But, again, let's not forget historical context either. 3e is released after several years of the largest economic growth in American history (and much the same in many other countries as well). 4e is released after several years of some of the poorest economic performance in a generation or two.
Getting a passing grade on a luxury product when economic times are poor isn't a bad thing at all. Adequate in a time when many other companies are failing isn't too shabby.
Hmm...not sure if I agree here. I'm not a business guy, but if I remember correctly entertainment stuff actually does well in recessions; I'm thinking about movies, for instance. Now RPG books aren't the same thing as movies, but nor are they truly "luxury items" in the same way that a massaging desk chair is or Mini Cooper. I would think in times of recession RPGs could thrive, or at least not decline too much.
And, again, what is your benchmark? How good should 4e be doing to get a B grade? Or an A grade? 3e just released? Again, outside of the early 80's, D&D has never reached that level. 3.5 certainly didn't. 2e didn't. And most of the time, 1e didn't as well.
How about having a thriving, happy fan-base for starters? How about a D&D Insider that is actually improving and developing? How about a growing fan-base, even? Etc.
Why is "doing adequately" equated with "dying hobby"? I mean, modest growth or even static doesn't mean dying. Again, outside of about six years, the past 30 years of D&D has not been fantastic sales, it's been mostly "adequate".
That is not what I wrote. What I did write is that WotC cannot operate as if that's the case, that is that RPGs are a dying hobby. They have to assume that it can not only survive but thrive. Right now it seems to me that 4E is just surviving.
Again, there seems to be this disconnect. You and BryonD admit that WOTC is doing well with the DDI. That seems to be the case, although, again, big grain of salt time. You say that it's doing adequately, as in it's not losing money, but not making a whole lot either.
I don't know if they are "doing well." I would guess that they are doing OK, but that the potential is much greater
if they improve the product. And that is what I do know, or at least feel for myself: That DDI is fraught with problems, from the bugginess of the programs to the reliance upon internet to the lack of new Builders.
But, if I'm still making a return on my investment that is better than what I'd get in the bank, why would I sell off the investment in a very poor economic time? Wouldn't it be much, much better to do what WOTC did and sell at the hottest time? Let's not forget, Hasbro didn't wait until WOTC was failing to buy the company.
True, but if you're a corporation like Hasbro you don't think as much about return on investment as profitability. If WotC is only just making a bit over their investment I could see Hasbro wanting to allocate those resources elsewhere, unless they feel that D&D is a loss leader (which I don't think it is).
Again, I'm not denying that D&D makes WotC (and thus Hasbro) money. But the point is, I think, it is not nearly as successful as it could and should be.
Marketing 101: When you're talking marketing & brand management, belittling your prior product is something you simply don't do unless you're mocking something objectively bad about it, like a safety issue, for instance. And even then, it's usually a bad idea to explicitly call attention to past flaws. The risk of alienating parts or all of your installed customer base is generally not worth the potential payoff.
Simply put, WotC's marketing plan was a bad idea from the start, and the result was predictable.
You'll find no disagreement from me.
