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

[ggroy]

Yeah, my idea is it isn't a big new project because they really did get cut back at the end of '09 pretty hard. If they were really working on 5e I don't think they have the staff for that.

In principle they can "outsourced" the design and development of 5E D&D to outside contractors. (How likely they would have done this, is another question).

I also think it would be a terrible business idea and I figure they're smarter than me, so I figure they won't make a terrible mistake, lol.

I would be more inclined to believe that many large companies function more like Dilbert.

 

[ggroy]

I also think WoTC's aversion to setting support and adventures contributed. Two books and a smallish adventure for each setting is very sparse.

Perhaps publishing adventures as "Dungeon Magazine" DDI articles, is more cost effective for them than publishing them in paper book/module format?

 

[DaveMage]

When WotC's D&D drops off of ICv2's Top 5 RPG list, then there will cause for concern.

Until then, D&D seems to be doing just fine. They were top sales for Q4 in December, and tons of people have a DDI subscription. The fact that they are bringing the character builder online and still creating the VTT says to me that the game is still going strong. If they were to cancel the VTT and or sections of the DDI, that would send a much different message.

They've separated the design team (thus cut the RPG staff in half), so expenses for the RPG should be down.

 

[Blue]

DDi is better than it's ever been, we're finally getting progress on the VTT, and Heroes of Shadow is at least as good as Martial Power 2 (though neither are as good as MP1, DP, PrP, AP, PsP). I can't believe more people aren't talking about the Paladin Striker build, and if anyone still thinks Essentials is supposed to be an easier, dumbed down D&D, then they really need to read the Assassin Executioner.

[...]

The online character builder is a much better choice for a lot of reasons. While I understand some people are upset because they can no longer gain full access to the character builder and all of the new powers by occasionally renewing their DDi subscription and downloading a patch, I think these people should feel greatful that they got to steal D&D for as long as they did without consequence.

I respectfully disagree. I paid and continue to pay for yearly subscriptions, so I don't fall into your "steal D&D" category. Let's look:

Online character builder finally is getting to the point where it can handle my active characters without too many handwritten notes. Inherent bonuses they've added, but I can't even put a net my character picked up in his inventory because he's not proficient with it - even though the rules explicitly allow using non-proficient weapons. General poor interface (inventory/shopping I'm looking at you), lack of custom equipment and feats, space-wasting character sheets. 20 character maximum. Oh, and I can't use it without an internet connection, like during lunch before a game. Factually, this is worse.

Monster Builder does not allow you to build monsters. Factually, this is worse. Much worse.

Dragon and Dungeon have been putting out less content, no longer put out a monthly schedule, no longer do compilations, and are spotty about letting you know if an article is complete with edits done (or no edits forthcoming). Factually, this is worse.

Compendium has moved to a new format, and doesn't change your category when you search. This are both objective changes, but I prefer them. Compendium has improved.

VTT is having a beta. I am not part of it so I can't objectively rate it. /For me/, I play tabletop so it doesn't add anything, but I can see that it could add for others. This is factually better because it adds something that wasn't in DDI before. How it compares to iPlay (?) and the other 3rd party sites that do exist I can't say.

 

[Gryph]

Perhaps publishing adventures as "Dungeon Magazine" DDI articles, is more cost effective for them than publishing them in paper book/module format?

I would assume so. I'm not sure it generates more revenue. I understand the WoTC gets a pretty good revenue stream from DDi, but lets look at the marginal revenue picture.

From the number of character bullder/monster builder threads here and on other forums I'm going to hypothesize that most subscribers would be happy to pay the DDi subscription for good versions of those tools. For the remaining subscribers (10%?, 20%?) who wouldn't subscribe without the magazine too your cost consideration is an obstacle to my idea. In that they may become disgruntled at being asked to buy such material seperately if it causes a reduction in perceived value of the magazine content, and it might.

So then the question becomes, can we sell enough units of such products without losing subscribers and to make the product profitable? I think they could.

 

[BryonD]

When WotC's D&D drops off of ICv2's Top 5 RPG list, then there will cause for concern..

So you advise against any medical treatment so long as the patient is not dead?
D&D has always been *the one game*. There has never been a really meaningful ability to comapre other games to it. There was D&D and then you compared the rest to each other.

Now it can be as low as #5 and that doesn't mean anything?

 

[Hussar]

Agreeing with shark anologies aside....

WotC is just a bit schizophrenic right now. That's all.

They had a great plan to massively increase their fan base. It did not work. Their fan base got smaller.

/snip

/snip

They were top sales for Q4 in December, and tons of people have a DDI subscription. The fact that they are bringing the character builder online and still creating the VTT says to me that the game is still going strong.

/snip

Hrm, how to reconcile these two points of view? Both pretty much entirely based on anecdotes with no context. On one hand, syaing that WOTC's fan base got smaller is a complete assumption with no factual backing, but, on the other hand, "tons of people have a DDI subscription" isn't exactly scientific either.

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

 

[pawsplay]

From an historical perspective, when did 3.5E D&D jump the shark?

I don't think it ever did. The game was cancelled before really reaching full maturity.

 

[DaveMage]

So you advise against any medical treatment so long as the patient is not dead?
D&D has always been *the one game*. There has never been a really meaningful ability to comapre other games to it. There was D&D and then you compared the rest to each other.

Now it can be as low as #5 and that doesn't mean anything?

I'm thinking in terms of $$ only - not the game itself - because I believe that's how WotC corporate will judge the game. If the bottom line for the brand is healthy (meeting or exceeding expectations), then nothing else matters.

Judging from the product changes (essentials, online builders, board games), the game is undergoing a shift in creative focus, but if the bottom line is still strong enough, then I doubt they're worried.

This is also why I don't think it matters where they are in the Top 5 as long as they are in the Top 5. Heck, IIRC, they didn't release any product in Q1, so I expect they will not be #1 or maybe even #2, but yet I fully expect them to be in the Top 5 anyway. Should they drop out, however, is when game stores might start dropping them. Then it becomes a problem.

Personally, I think 4E has become a schizophrenic mess between the original core, the intro set, essentials, and board games, but what I think about the game doesn't matter to the bottom line.

 

[pawsplay]

As pointed out before, Happy Days went another six seasons after the shark jumping. Liking the whole run of Happy Days does not make you a bad person. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to deny that something changed in tone along the way.

I think WotC jumped the shark with D&D with Races of the Dragon. There were so many things wrong with that product. First, it took what started as a bit of lore in 3e ("kobolds believe they are the chosen followers of dragons, isn't that cute har har") which evolved into canon in 3.5, and in Races of the Dragon, come full to fore, with dragon-winged, definitely spawn of dragons, kobolds. Kobolds??? Seriously??? Then you have the Spellscales, which is arguably one of the least cool-looking DDM figures I can think of... and the Dragonborn. Whereas before draconic beings were typically monsters, Dragonborn were a PC-race. In addition to shifting the D&D milieu somewhat by making them a racial choice, they also emphasized a relationship with Bahamut (a platinum dragon) rather than "normal" dragons, and they were a transformed race rather than a natural one. Yet these characteristics proved to be quite superficial, as 4e proved with its monotreme dragonborn with oddly non-monotreme-mammal breasts. The book itself was created from the premise that books with "Dragon" in the title sold well, racial books sold well, and if D&D needed anything, it was more dragon. As such, the book was decidedly un-artistic. Races of the Wild may have been mediocre, but at least it was something. Races of the Dragon was little more than an attempt by the writers to redeem a cash-driven concept.

Despite the changes in specifics, Races of the Dragon began to develop some of the tropes that would come into full bloom with 4e: draconic kobolds, exotic (even transformed) races, dragons all over the place, and a hard shift away from class genre fantasy as well as baroque fantasy, and straight toward the gonzo fantasy that grew out of video games, endless FR novels, blockbuster cinema, and cross-polination with works such as Exalted and Earthdawn. Note that this transformation has little to do with what I imagine to be the financial rationale for Races of the Dragon. Rather, it has to do with the writers, unfettered from what has come before, deciding to make D&D its own thing... and its own thing, as they saw it, involved a lot of tropes I would identify as being foreign to the core of the original game.

So, to summarize... the financial pressure to produce something with mass market appeal, combined with a gradual but noticeable shift toward a new style of fantasy, contributed ultimately to 4e and thence to the development of the line since.