Repeating the Mistakes of the Past

[Scrivener of Doom]

Well, you are mistaken.

Here is their most recent, public, official chart. (snipped chart to save space) If, as you say, D&D is 1/15th of all of WOTC (and I think it's more than that myself, once you include licensing incomes), that puts it as a rather important segment of Hasbro.

Wow, I never realised how critical WotC was to Hasbro's revenues and, presumably, profits. Those M:tG revenues are figurative rivers of gold.

No wonder Wizards is being extended some time to try and get the D&D brand back together. Greg Leeds must have a fair bit of clout within Hasbro.

 

[Warbringer]

Well, you are mistaken.

Here is their most recent, public, official chart.

If, as you say, D&D is 1/15th of all of WOTC (and I think it's more than that myself, once you include licensing incomes), that puts it as a rather important segment of Hasbro.

The graph is only for their gaming segment which is just over a $1 billion of the $4 billion, so the $300MM WOTC fits with that graph, ish ....

 

[innerdude]

D&D is barely relevant to WotC's bottom line. Hasbro is in another league.

Which, frankly, makes me think that it may in fact be time for Hasbro to "mothball" D&D: The RPG. At some point, making new editions becomes a zero-sum--you've fractured the fanbase to the point that the market can no longer sustain business beyond a certain revenue line.

I've seen this within the company I work for currently--a product begins to slip in sales, and attentions naturally get turned to the more important pieces that are actually producing revenue. Management both overtly and subtly begin moving resources within the company to areas that best suit their needs (in many cases, to save their jobs).

 

[Henry]

Which, frankly, makes me think that it may in fact be time for Hasbro to "mothball" D&D: The RPG. At some point, making new editions becomes a zero-sum--you've fractured the fanbase to the point that the market can no longer sustain business beyond a certain revenue line.

I've seen this within the company I work for currently--a product begins to slip in sales, and attentions naturally get turned to the more important pieces that are actually producing revenue. Management both overtly and subtly begin moving resources within the company to areas that best suit their needs (in many cases, to save their jobs).

Problem is, thanks to the OGL and the segmentation that WotC was in part responsible for in 2007/2008, If they mothball it, even temporarily, they will NEVER be a major tabletop RPG contender again. Someone like Paizo, with a commanding lead, will eventually become the lingua franca of tabletop gaming and only grognard hobbyists will know D&D as an RPG, just like Tractics, Chainmail, and Survival. People forget Pathfinder Tales is growing, too, and the D&D fiction segment may be the only thing left.

 

[Mercurius]

I truly don't get statements like this.

It's like massive numbers of people are blind to the release schedule from Paizo for the past two years.

It's not like this is a subjective opinion. You can count the number of products, you can count the page-count, and you can see for yourself.

Paizo has been putting out MASSIVE amounts of material this past two years. It definitely surpasses anything WOTC did with 4e, in any particular year of 4e.

I suspect people somehow place special importance on whether the binding of some books is hard or soft, or maybe it's the subscription-nature of some of the Paizo material.

But on any measure I can think of, Paizo hasn't been "slow" publishing for two years. They've been sprinting like mad to put out tons and tons and tons of material.

And it's not all adventures. Heck, it's not even campaign materials. There are tons of new rules in the past two years as well.

I just don't get why people are not seeing what Paizo's been doing this past two years, the sheer quantity of material they've been putting out. How can anyone say 4e was glutonous compared to how Paizo's been doing it this past two years? I mean, just go into any game store that stocks both games, and LOOK at the shelf space taken up by each, and compare for yourself.

What you say may be technically true, but it isn't about "sheer quantity" alone but the type of products. The bulk of Paizo's product are softcover adventures and setting supplements. You may say, what's the difference? Well it is one of perception and perception is, if not "everything," very important.

I think it has something to do with the perspective - whether true or not - that hardcovers are primary rules, and thus must-haves, while softcovers are optional. While in reality this is true of all books outside of the core, but it is more true of adventures and setting books than it is of, say, Player's Handbook 2.

Another aspect of this is that Paizo, unlike WotC, only releases a hardcover when its really meaningful to do so - when it is chock-full of useful material. WotC is, or was more prone to publish filler - which was further exacerbated in 4e by the low word counts of the hardcovers.

 

[Umbran]

Which, frankly, makes me think that it may in fact be time for Hasbro to "mothball" D&D: The RPG. At some point, making new editions becomes a zero-sum--you've fractured the fanbase to the point that the market can no longer sustain business beyond a certain revenue line.

If the goal is for the RPG to make money in and of itself, that can be an issue. Though, I think we'll find the effect is self-limiting. Since play is a cooperative thing that requires other players, there's only so far the fanbase will fracture.

Not every aspect of a brand needs to make money in and of itself, so long as it assists other aspects to make money. A "loss leader" can be valuable to the brand as a whole. So long as it sells enough to keep the brand value up, Hasbro may not care how much money it makes directly.

 

[Mistwell]

What you say may be technically true, but it isn't about "sheer quantity" alone but the type of products. The bulk of Paizo's product are softcover adventures and setting supplements. You may say, what's the difference? Well it is one of perception and perception is, if not "everything," very important.

I think it has something to do with the perspective - whether true or not - that hardcovers are primary rules, and thus must-haves, while softcovers are optional. While in reality this is true of all books outside of the core, but it is more true of adventures and setting books than it is of, say, Player's Handbook 2.

Another aspect of this is that Paizo, unlike WotC, only releases a hardcover when its really meaningful to do so - when it is chock-full of useful material. WotC is, or was more prone to publish filler - which was further exacerbated in 4e by the low word counts of the hardcovers.

Like I said, I think some people have some odd perceptions concerning hardcover books versus soft cover.

There is no meaningful difference for the content. Your idea that there is, to me, is strange. The hardcover likely reduces damage to the book over time. It certainly costs more to print. But content-wise, it has nothing at all to do with must-haves or rules versus fluff or anything like that. It's just binding.

And it's not like WOTC sold this message to you with 4e. They never implied the various planes books detailing the elemental planes or astral planes or undead lands were "must-have rules-heavy" books, though they were all hardback. They just went with the hardback format, that's it. Those were excellent books by the way - not full of filler. It's just they were not rules-heavy.

But bottom line, in a comparison of "glut", I think you are objectively wrong to claim 4e was glut compared to Pathfinder for the past two years. I think, for whatever reason, you have not been noticing just how much content Pathfinder's had for the past two years.

 

[Mistwell]

The graph is only for their gaming segment which is just over a $1 billion of the $4 billion, so the $300MM WOTC fits with that graph, ish ....

As of their most recent report, for year to date, Hasbro Games makes up 31.2% of all Hasbro revenue, and was at $873.8 M for YTD (first three quarters), and that does not include the Christmas quarter.

To me, the chart makes it look like WOTC is roughly half the gaming revenue total, so roughly 15% of all Hasbro revenue for YTD?

So that's not too far off from your estimate. I think in the past year, Gaming has become a bit more significant for Hasbro overall, and WOTC has led the charge on that gain.

It's why I suspect we're going to see a much larger marketing campaign for D&D on launch than people are used to. I think WOTC now has more say, and sway, in the company than they used to.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Problem is, thanks to the OGL and the segmentation that WotC was in part responsible for in 2007/2008, If they mothball it, even temporarily, they will NEVER be a major tabletop RPG contender again. Someone like Paizo, with a commanding lead, will eventually become the lingua franca of tabletop gaming and only grognard hobbyists will know D&D as an RPG, just like Tractics, Chainmail, and Survival. People forget Pathfinder Tales is growing, too, and the D&D fiction segment may be the only thing left.

You are probably right on this. The truth may be that there is so little money in tabletop rpgs for a company like Hasbro to care if they are a contender or not. If D&D was pulling in MtG numbers you bet they would care. Its sad for the game itself that it belongs to a company that cares only about the amount of profit to be squeezed out of it. Every (for profit) company exists to generate revenue, but there is a level of greed which is at odds with those who truly love the game and want to see it continue.

 

[Warbringer]

It's why I suspect we're going to see a much larger marketing campaign for D&D on launch than people are used to. I think WOTC now has more say, and sway, in the company than they used to.

I agree. The Gaming products are growing at an amazing rate, another 14% the first 3 qtrs of the year and Hasbro has to be planning to leverage that to offset falling Boys products.

Personally, I think Hasbro looks at D&D properties as a whole and think "there is no way his brand should be any smaller than MtG... Fix it". When you consider the properties and the real transmedia opportunities available, its hard not agree. (And with respect to movies, I think they are far better focusing on creating a movies around Drizzit, that the D&D brand anyway: its a story driven media , so use your most successful story)