Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1912690" data-attributes="member: 2205">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.</blockquote>

Verification