GreyLord
Legend
Many see 3e as a very successful RPG. It was successful in relation to the expectations of RPGs at the time. I think it could have been FAR more successful than it was.
When people wonder about why Hasbro would think about marginalizing D&D, or why Hasbro doesn't care about D&D enough to stop the annual layoffs, I think there is a viewpoint that should be expressed on their part rather than simply they are an evil corporation...bad Hasbro.
They aren't composed of heartless people, in fact many of them care deeply about their employees and their products. In fact many of the stockholders and board members got involved with Hasbro because it deals with things they love (albeit others did it purely from an economic standpoint).
D&D may not be on their high point or radar on items they are concentrating on. This could be seen as beneficial or non-beneficial. Hasbro may be far less intrusive into that side of things because it hasn't become one of the major points or influences of their business plan.
That doesn't mean it could not be. D&D had a great deal of influence in the early to mid 80s. Gygax had spectacularly utilized press, negative and positive, as well as media and other arenas to make D&D a giant fad that spread itself into most crevices of society. In effect, D&D became a household name. The effect was so big that it still remains a household name to this day.
There is no reason D&D shouldn't have been able to have another giant fad on this scale. The best time to restart these fads is when you get a reboot.
For example, take some of the other fads during the 80s and look at some of their reboots.
Transformers was a big item during the 80s. It lost it's fad and gradually fell in it's numbers of fans. It never completely disappeared, but I'm certain many felt that it had, or that the old magic of the 80s cartoons and toys had been lost.
Transformers got it's own transformation recently with the release of the Transformers movies. This was huge. It gained media attention, movies, toys, games. For a while it became a necessary player in the business. In otherwords it became a fad again and made lots of money. It became an essential pillar in calculating money and the future. It also was part of a model that is being utilized by other properties in hopes that it will generate the same type of hype and money.
D&D also had what could be seen as a reboot in the early 2000s. There were some that argued for more of an introductory market factor, but instead of the inital investigations in the matter with some smaller product releases, this was never done. Instead the most market penetration D&D had were some books in the Retail book stores and a few introductory sets. The best item was the Basic Set in some select toy stores for 3.5 edition.
It unified the Roleplayers who already were roleplaying. It brought in those who would have investigated the hobby already. It did not bring in what some would see as new blood.
Take another Hasbro division for example. With boardgames, a general hypothesis could be Hasbro likes at least 100,000 copies moved and at preferably at least 10 million in money exchanged generated. That's PER boardgame. They prefer each boardgame to generate MORE than that. 100,000 would be a borderline performer...liable for the axe.
Boardgames could be seen as part of a division, so the entirety of the boardgame line could be seen as making a LOT of money.
How does D&D compare to that? Sales wise 3e was mildly successful the first year. The core books sold well, over a million each. The investment into them however was initially higher if Hasbro had bought WotC just for D&D (luckily they did not, or WotC probably wouldn't have lasted that long).
Sales fell progressively each year. Still, it unified mechanics, the community, and those that would have gotten into Roleplaying via other systems were much more likely to discover D&D 3e and enter into it paying into WotC coffers.
From a Hasbro viewpoint, D&D didn't even compare with other divisions of it's business. Lucky for D&D it was part of WotC. In fact, one could say that D&D was not even really seen as viable on it's own after the first or second year in relation to other branches of the business.
Why couldn't it be made more like other big box games such as the big money makers like Monopoly? Meld it into a division like that with fewer people and less oversight. This doesn't mean the extinction of D&D, but a lesser emphasis and imprint in costs to the business for a net result of hopefully greater profit to cost ratios.
From the viewpoint of the bigger business, what did D&D offer. Was it going to become a money sink, or could WotC balance it with it's other properties?
In fact to some degree D&D became part of WotC's as a hobby game, much like other hobby games (as opposed to the mass market games utilized by Hasbro) published by WotC...but WotC determined how many resources to apply to D&D.
So for Hasbro, D&D was not the success that RPG gamers thought it was. It was a stamp compared to other stamps and units on paper. In fact some might consider D&D a collossal failure.
That's something business people can use...but would dismay RPG markets everywhere. People usually don't like to hear that something they consider a success is actually not considered a success.
This does bode terribly for the future however. If Hasbro didn't consider 3e successful enough as it's own brand, and that was the height of it's success...what do you think would be considered as that brand did worse and worse.
Annual layoffs at WotC is a joke among some here, but consider what was just said above...it's a miracle the entire D&D staff still has their jobs in that relation. That's because WotC still has worth and profit, the D&D name still has worth, and WotC actually cares enough that they won't go down into the night.
The reality is Hasbro was more interested in other focus's of WotC than D&D...BUT D&D could have been a major player in my opinion. That's why I put down the Transformer fad near the top.
Now look at an alternate picture of what could have been...what ifs. I think D&D could have had a reboot on parallel with other brand names. One of the big items is media appeal as advertising. What if the D&D movie had actually done well. Instead of WotC hooking up with a terrible movie (and one I actually have as the all time worst movie ever) they had hooked up with a movie that went the way of Transformers or Batman (another 80s, though late 80s phenom which had it's movies go downhill to the later 90s, then rebooted in fabulous manner). What if D&D had gotten the market penetration that some desired?
Why was this opportunity missed?
That doesn't mean it's too late for it. A reboot is the prime time to garner this. 4e didn't achieve this goal by any means either. AKA...like 3e...was not as successful as major brands for Hasbro overall. Initial push looked good, then it fell.
Startrek recently also had a reboot, and it had not actually been gone as long as D&D in the realms of fad and market penetration. Voyager had it's finale as the #3 (or was it #2) ranked show when it aired. Star Trek had gone downhill as far as audience and appeal however. The recent Star Trek movie however was MORE successful than any other Star Trek movie previously. It rebooted as a extremely successful franchise.
So I think D&D could do the same...if it had the right magic. I don't think it will do it with the current way of handling things.
Why?
3e wasn't as successful as some may assume it was. From a major business standpoint it may even be seen as an overall failure. An attempt to rejump it's initial success by WotC with 3.5 was also initially good, but overall not as big a moneymaker.
3.X set the standard practice of how the business was to promulgate and expand. These same practices were utilized with 4e, though without as much finesse. They tried new items, but showed a remarkable lack of resources and ability when addressing them with the community and in practice.
If these were applied to a 5e, or 4.5 or some other edition, even if it were as successful as 3e, that only means target audience unification. More sales initially, but not in the way other brands have garnered sales.
This means a new approach should be used.
Perhaps something like DDi, but different? Perhaps more media (I'd like this angle, but it also takes a willing participant on the media side) as in shows, movies, etc.?)
Whichever it takes, it means redefining expectations. This means instead of seeing 3e as wildly successful and something to emulate, instead analyze what went wrong with what should have been...and how that could have been furthered to create a new fad on the likes of other reboots that have occurred in the past decade.
PS: Sorry for how long this is...had a shorter, harsher, more abrupt thread, but it came across to harshly to generate coherent conversation. This is the gentler thread to hopefully bring about other analysis of the current situation and how a better marketing approach could appeal to a bigger mass audience.
When people wonder about why Hasbro would think about marginalizing D&D, or why Hasbro doesn't care about D&D enough to stop the annual layoffs, I think there is a viewpoint that should be expressed on their part rather than simply they are an evil corporation...bad Hasbro.
They aren't composed of heartless people, in fact many of them care deeply about their employees and their products. In fact many of the stockholders and board members got involved with Hasbro because it deals with things they love (albeit others did it purely from an economic standpoint).
D&D may not be on their high point or radar on items they are concentrating on. This could be seen as beneficial or non-beneficial. Hasbro may be far less intrusive into that side of things because it hasn't become one of the major points or influences of their business plan.
That doesn't mean it could not be. D&D had a great deal of influence in the early to mid 80s. Gygax had spectacularly utilized press, negative and positive, as well as media and other arenas to make D&D a giant fad that spread itself into most crevices of society. In effect, D&D became a household name. The effect was so big that it still remains a household name to this day.
There is no reason D&D shouldn't have been able to have another giant fad on this scale. The best time to restart these fads is when you get a reboot.
For example, take some of the other fads during the 80s and look at some of their reboots.
Transformers was a big item during the 80s. It lost it's fad and gradually fell in it's numbers of fans. It never completely disappeared, but I'm certain many felt that it had, or that the old magic of the 80s cartoons and toys had been lost.
Transformers got it's own transformation recently with the release of the Transformers movies. This was huge. It gained media attention, movies, toys, games. For a while it became a necessary player in the business. In otherwords it became a fad again and made lots of money. It became an essential pillar in calculating money and the future. It also was part of a model that is being utilized by other properties in hopes that it will generate the same type of hype and money.
D&D also had what could be seen as a reboot in the early 2000s. There were some that argued for more of an introductory market factor, but instead of the inital investigations in the matter with some smaller product releases, this was never done. Instead the most market penetration D&D had were some books in the Retail book stores and a few introductory sets. The best item was the Basic Set in some select toy stores for 3.5 edition.
It unified the Roleplayers who already were roleplaying. It brought in those who would have investigated the hobby already. It did not bring in what some would see as new blood.
Take another Hasbro division for example. With boardgames, a general hypothesis could be Hasbro likes at least 100,000 copies moved and at preferably at least 10 million in money exchanged generated. That's PER boardgame. They prefer each boardgame to generate MORE than that. 100,000 would be a borderline performer...liable for the axe.
Boardgames could be seen as part of a division, so the entirety of the boardgame line could be seen as making a LOT of money.
How does D&D compare to that? Sales wise 3e was mildly successful the first year. The core books sold well, over a million each. The investment into them however was initially higher if Hasbro had bought WotC just for D&D (luckily they did not, or WotC probably wouldn't have lasted that long).
Sales fell progressively each year. Still, it unified mechanics, the community, and those that would have gotten into Roleplaying via other systems were much more likely to discover D&D 3e and enter into it paying into WotC coffers.
From a Hasbro viewpoint, D&D didn't even compare with other divisions of it's business. Lucky for D&D it was part of WotC. In fact, one could say that D&D was not even really seen as viable on it's own after the first or second year in relation to other branches of the business.
Why couldn't it be made more like other big box games such as the big money makers like Monopoly? Meld it into a division like that with fewer people and less oversight. This doesn't mean the extinction of D&D, but a lesser emphasis and imprint in costs to the business for a net result of hopefully greater profit to cost ratios.
From the viewpoint of the bigger business, what did D&D offer. Was it going to become a money sink, or could WotC balance it with it's other properties?
In fact to some degree D&D became part of WotC's as a hobby game, much like other hobby games (as opposed to the mass market games utilized by Hasbro) published by WotC...but WotC determined how many resources to apply to D&D.
So for Hasbro, D&D was not the success that RPG gamers thought it was. It was a stamp compared to other stamps and units on paper. In fact some might consider D&D a collossal failure.
That's something business people can use...but would dismay RPG markets everywhere. People usually don't like to hear that something they consider a success is actually not considered a success.
This does bode terribly for the future however. If Hasbro didn't consider 3e successful enough as it's own brand, and that was the height of it's success...what do you think would be considered as that brand did worse and worse.
Annual layoffs at WotC is a joke among some here, but consider what was just said above...it's a miracle the entire D&D staff still has their jobs in that relation. That's because WotC still has worth and profit, the D&D name still has worth, and WotC actually cares enough that they won't go down into the night.
The reality is Hasbro was more interested in other focus's of WotC than D&D...BUT D&D could have been a major player in my opinion. That's why I put down the Transformer fad near the top.
Now look at an alternate picture of what could have been...what ifs. I think D&D could have had a reboot on parallel with other brand names. One of the big items is media appeal as advertising. What if the D&D movie had actually done well. Instead of WotC hooking up with a terrible movie (and one I actually have as the all time worst movie ever) they had hooked up with a movie that went the way of Transformers or Batman (another 80s, though late 80s phenom which had it's movies go downhill to the later 90s, then rebooted in fabulous manner). What if D&D had gotten the market penetration that some desired?
Why was this opportunity missed?
That doesn't mean it's too late for it. A reboot is the prime time to garner this. 4e didn't achieve this goal by any means either. AKA...like 3e...was not as successful as major brands for Hasbro overall. Initial push looked good, then it fell.
Startrek recently also had a reboot, and it had not actually been gone as long as D&D in the realms of fad and market penetration. Voyager had it's finale as the #3 (or was it #2) ranked show when it aired. Star Trek had gone downhill as far as audience and appeal however. The recent Star Trek movie however was MORE successful than any other Star Trek movie previously. It rebooted as a extremely successful franchise.
So I think D&D could do the same...if it had the right magic. I don't think it will do it with the current way of handling things.
Why?
3e wasn't as successful as some may assume it was. From a major business standpoint it may even be seen as an overall failure. An attempt to rejump it's initial success by WotC with 3.5 was also initially good, but overall not as big a moneymaker.
3.X set the standard practice of how the business was to promulgate and expand. These same practices were utilized with 4e, though without as much finesse. They tried new items, but showed a remarkable lack of resources and ability when addressing them with the community and in practice.
If these were applied to a 5e, or 4.5 or some other edition, even if it were as successful as 3e, that only means target audience unification. More sales initially, but not in the way other brands have garnered sales.
This means a new approach should be used.
Perhaps something like DDi, but different? Perhaps more media (I'd like this angle, but it also takes a willing participant on the media side) as in shows, movies, etc.?)
Whichever it takes, it means redefining expectations. This means instead of seeing 3e as wildly successful and something to emulate, instead analyze what went wrong with what should have been...and how that could have been furthered to create a new fad on the likes of other reboots that have occurred in the past decade.
PS: Sorry for how long this is...had a shorter, harsher, more abrupt thread, but it came across to harshly to generate coherent conversation. This is the gentler thread to hopefully bring about other analysis of the current situation and how a better marketing approach could appeal to a bigger mass audience.
