When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?

[BryonD]

Guess it's back to the three blind men and an elephant time again.

Maybe. Or maybe we know something you don't.

 

[nedjer]

D&D has never been so colourfully-see-through-head before

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that's cart before the horse mentality. Why does a gamer get into the game publishing biz? To make tons of money? It's my understanding that's rare. They do it because they think they can turn their interests and passions into income-making enterprises.

If they spent $25 million to acquire TSR, we're well beyond talking about people creating income from their passions. That is, if they had the ability to invest $25 million, we're not talking about things in the same universe.

Acquiring TSR couldn't have been WotC's best way of increasing their profits.

We have no way of knowing if this is true, and considering the business they were already in it might well be false.

But I think it was seen as a great way to grow the company in a particular way, serving a particular set of customers, satisfying a particular set of their directors' passions, and picking up a particular mind share among consumers. While those might have also had the benefit of increasing their profits, I doubt that was the primary reason.

If you're the director of a company with hundreds of employees, you don't have the freedom to squander $25 million on satisfying your passions. If the business case doesn't make sense (ie, sufficient future profits to justify the investment) then you don't do it. Peter Adkinson is clearly not a bad businessman.

There is nothing inherently wrong or dirty with the pursuit of profit. My initial response was to Hasbro being painted as filthy money-grubbers, while previously the game had been published for the sake of the game. That's naive.

For instance, here's a quote from Mr. Adkinson about publishing 3E (from the "30 Years of Adventure" book): "Obviously, we [Wizards] had a strong economic incentive for publishing a new edition; sales for any product line tend to spike when a new edition comes out, assuming the new edition is an improvement over the first. And given the change in ownership we thought this would be an excellent opportunity for WotC to 'put its stamp on D&D.'"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe. Or maybe we know something you don't.

Or vice versa. While I'm sure there are people with more or less knowledge around it is also quite obvious that nobody outside of WotC knows much and even ex-employees take their NDA's quite seriously.

In any case lots of people claim to know lots of things. Maybe a few of them do, but like any rational person I go by evidence that I can reasonably attribute as accurate. You'd have to explain in a credible way how you know more than the rest of us before I would take it into account.

 

[ggroy]

even ex-employees take their NDA's quite seriously.

Just wait until the NDA's are unenforceable, whether because a "statute of limitations" runs out and/or an ex-employee is retired and doesn't give a damn anymore.

Sooner or later, somebody will spill the beans.

 

[billd91]

If you're the director of a company with hundreds of employees, you don't have the freedom to squander $25 million on satisfying your passions. If the business case doesn't make sense (ie, sufficient future profits to justify the investment) then you don't do it. Peter Adkinson is clearly not a bad businessman.

There is nothing inherently wrong or dirty with the pursuit of profit. My initial response was to Hasbro being painted as filthy money-grubbers, while previously the game had been published for the sake of the game. That's naive.

As I pointed out, it's not just a question of pursuing the head guy's passions. But since it's the passions of the initial business people who got them into biz in the first place, I can't imagine them not being a factor. And when dealing with the windfalls of Magic, it's a lot easier to make a bigger speculation on a debt-ridden husk like TSR than without. I have no doubt that the rampant success of Magic helped the financial risk of taking on TSR's problems look like a better business decision than it would have if WotC had merely been a profitable venture instead of PROFITABLE.

I've never said that it's wrong or dirty to pursue profit, but it would also be a mistake to assume that's the only or even primary reason for pursing a particular option, particularly with a relatively new, relatively small company still aiming to make a bigger name for itself in a small industry. The dynamics of a smaller and more personal company are different from those of a large corporation like Hasbro. Preferences and passions, albeit tempered by the business case, still have a place.

 

[Fifth Element]

As I pointed out, it's not just a question of pursuing the head guy's passions. But since it's the passions of the initial business people who got them into biz in the first place, I can't imagine them not being a factor.

In the sense that they're in the business of games, certainly. The company was a game publisher, and that establishes constraints on what they're going to branch out into. They weren't nearly the size of a conglomerate, so each new activity was going to be game-related to take advantage of the abilities of the people and practices they already had in place.

I've never said that it's wrong or dirty to pursue profit, but it would also be a mistake to assume that's the only or even primary reason for pursing a particular option, particularly with a relatively new, relatively small company still aiming to make a bigger name for itself in a small industry.

Was WotC a small company in the industry? They had $25 million to spend on TSR. That doesn't strike me as small.

 

[Ourph]

Nope, it contains support for the Warpriest and Mage. It's just that a Cleric or Wizard can use most of it, too.

How is that not support?

 

[BryonD]

Or vice versa. While I'm sure there are people with more or less knowledge around it is also quite obvious that nobody outside of WotC knows much and even ex-employees take their NDA's quite seriously.

In any case lots of people claim to know lots of things. Maybe a few of them do, but like any rational person I go by evidence that I can reasonably attribute as accurate. You'd have to explain in a credible way how you know more than the rest of us before I would take it into account.

Do you think GURPS will (or could) be #1 next month?
Do you have enough "insider" information to speculate on that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

(1) I am sure D&D 4e/Essentials is profitable.

(2) I am sure that WotC would like it to be more profitable.

(3) I am sure that, if WotC believed re-releasing AD&D 1e next year, one book at a time, would be more profitable than whatever they are currently planning.....we'd be seeing AD&D 1e re-released next year, one book at a time.

(4) I am not a fan of 4e, or the delve format, BUT the only thing that even comes close to potential shark-jumping is the stupidsilly namesmack naming that 4e is rife with.

IMHO.



RC