We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

Most likely. As a paralegal I have to say that working with the often very tight and absolute deadlines that law offices deal with daily breeds the ability to get things done more efficiently. You have to.

On the other hand, if the deadline is months off, I've never seen a lawyer get something done more than a few days early, and very often working late the evening before to get it done. :p
it's funny how 1D&D has us all shareing our day jobs info... just interesting,
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean, that didn't happen? So I'm not sure what you're saying here. That's not true of any of the franchises you're describing, and particularly excited to learn the metrics by which the "profitability" of Dr Who, a product made by the BBC, a non-profit corporation, is going to be measured. You can't just make up that things failed because you want them to fail lol.

I know Paramount+ is really feeling that destroyed profitability with Star Trek - oh wait - Paramount Streaming CEO Attributes Paramount+’s Success to Leveraging ’The Whole Household’ (Podcast)

Literally what are you talking about?
Dude... look at the box office for Force Awakens vs... whatever the last one was called. 50% fall-off. Look at the ratings for Star Trek. They're happy with those? Maybe. But they're a fraction of what they were during, say, Next Generation. Suggesting that the profitability of these properties hasn't completely cratered in the last few years is either idiotic, dishonest, or at least disingenuous, by cherry picking the box office, looking at it out of context and suggesting that it's good.

Or are you suggesting that Disney losing literally over $120 BILLION dollars in stock value in the last twelve months is a good result? Or are you suggesting that you can't look at their stock price and admit that that actually happened? Sure, sure... there were more factors there than the failure of Marvel Phase 4 and Star Wars and Disney+ generally (which was expected to do well because of the Marvel and Star Wars streaming shows), but they were big contributors nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

Ryan did anticipate that, actually.
He just stated it could never hurt WotC sales because WotC would have to do 5 specific, obviously detrimental things WotC would never, ever do, all at once, for anyone to be able to create a game using the OGL that could bite into their customer base.
WotC then did all 5, at once, in 2008.
And again, except even worse, in early 2023.

I actually stopped playing D&D in 2008. I never moved into 4th or 5th edition, and became a gamer of other games. To date, I hadn't been very concerned one way or another what WotC did with 6e. From a personal standpoint, I guess that's still true, but to be honest with you, now I have hostile, malicious interest in what WotC does with D&D. I actively hope to watch them crash, burn, and cry about how everyone is terrible for moving on from what they're doing, because it's totally not their fault. Then I'll point and laugh. I hope that there's a whole ecosystem on discord and youtube and elsewhere of people who gleefully point out every failure in excruciating detail.

I've gradually developed the same attitude towards LucasFilm, among other players in the entertainment industry. But WotC has been very quickly going down the same path, where they have turned apathetic and disinterested former fans into actively angry anti-fans who want to watch them fail while munching on popcorn.

That's the legacy of 6e for at least one subset of the fandom. And while I don't pretend like my attitude is a majority, it's a not insignificant plurality, and it is likely bigger than WotC thinks it is.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
But they're a fraction of what they were during, say, Next Generation. Suggesting that the profitability of these properties hasn't completely cratered in the last few years is either idiotic, dishonest, or at least disingenuous, by cherry picking the box office, looking at it out of context and suggesting that it's good.
Look at any ratings over that timespan. Shows that would be on the bubble in 1992 would be a shocking runaway hit of 2023. Comparing streaming numbers to broadcast numbers from decades ago is also cherry-picking.
 

Look at any ratings over that timespan. Shows that would be on the bubble in 1992 would be a shocking runaway hit of 2023. Comparing streaming numbers to broadcast numbers from decades ago is also cherry-picking.
Are you suggesting that you can't adjust for that? Or merely that you don't know how to do so? Even so, the ratings are lower in the context of relatively depressed ratings than their predecessors.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Suggesting that the profitability of these properties hasn't completely cratered in the last few years is either idiotic, dishonest, or at least disingenuous, by cherry picking the box office, looking at it out of context and suggesting that it's good.

Mod Note:
Arguments of the form, "You need to be mentally deficient or dishonest to not agree with me," are insulting, and not welcome on these boards, or in this discussion. So, you are no longer part of this disucssion.

Treat people better.
 


Dude... look at the box office for Force Awakens vs... whatever the last one was called. 50% fall-off.
Attack of the Clones has made 302 mil, worldwide, since 2002. That's 500 mil in 2023 dollar.
Rise of Skywalker has made 515 mil worldwide since 2019.
When you have making half-billion dollar movies, yes, you are happy anytime the last one you made didn't gross less (adjusted for inflation, even) than several previous entries.
 

S'mon

Legend
Attack of the Clones has made 302 mil, worldwide, since 2002. That's 500 mil in 2023 dollar.
Rise of Skywalker has made 515 mil worldwide since 2019.
When you have making half-billion dollar movies, yes, you are happy anytime the last one you made didn't gross less (adjusted for inflation, even) than several previous entries.

I really don't think Disney are happy that Rise of Skywalker made half the gross that The Force Awakens made. Maybe if the situation were reversed - TFA had made half as much as RoS - they'd be happy. That's just human psychology. People like to see things going up, not down.
And these films had similar budgets. From what I know of Hollywood blockbuster economics, you typically break even around $0.5 billion, while $1 billion is a lot of profit to Disney. The new Avatar reportedly needed $1 billion to break even, but that's unusual. Solo: A Star Wars Story apparently grossed $393 million. With a $275-300 million budget it needed around $550 million at the box office to break even, hence is considered a flop. Total life time income of a film (not just box office) needs to be around 2.5 or so times the production budget to break even. Possibly more, if the income comes mostly from overseas markets like China where the producers take a smaller chunk of the gross.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top