D&D 5E The Printers Can't Handle WotC's One D&D Print Runs!

One of the reasons why the three new core rulebooks next year will not be released together is because D&D is such a juggernaut that the printers can't actually handle the size of the print runs!

Jeremy Crawford told Polygon "Our print runs are pretty darn big and printers are telling us you can’t give us these three books at the same time.” And Chris Perkins added that "The print runs we’re talking about are massive. That’s been not only true of the core books, but also Tasha’s Cauldron. It’s what we call a high-end problem."

 

[FitzTheRuke]

When costs are increasing faster than readership while the core audience of your main product calls you liars for accurately describing the printer shortage?

TBF it's a really small handful of your core audience.

I'd be much happier with a price hike if I felt that it would be appropriately (it doesn't even have to be evenly, just reasonably) spread across the people that work to make the books happen. It's harder to take when you hear about big CEOs using it to buy their third yacht. I mean, it's better to keep WotC profitable than it is to ruin them, of course, for everyone who works there. But we all know that "trickle-down" economics is a scam. Someone utterly uninvolved with the production of the books is very likely going to use this to get richer. Which is a shame, IMO, but it's not going to be fixed by complaining about it here.

 

[Velderan]

TBF it's a really small handful of your core audience.

I'd be much happier with a price hike if I felt that it would be appropriately (it doesn't even have to be evenly, just reasonably) spread across the people that work to make the books happen. It's harder to take when you hear about big CEOs using it to buy their third yacht. I mean, it's better to keep WotC profitable than it is to ruin them, of course, for everyone who works there. But we all know that "trickle-down" economics is a scam. Someone utterly uninvolved with the production of the books is very likely going to use this to get richer. Which is a shame, IMO, but it's not going to be fixed by complaining about it here.

True and while I'm not in favor of people having so much money their yachts can have their own yachts, but on the plus side those profits are also why WotC can pay their designers more than anyone else. Mark Seifter had said on Twitter that WotC paid twice what Paizo did, which they clearly couldn't do if they weren't making the money they were. The entire Twitter thread is worth a read IMO.

 

[codo]

I expect that has a lot to do with it, especially as they are surprisingly ambivalent about people actually buying the new physical books. If instead people are using D&DB, they are pushed hard into "upgrading" to the new material.

Where are you getting "surprisingly ambivalent" from? You think they aren't trying to sell books? Details Please.

 

[codo]

It's not really an excuse when costs have clearly changed in the decade since they established $50 as the baseline price, but you're not wrong that a new line of product is the best time to change a price if you're going to. Video game publishers tend to do the same thing and it's probably the best chance for a company to raise prices with minimal fuss.

No , don't you see. Literally everything else in the world is is getting more expensive because of inflation, but WotC raising there prices (at a lower rate than inflation) is obviously a sign they are trying to rip us off, there is no possible other explanation.

 

[codo]

You keep framing it as, "they just want to make a profit". They are making a profit, right now. Quite a lot of profit, given the runaway success of 5e. This isn't about them making money at all, and I explained that if you would bother to read my post.

And they are making less per book every year because of inflation. How many more years can they keep selling books before they start losing money on every book sold. I don't care how many books you sell, if you are losing money on each sale, you are never going to make money on volume.

135 Potionomics - Giant in the Playground Games

 

[Velderan]

No , don't you see. Literally everything else in the world is is getting more expensive because of inflation, but WotC raising there prices (at a lower rate than inflation) is obviously a sign they are trying to rip us off, there is no possible other explanation.

How stupid of me! Raising prices for the first time in nearly a decade despite the inflation since then being more and rising printing and shipping costs is all a greedy ploy to get more money out of me than the $0 they're currently getting! I should be outraged they're charging more for a product I wasn't likely to buy even at the lower price they were charging! Curses!

 

[Reef]

Doing so would have led to a lot less content, which we wouldn't have today. I stand by my feelings on the subject.

You’d rather sacrifice an entire company than accept less initial product? Even though the survival of the company may have resulted in years more production (not to mention actually keeping the people who made the books you love so much employed)?

With an attitude like that, I find myself glad that WoTC’s business strategy is at odds with your preferences…

 

[Micah Sweet]

Where are you getting "surprisingly ambivalent" from? You think they aren't trying to sell books? Details Please.

Again, I'm talking about the core books coming out. To me they would clearly rather everyone got DDB subscriptions instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And they are making less per book every year because of inflation. How many more years can they keep selling books before they start losing money on every book sold. I don't care how many books you sell, if you are losing money on each sale, you are never going to make money on volume.

135 Potionomics - Giant in the Playground Games

Evidence that they are losing money on each sale please.

 

[Reef]

Evidence that they are losing money on each sale please.

Companies are allowed to raise their prices before reaching the point where they are actively losing money on each sale. In fact, it would be irresponsible of them to do otherwise.