D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Hussar]

What would make the most money (from TTRPG book sales) is a flood of product aimed at their core fanbase. If they were limited to making money off books...

There's so much more potential to make so much more money from even, say one unsuccessful movie, though, that, instead, keeping the brand stable and it's image solid may be the better bet. A brand your few, devoted fans keep dropping money on even as they rip eachother (and the brand) to pieces in public, may not be the best foundation for striking out into more profitable markets.

I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you, there. The bottom line is that WotC isn't making it's TTRPG products for the people who may actually play them, yes?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-options-so-please-stop/page59#ixzz4OzvUs3va

Not really though. Not if a flood of products means stuttering sales on the tail end and rapid new editions. How many millions of dollars did they have to sink into 4e? How many millions into 5e? I mean, good grief, no new books for 2 years, plus actually paying the guys to develop 5e and we really are talking millions of dollars.

When you have to sink that much capital into each new edition and each new edition is by no means guaranteed sales, flooding the market is not necessarily a winning approach. At least, not in the long term. Far, far better to develop a much slimmer product line which is producing a very steady stream of income. It's no good to make lots of money today if it's just going to cost you lots of money tomorrow.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really though. Not if a flood of products means stuttering sales on the tail end and rapid new editions.

That was a cycle that the industry used for many years, though. It wasn't because it was losing money the whole time.

How many millions of dollars did they have to sink into 4e?

Maybe some real money - they had a much bigger staff back then, and they were expecting for tens of millions of revenue a year, and shooting for a hundred, that warrants investing millions.

How many millions into 5e?
I mean, good grief, no new books for 2 years, plus actually paying the guys to develop 5e and we really are talking millions of dollars.

They weren't paying all that many guys. A lot of developers are freelance, too, so they're still probably not shelling out a lot.

Far, far better to develop a much slimmer product line which is producing a very steady stream of income.

Far better to keep costs low.

 

[Jester David]

That was a cycle that the industry used for many years, though. It wasn't because it was losing money the whole time.

Just because it wasn't losing money does not mean it's the best way to make money.
Yeah, other games can rapidly cycle through editions, but most edition changes for other games are far smaller in scope. It's less of an investment to make the new edition. Almost more of a new print run with rule tweaks than an edition change.

WotC invested in 3e/4e because they thought it would be the best long term investment. Having to not only recoup the costs of making the individual books, but also three years spent developing the game. That's a LOT of money.

Looking at the last few years of D&D, WotC spent a couple years making 3e and had two to earn a profit. Then another year making 3.5e. Then two years before they started making 4e. Then a year before they started making Essentials. And another year before they started making 5e.
Than is an eff tonne of time and money spent not generating profit on the hopes that the next change with keep making money.

Assuming WotC has not started work on either a revision of 5e or 6e at this time, then December of this year will mark the longest time WotC has spent NOT revising D&D.

They weren't paying all that many guys. A lot of developers are freelance, too, so they're still probably not shelling out a lot.

The most expensive part of D&D books remains the art. So long as they didn't cheap out with black-and-white line art the costs remained high.

 

[Shasarak]

A boxed set. I believe it was the Planescape one with the cloth map. It was hardly a regular occurrence.

I dont remember that one. I think Dark Sun had a cloth map in it though.

 

[Shasarak]

Ok, one more time for the hard of reading:

2e - fast release schedule results in TSR closing its doors, selling off D&D to a CCG company.
3e - fast release schedule results in a 2 year (ish) lifespan.
3.5e - fast release schedule results in a 4 (5) year lifespan.
4e - fast release schedule results in a 2 year lifespan
4e essentials -fast release schedule results in a 2 year lifespan, WotC completely shutting down publishing for a further two years and millions of dollars spent on a completely new version of the game.

So, what evidence can you produce that a faster release schedule is healthy for the hobby. I've got 4 straight version of the game where fast release killed the game within a VERY short time. What can you point to?

Ok, so just looking at FR products there were about 67 Adventures (of varying size) and 30 Source books produced during the 11 year 2e run that you claim resulted in TSR closing its doors and being bought out by a CCG company.

Only about 2 years later - not even having produced an edition of its own the CCG company is bought out by a Board game company. During that brief run they produced 3 of the Source books and 5 of the adventures.

So by my calculations, a slower release schedule results in the sale of your company faster then a fast release schedule results in the next edition.

 

[Shasarak]

The WORST selling WotC product is outselling Pathfinder's best. That's STUNNING. Granted, that's not the whole story, but, good grief, how much better does WotC have to be doing to make people think that maybe, just maybe, they know what they're doing?

Hey, that is great. But am I the only one who remembers when the WORST selling Pathfinder product was outselling WotC's best. I am sure they knew what they were doing then as well.

 

[jayoungr]

Perhaps in flavor, but certain mechanics are quite distinct from what you could try to come up with in the phb.

You make it sound like flavor is some kind of weak, unsatisfying substitute for a "real" class.

 

[Hussar]

Calling Hasbro a board game company is a stretch. Never mind that the buy out was because of a very lucrative deal for the shareholders and not to save the company from receivership.

 

[Hussar]

Hey, that is great. But am I the only one who remembers when the WORST selling Pathfinder product was outselling WotC's best. I am sure they knew what they were doing then as well.

When was that? You mean after the announcement of a new edition and very shortly before a two year hiatus? When the hobby shrank to just a bit more than one third its former size?

That's the time you mean?

 

[Jester David]

Actually, Essentials slowed down a lot. There were 10 'evergreen' (ha!) products innitiatially, but they constituted the same sort of material in the usual 3-book set, basic set & DM screen formula. There were 3 hardbound 'heroes of...' books after that, and some adventure and setting-related stuff. Nothing like the fire-hoses of 3e & 4e.

In fairness, those 10 products came out over four months. And it was planned to have another half-dozen books shortly after. Half of those books were just cancelled.
It's not that Essentials didn't have a fire house release schedule, it's that they cancelled it in mid-stream to start work on 5e.