This is my experience as well. 4e is a different story. Even those that like it rarely buy its books. They may have DDi subscriptions but as I have said many times I am the only one in my 4e group buying 4e books (but I buy PF books too).
D&D 5E Opinion poll: Once D&D Next is out, how do you think it will do? (based on what we have so far)
This is my experience as well. 4e is a different story. Even those that like it rarely buy its books. They may have DDi subscriptions but as I have said many times I am the only one in my 4e group buying 4e books (but I buy PF books too).
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
As others have said, I think it will be strong out of the gate.
Beyond that - it depends. If WotC uses the same strategies it has used for 3E, 3.5E and 4E, it will fail* within 4 years. However, if they employ a different strategy with different expectations, it could well succeed for many years.
I do think it will be a solid game for those who don't already have a D&D edition (or similar game like Pathfinder) that they already love.
Now, what will be fascinating for me to watch is how they support *all* D&D. Greg Leeds indicated that going forward it was WotC's desire to support all D&D players - regardless of what edition is played. That could be awesome - or it could be a train wreck.
Time will tell....
*Fail, in this case, means it will not sell enough for WotC/Hasbro's taste.
Beyond that - it depends. If WotC uses the same strategies it has used for 3E, 3.5E and 4E, it will fail* within 4 years. However, if they employ a different strategy with different expectations, it could well succeed for many years.
I do think it will be a solid game for those who don't already have a D&D edition (or similar game like Pathfinder) that they already love.
Now, what will be fascinating for me to watch is how they support *all* D&D. Greg Leeds indicated that going forward it was WotC's desire to support all D&D players - regardless of what edition is played. That could be awesome - or it could be a train wreck.
Time will tell....*Fail, in this case, means it will not sell enough for WotC/Hasbro's taste.
sunshadow21
Explorer
I voted the third because I don't see it being good enough to really take on Pathfinder or the plethora of other options over the long term, but it's still the D&D brand, and at least for now, that does mean something still, even if that meaning weakens with every new edition. The option I would truly have voted for is "it will settle in amongst all the other editions of D&D"; it will be above average in the overall market, but it will struggle as 4E has to reliably stay on top, since the biggest problems with 4E wasn't the system itself, but the folks behind it, and that part won't change with a new edition. WotC and Hasbro are still likely to deem a "failure" simply because the chances of it meeting their lofty goals are very, very small. It will not take down Pathfinder or Paizo, nor will it likely drastically change Paizo's strategy over the long term; too many fans and 3rd party publishers support Pathfinder because of Paizo's business practices, something that WotC will never be able to compete with.
A
amerigoV
Guest
I consider myself out of their target market these days so I will not be contributing that much to the bottom line (the occasional module, if they are any good). That said, I think it will do well. I do not have much to base this on other than I have liked the "odd" editions of the D&D (1e, 3e) much more then the even numbered editions. Note I only did a one-shot at a Con of one of the first packets.
They may actually time the market right - Pathfinder has churned out a lot of material as 3.75 so it might just strike the "this is becoming bloated ... oooooooh, look at the new shiny!"
They may actually time the market right - Pathfinder has churned out a lot of material as 3.75 so it might just strike the "this is becoming bloated ... oooooooh, look at the new shiny!"
5E will do the same as every other previous edition... it will sell a whole heap of books right off the top and bring in wads of cash for that first fiscal year... knowing full well that every subsequent fiscal year will see the numbers drop. And once year four's financials come around and they've run out of actual money-making books... they'll go ahead and start the process over again by designing a whole new set of books for 6E.
And that will never change. Because despite some players incessant complaints about "having to buy the books again"... the fact is, most players do exactly that. In year five they are more likely to buy a new set of (more expensive) core books, then they are to buy a splatbook or set of modules. So there's no financial reason to try and ride an edition into the ground when the money coming in has reached a point of diminishing returns... all to try and avoid this "theory" that you can't make money by "splitting the audience" like that. When it appears quite clearly that when it comes to core books, they most certainly can.
There will always be an audience for a new edition... a much larger one than the audience who is going to buy the previous edition's Draconomicon 3: The Gem Dragons or Complete Book of Warriors From Arctic Areas Who Use Ranged Weapons.
And that will never change. Because despite some players incessant complaints about "having to buy the books again"... the fact is, most players do exactly that. In year five they are more likely to buy a new set of (more expensive) core books, then they are to buy a splatbook or set of modules. So there's no financial reason to try and ride an edition into the ground when the money coming in has reached a point of diminishing returns... all to try and avoid this "theory" that you can't make money by "splitting the audience" like that. When it appears quite clearly that when it comes to core books, they most certainly can.
There will always be an audience for a new edition... a much larger one than the audience who is going to buy the previous edition's Draconomicon 3: The Gem Dragons or Complete Book of Warriors From Arctic Areas Who Use Ranged Weapons.
I think you are partly right, but why you put splitting the audience in quotes suggests you don't believe its happened, over and over. Were the audience not split, we would have no OSR, and PF would be virtually unknown.
So although you are right, I think, that D&D will continue to reinvent, and resell, itself UNTIL a core edition truly flops, it is also true that the reprints have sold, apparently quite well since they've only expanded. Large segments never buy the new edition. I think WotC are getting this, finally, and realizing that the future for D&D is more wholistic and less slash-and-burn.
Actually, it's not that I don't believe the audience split has happened... it's that I don't believe it's had any major impact on the sales of those first set of books. For every player who refuses to buy the books of a new edition, there's a new player that comes in and replaces him. And thus... the sales of new edition core books always seem to greatly outpace what would have been the sales of a third or fourth generation splatbook from the previous edition they would have been selling instead.
Jester David
Hero
Kinda.
The Core books always sell best, this is true. However, this is also because they're the books everyone buys first. So they should always be in print and available on shelves; the core books should generate a continual profit year after year.
This is something WotC is currently struggling with, as they seem to have a MtG mentality for D&D, where you have to continually have a new set each year, and past products are immediately forgotten. It's actually better to have a video console mentality where the console always has to be one sale and continually generates better and better profit while you sell accessories for that central product. Paizo has this, where each year they sell more Core Rulebooks than the previous year. That should be the focus.
Once again, I don't think you can compare Paizo's and WotC's situations. They are not at all similar based upon the amount of money the two lines are expected to generate from fiscal year to fiscal year.
If Paizo is able to generate a stable level of sales each and every fiscal year based primarily from their accessory line subscription service-- say they generate $500K each year (picking an arbitrary number just as an example) they're good. They can ride that $500K for as long as possible.
But WotC's core rulebooks for a new edition are SO frontloaded in sales and generate so much money overall (compared to the rest of the RPG line)... that it throws their yearly ledgers completely off. They THINK they have a huge game on their hands based on Year One sales (and start trying to plan their lines with that idea in mind)... but then they realize that's not necessarily the case in Year 2, Year 3, etc. etc. So if WotC generates $10 million in Year One (almost entirely from the frontloaded sales of a new set of core books)... then in Year 2 generates $5 million from their accessories and support products, then $2 million in Year 3, $1 million in Year 4... that kind of fluctuation is unwanted in a corporate environment. It's the same reason why Morrus said (back when he first offered up the ENWorld subscription service to people) that he was only doing monthly subscriptions, and not have a "pay once for the year" option. Because it's much more difficult to plan and organize your year-to-year and month-to-month finances when you don't have that kind of consistency. Heck, that's why DDI was so important to WotC too... because they always knew each month they had X number of dollars coming in.
That's WotC's big problem (and why I don't think you can compare them to Paizo.) As weird as it is to say... a new edition for them is just too popular. Too much windfall at the top and not enough in subsequent fiscal years. Heck, truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC would actually prefer (if they could get away with it) to release a new edition of D&D every year, just to get the same level of base sales year-to-year from those core books, even if overall it ends up generating less money total than a single line that suffers diminishing returns. If given the choice between:
$10 mill / $5 mill / $ 2 mill / $1 mill / $500K (Years 1 to 5 of one line - $18.5 million total)
versus
$3 mill / $3 mill / $3 mill / $3 mill / $3 mill (new line each year - $15 million total)
Most companies I think would prefer the second option.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I liked the flavor, but some of the mechanics were terribly overpowered. Especially the Rimeskin Furtrapper.
Similar Threads
- Poll
