The trends of 2005

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I predict that either at Gen Con 2005 or sometime before Christmas 2005 that WotC will announce 4th Edition which will be released Gen Con 2006. All the naysayers will then realize all the problems with 3.5 that they hadn't realized yet and proceed to critize anyone who says there is no need for a 4th edition. These same people will also critize anyone who thinks WotC should wait because if they don't release 4th edition WotC will suffer financialy and we should all support WotC by buying the new version since WotC is a buisness and businesses need to make money.

Except that Charles Ryan mentioned in another thread that there are no plans at all for 4e. I'm inclined to believe him, but believe what you will...

 

[Nisarg]

You need to go back and redo basic economics if you believe that. There's still profit to be made in two gamelines. Even if both individually aren't as profitable as a single one, it a) ensures you against shocks in demand (i.e., everyone gets tired of FR, or you put out a really dud book), b) increases your market share, thus increasing your chances of selling to other customers (granted, that's a bit of a marketing crossover, not basic ecnomic theory), and c) increases your revenue without unduly increasing cost are still profits that are wasted if you don't go after them. In basic economic theory, you want to maximize the efficiency of your system by finding all the profits and reaping them.

a) Certainly having varied product protects from shocks in demand. That's a good reason for producing more than one game line. Its not a good reason for producing two FLAGSHIP gamelines that compete against each other.
b) The increase in market share would have to be significant to warrant two FLAGSHIP gamelines, it would basically have to be doubled.
c) doubling your production by having two FLAGSHIP gamelines will "unduly" increase your costs, in particular when indications are that your second FLAGSHIP gameline will not be highly effective in bringing in new clientele, but will end up eating at some of the clientele for your existing FLAGSHIP gameline.

It seems to be the word "FLAGSHIP" that you have failed to read before, so I have put it in caps for you.
No one is saying that it doesn't make sense for Wizards to have diverse products, and multiple settings.
What I am saying is that it makes no sense at all for Wizards to have two FLAGSHIP settings: that is, two settings that are both of sufficient magnitude to be considered the "default" for D&D, and that produce the same amount of books per year.

Nisarg

 

[Wraith Form]

Chaosium and Palladium as companies (and their releases) will continue to flounder, the former worse than the latter.

While very likely true, this is a crying shame. Call of Cthulhu (and Delta Green in particular) really changed my life in many ways. I attempt to support Chaosium however and whenever I can, but they're hurtin' bad and I'm not enough.

*sob*

 

[Davelozzi]

This FR vs. Eberron economics debate has really become a whole different subject. If it needs to continue (which I doubt sincerely), perhaps it could be done in a different thread so that the rest of us can focus on the trends of 2005...

 

[Henry]

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's take a step back for a minute and breathe. It's not worth flaming each other personally to get a point across.

 

[Wraith Form]

FR's Rage of Dragons, at least, is consistent with its published history. However, the rumoured plans for a series of novels involving the building of a giant canal can only result in a series of novels that may cause even the most diehard FR novel fan to give up.

Yeah, I'm waiting for the FR suppliment that details the "great migration" of Sword Coasters to Maztica due to religious conflict. These uprooted 'Coasters will begin colonizing the "New World"...etc etc. I think you know the rest of that story, sigh.

 

[diaglo]

Yeah, I'm waiting for the FR suppliment that details the "great migration" of Sword Coasters to Maztica due to religious conflict. These uprooted 'Coasters will begin colonizing the "New World"...etc etc. I think you know the rest of that story, sigh.

it happened in the 2edADnD days. they just need to update it to the newer editions mechanically.

 

[Gomez]

I predict a avid gamer will win the lotto and buy Chaosium out of debt. He will then buy Pagen Press and merge it with Chaosium, hire some good writers and artists, and then start cranking out some great high quality d20 Call of Cthulhu stuff including Pulp Cthulhu d20 and Delta Green d20.

*wakes up from dream*

 

[Desdichado]

It seems to be the word "FLAGSHIP" that you have failed to read before, so I have put it in caps for you.
No one is saying that it doesn't make sense for Wizards to have diverse products, and multiple settings.
What I am saying is that it makes no sense at all for Wizards to have two FLAGSHIP settings: that is, two settings that are both of sufficient magnitude to be considered the "default" for D&D, and that produce the same amount of books per year.

Actually, I fail to see how FLAGSHIP makes any difference in the discussion, capitalized or not. Besides, the FLAGSHIP D&D line is not a setting at all, it's the generic books. Your unwarranted and unproven assumptions are that unless their is no cannibalization of sales between the three lines AND each line is just as big as the other, THEN there's not sufficient economic benefit from having the three lines.

So we're not really disagreeing on the economics, we're disagreeing on those assumptions. I believe that there is NOT significant cannibalization of sales between the three lines, I believe that Eberron and FR books sell equally well (and at more or less the same level that they would if the other didn't exist) and that the increased costs of developing two lines are not significant relative to the increased cost of developing the same amount of books for a single line. Therefore, having the two lines not only protects WotC, but it also opens up new markets for them (i.e., gamers who wouldn't buy FR will buy Eberron, and plenty of others will buy both). I also don't believe the current schedule of books for just FR is enough revenue for WotC to adequately cover their overheads, and that developing more FR books vs. developing FR and Eberron vs. developing generic D&D books, FR books and Eberron books is roughly equivalent. If they suspect that that by broadening their horizons by having three lines, i.e., two settings and a line of generic books, they will reach more customers and get more profit per book (because of more units sold vs fixed costs) then WotC will do so. I also believe that that is the case, at least so far, and that it is actually more profitable for WotC to develop all three lines in conjunction.

But of course, lacking inside knowledge of WotC sales, costs and revenues, that's just my assumption. But since you lack that same knowledge that I do, I'll continue to believe that I am right and you are not. But please -- don't question my ability to conduct logic or understand economics -- question my assumptions, as I have questioned yours. And also, please, recognize that they are merely assumptions, and you have no more garauntee of being right than I do.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Except that Charles Ryan mentioned in another thread that there are no plans at all for 4e. I'm inclined to believe him, but believe what you will...

What he said was that they did not have plans for it in the next 18 months and that they would give us a 1-2 year notice before it happens. I am saying that they will give the 1 year notice sometime in 2005 for a 2006 release.