via deed as well as word.

Hasbro WotC just isn't the same; and whether 5e flies or sinks I think the D&D brand would be better off in other hands.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

2008 (ish) - WOTC starts the DDI - the single most profitable RPG product ever outside of maybe novel lines. Currently with a shade over 70 000 subscribers, it is drawing in money that no single RPG product can even come close to matching.

Of course, I don't think this one will pass without comment.

 

[Croesus]

2008 (ish) - WOTC starts the DDI - the single most profitable RPG product ever outside of maybe novel lines. Currently with a shade over 70 000 subscribers, it is drawing in money that no single RPG product can even come close to matching.

Of course, I don't think this one will pass without comment.

Unless someone is willing to share confidential WOTC P/L statements, we'll never know how profitable DDI has been. Of course, that won't stop the Internet peanut gallery (aka, us) from giving our expert opinions on it.

 

[BriarMonkey]

2008 (ish) - WOTC starts the DDI - the single most profitable RPG product ever outside of maybe novel lines. Currently with a shade over 70 000 subscribers, it is drawing in money that no single RPG product can even come close to matching.

Of course, I don't think this one will pass without comment.

Unless someone is willing to share confidential WOTC P/L statements, we'll never know how profitable DDI has been. Of course, that won't stop the Internet peanut gallery (aka, us) from giving our expert opinions on it.

And we also have no idea how many different subscribers Paizo has with their differing lines. Thus, saying DDI is the mostest, falls short of actual comparative values.

 

[TerraDave]

I could go on, and, on, and on about WotC questionable RPG decisions. (and have). Instead I just post:

Never Forget

BUT, the irony, the great big irony, is that D&D fans have probably never had it so good. There are a whole range of D&D flavours out there, generally extremely well supported. And a lot of this can be traced to saving the brand, the OGL, and the willingness to keep stuff coming. Still. In spite of the sky falling so many times.

Should the WotCies have zigged instead of zagged, zagged instead of zigged? Sure. Are edition wars annoying. Yes. But for the game to be were it is almost 30 years afters its heyday, is actually sort of impressive.

 

[nnms]

Currently with a shade over 70 000 subscribers,

I was under the impression that the forum counter that showed who joined DDI incremented when you joined, but didn't reduce when you stopped subscribing.

So they have 70,000+ people who ever subscribed, at some point, for atleast a month. Who knows what the actual number is. I doubt WotC would say.

 

[Fifth Element]

I was under the impression that the forum counter that showed who joined DDI incremented when you joined, but didn't reduce when you stopped subscribing.

So they have 70,000+ people who ever subscribed, at some point, for atleast a month. Who knows what the actual number is. I doubt WotC would say.

I rather think this was [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. Some like to "prove" supremacy of one RPG over another by quoting Amazon sales rankings, others like to use numbers that they read somewhere that probably don't mean what they claim them to mean.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

I was under the impression that the forum counter that showed who joined DDI incremented when you joined, but didn't reduce when you stopped subscribing.

So they have 70,000+ people who ever subscribed, at some point, for atleast a month. Who knows what the actual number is. I doubt WotC would say.

I don't have a link handy, but it was stated in the past by WotC employees that the DDI group number represents current subscribers only, and then only those who also have a WotC forum account. Once your sub runs out you're no longer part of the DDI group.