D&D 5E What will core really be like?

[mlund]

Tim's completely right that if WotC had published the same product with the exact same content it would've suffered horribly due to the sentiment that WotC was just making your re-buy your stuff for a second time again without adding adequate value.

Pathfinder and 4E is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison when it comes to "success" because their business models and objectives are completely alien to one another. Hasbro obviously is not interested in a dominant position in a dying market. If that's all they can get out of D&D they'd shelve it and make another edition of monopoly.

Instead they keep trying new angles to monetize the brand outside of the old school books-at-the-table model. Sometimes the results are terrible (Gleemax, Digital Initiative, OGL, etc.), sometimes fleeting successes (miniatures), and sometimes the results are more promising (D&DInsider, Board Games).

In the big picture, so little has to do with the difference between a C- game and an A game that it's almost comical. "If you write it, they will come," does not hold true. I'm almost inclined to see the open play-test process as something that justifies itself more as a marketing exercise and a way to infiltrate social media than as a critical function of making a salable product.

- Marty Lund

 

[pemerton]

Pathfinder and 4E is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison when it comes to "success" because their business models and objectives are completely alien to one another. Hasbro obviously is not interested in a dominant position in a dying market. If that's all they can get out of D&D they'd shelve it and make another edition of monopoly.

Instead they keep trying new angles to monetize the brand outside of the old school books-at-the-table model. Sometimes the results are terrible (Gleemax, Digital Initiative, OGL, etc.), sometimes fleeting successes (miniatures), and sometimes the results are more promising (D&DInsider, Board Games).

Interesting observation.

I'm almost inclined to see the open play-test process as something that justifies itself more as a marketing exercise and a way to infiltrate social media than as a critical function of making a salable product.

I think the marketing aspect of the playtest is its main function.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the marketing aspect of the playtest is its main function.

I think you and mlund are right on the money with this one.

After Paizo did it with PF and we heard the outcry from PF fans saying that "Paizo takes care of its customers!" and "WotC is a big corporation who doesn't concern themselves with their fans!" and that kind of stuff... Mearls pretty much knew that if there wasn't an open playtest that a segment of the gaming population would go berserk. And the incessant caterwauling that would've resulted would have drowned out any positives that might've come out from 5E potentially being a good game.

Now that's not to say that having an open playtest is actually a bad idea... I'm sure they're getting some good information about what people want out of it. The only downside is that they still have incessant caterwauling from a segment of the population who are castigating them for actually doing what is supposed to happen in an open playtest... which is to let people actually see the entire process, the highs and lows, the good ideas and the bad... and not just the end high point that results.

The lesson of course is that you just can't please some people.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the big picture, so little has to do with the difference between a C- game and an A game that it's almost comical. "If you write it, they will come," does not hold true. I'm almost inclined to see the open play-test process as something that justifies itself more as a marketing exercise and a way to infiltrate social media than as a critical function of making a salable product.

A good point. There have been numerous excellent RPGs produced since the late 70s. None of them have been terribly successful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Unless you equate "being reasonable" with "playing 4E" then no.

Not at all, just not begrudging others playing 4e. 3.5 was continuing to get ongoing support in 3pps. Those who declined to adopt 4e already had the game they wanted and were going to continue getting it for as long as they demanded it. 3pp publishing under the OGL was pretty easy to do if you didn't have to deliver huge revenue, and even fan publishing could have carried 3.5 for as long as one sufficiently motivated fan remained.

Being reasonable would have been to simply live and let live.

5E is not in development because of an internet edition war, but because the books said that 4E didn't make enough money for Hasbro to continue to support it.

And why didn't it make enough money? Well, one leak says it's because 'enough' was more than the hobby itself had ever pulled down in one year: 4e & Pathfinder /combined/ couldn't have met the goal. But, it's also possible that the ceaseless campaign of open hatred and mis-information that raged on the internet for the entire run of 4e (and is still going, even though the last 4e book has been printed and the line is dead), might have cost WotC some sales.

 

[Hussar]

I think the point about WOTC trying to grow the market is very much spot on. As was mentioned, the goal that was set was never achieved, so, in that sense, 4e was a failure. Then again, the questions is, was that goal reasonable? Apparently they thought they could achieve it, but never did.

But, so much of the "market share" and "profits" punditry is blind groping for facts. Yup, in brick and mortar stores, Paizo is selling better than 4e. Sure. But, that doesn't account for online sales, nor does it account for subscriptions, and both Paizo and WOTC are generating larges amounts of revenue from both of those streams.

I mean, heck, are brick and mortar sales even relevant to talk about? And since we have no idea how much money is involved in the other streams, how can anyone, with any degree of certainty, claim that one company is doing better than another? Back of the envelope calculations puts the DDI alone as larger than Paizo (75 000 subscribers at 7 bucks a month= around 6 million annually). Of course, that only counts Paizo's book sales, and not subscriptions. So, it's all poking at smoke in the end.