Whither the Ultimatum?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

As far as who owns the D&D IP, it's Hasbro. They bought WotC, right? If they wanted to mothball D&D tomorrow it would be done, no questions asked.

It's not that simple. Hasbro doesn't own D&D, it owns WotC who owns D&D; Wizards of the Coast is still a separate legal and financial entity from Hasbro, but Hasbro owns 100% of it. Hasbro can hire upper management through the WotC Board of Directors, but WotC employees are WotC employees, not Hasbro employees. In order to "mothball" D&D, they'd basically have to fire and replace WotC's CEO-- a drastic move that would affect the profitability of the whole company. That's the nuclear option.

So what happens isn't that D&D gets mothballed, but that Hasbro ignores it as long as WotC continues making as much money as a $350M subsidiary is supposed to make. The only way that Hasbro steps in and forces WotC to stop making D&D is if WotC as a whole is unsuccessful; WotC is never going to stop making D&D on its own because 1) it's one of their "core brands", even if it isn't one of Hasbro's and 2) D&D is always going to make WotC good money.

We're not talking about life or death. What Wizards is trying to do, reaching for that $100M brass ring, is to make D&D a "core brand" for a $4B company instead of for a $350M company.

 

[William Ronald]

There's probably an argument to be made for keeping the property out of mothballs while D&D branded boardgames, videogames, films, etc are being worked on either in-house or through licensing agreements. The properties and licensing might be worth less without an active RPG in production or on shelves. 4E as it stood through the last year might not have been bolstering those other deals and licensing well enough.

That would explain the great media promotion campaign. The lack of a role playing game could be a problem for WotC and Hasbro -- and might generate unfavorable press.

I would argue that Hasbro and WotC have a great opportunity ahead of it with a new iteration of the game, but it is not without risk. Still, a new iteration might help promote a lot of the other projects in the works.

 

[Griego]

It's not that simple. Hasbro doesn't own D&D, it owns WotC who owns D&D; Wizards of the Coast is still a separate legal and financial entity from Hasbro, but Hasbro owns 100% of it. Hasbro can hire upper management through the WotC Board of Directors, but WotC employees are WotC employees, not Hasbro employees. In order to "mothball" D&D, they'd basically have to fire and replace WotC's CEO-- a drastic move that would affect the profitability of the whole company. That's the nuclear option. (snip)

Why would they have to fire the CEO? They just call a meeting, and it's done. Why would the CEO of WotC (a company that originally didn't even own D&D) decide their job was worth sacrificing over a single product line? WotC changed CEOs and/or Presidents in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. Looks like they've exercised the nuclear option quite a few times. Maybe it isn't so nuclear after all.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Why would they have to fire the CEO? They just call a meeting, and it's done. Why would the CEO of WotC (a company that originally didn't even own D&D) decide their job was worth sacrificing over a single product line?

What I'm saying is, Hasbro's not going to engage in that kind of micromanagement. It's bad for business-- they're going to let the management at WotC make that decision.

WotC changed CEOs and/or Presidents in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. Looks like they've exercised the nuclear option quite a few times. Maybe it isn't so nuclear after all.

It's not the end of the world, but there's a difference between doing it over widespread dissatisfaction and doing it over a single issue.

 

[Griego]

What I'm saying is, Hasbro's not going to engage in that kind of micromanagement. It's bad for business-- they're going to let the management at WotC make that decision.



It's not the end of the world, but there's a difference between doing it over widespread dissatisfaction and doing it over a single issue.

I don't think that major decisions like that will just be left up to WotC. I'm sure WotC presents a plan to Hasbro for approval, and Hasbro will certainly intervene if they feel the need to make major changes. That said, I will reiterate that I really doubt Hasbro will mothball D&D anytime soon. Even if D&D doesn't hit their $50 or $100 million mark, I think it still pulls in more than enough revenue to stay alive. Plus it's a major brand with high recognition; killing D&D would certainly be bad PR.

 

[wingsandsword]

Apples and oranges. PHB's are one-time buys, often one time for the entire life of the player. Subscriptions are not, and so are different beasts. I would expect high sales in the first months, and then a really fast drop-off as the market saturated.

The 3e PHB was an even more special case.

Almost every gamer I knew bought a 3e PHB. Many were gamers that didn't regularly play D&D, and in many cases didn't because they didn't like the arbitraryness or lack of a coherent system in AD&D/Basic D&D. They bought a 3e PHB because it was a new start for D&D, and the 3e PHB was marked down to only $20 MSRP when it first came out.

I know gamers who bought a 3e PHB who were World of Darkness or GURPS gamers who normally scoffed at D&D but bought a new PHB out of curiosity of the new start, or were casual gamers who seldom played but hung out with fellow geeks who were more devoted players. They would never buy later suppliments, or even the other core books, but for the token investment in a PHB they would see what the whole deal was with the new Third Edition of D&D.

Now, a new edition doesn't get that "brand new start" anymore. It's not the first new edition in over a decade, it's not the first new edition to use a brand new system with a consistent rule system, and it's almost certainly not going to be deeply discounted.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Just telling you how you came across to me, dude.

I would have though how I came across, dude, was in what I actually said -- not how you "felt" about it.

Dragon circulation's the closes analog to a DDI subscription we have.

That's your opinion. I am not sure that it is factual; though I admit that many others believe it to be true (which, for marketing purposes, can make it a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts).

But if done right, it's just not true.

Dragon and Dungeon were print magazines. If all DDI offered were electronic were electronic versions of that, you'd be right.

If what DDI offers is a complete updated electronic version of the game, a complete electronic tabletop, freely shareable electronic modules, a massive database of customizable maps and endless 3d minis and a hosting service, LFR campaign etc. and entire Adventure Paths a few clicks away? Then it's not a magazine supplement for the game -- it IS D&D Online.

And that's no longer remotely the same thing at all as a copy of Dragon Magazine, ca. 1981. They are not even REMOTELY the same thing.

If we are talking about what "doing it right" is, then I think it would include all of those things. (And probably more). Is that worth $10 a month? Hell yes -- might even get twice that out of the marketplace, frankly.

You might not be one of those customers, and the people you play Deadlands with or whatever might not be one of those customers either -- but that's not the point.

This isn't about you -- this is about the marketplace. And you aren't the marketplace.

Apples and oranges. PHB's are one-time buys, often one time for the entire life of the player. Subscriptions are not, and so are different beasts. I would expect high sales in the first months, and then a really fast drop-off as the market saturated.

If we are quibbling about the sales of apples -- that might matter. If we are instead discussing the overall market for potential fruit sales? Then it's quite relevant.

Yes, there are one time buyers of books. Those people churn in and out of the customer base in 12-24 months. Beyond that, we have lifestyle gamers, who go in deep, long and large as gamers. They tend to exit the market when the move or get married. And being an accessible online game changes the pressure those external events can have in driving a wedge between a committed gamer and the game.

People can churn in and churn out as part of an online D&D game, too. And doubtless, they would.

Are there enough of those to get to $50 million in revenue a year for a subscription service that "does it right"? Oh yes, I think there is no question of that at all.

The question is then what the cost of creating the so-called "done right" service is. It happens to be damned expensive. Certainly too much for the current Hasbro Board, but the discussion was one of potential product revenue based on potential -- not the realities of having to deal with entrenched personalities as they are now.

So, why do you think they can get far deeper penetration with a subscription now than they could then?

Because they are vastly different products that bear no relation to one another and the perceived value of an online game is higher than that of a magazine. People will pay much more for a high quality online game that is unique and offers good value for the money.

And the amount of entertainment that a high quality tabletopesque D&D Online game could offer monthly is nickels and dimes per hour of entertainment value. So yes, I think that's entirely achievable.

Which speaks to the problem of the roll-out of DDI and allowing it to become associated in the customer's mind with just another way of receiving an electronic version of a magazine. That was a big-ass mistake. It's one of the main reason we are now discussing 5E and Pathfinder, instead of all of us being too busy playing 4E online.

What they initially wanted to sell people was something at least in the same league as WoW (not necessarily the same ballpark -- but at least in the same league) in terms of its perceived entertainment value.

Instead, what they have -- until very recently -- ended up selling to the market was an electronic version of Dragon Magazine, which then morphed into an electronic rules reference, unevenly maturing character/monster software, and now a questionably coded game table.

I was in the ballroom in Gencon when 4E promised the 3d game table -- same as you. Everyone cheered and clapped. That was a worthy vision.

The people in charge of the purse strings utterly dropped the ball. That mistake was one of the "craters" I referred to initially. It's a crater that they have to stand in when they come up next to bat. It's a big hole to climb out of. Is it too late to make that happen now? Probably, yes. But probably is a long-distance call from 100% certainty.

If they get the game table aspect of the product RIGHT, then the perception of the DDI product as an inferior electronic good to a paper magazine subscription vanishes entirely.

I'm not sure all of this can happen now. It could have happened, but you only get a chance to rollout an online game once, frankly. This perhaps speaks to the unsuitability of WotC’s and Hasbro’s staffing and funding decision in the matter. It also speaks to the poor wisdom in engaging outside contractors on the cheap. You need to tod something like this in house and change the nature of the company that you are in order to "do it right."

And yes, you end up changing the game product you are selling too, in order to "do it right". But that's another topic for another time.

That's the problem with WotC in all of this. Hasbro's board of directors for many years justifiably felt that WoW was earning billions on a game concept that TSR had invented. That resentment was FAIR AND JUSTIFIED from a certain point of view. Blizzard was cutting D&D's grass.

But instead of realizing that Blizzard only did so after a massive investment of time, talent and money, Hasbro refused to fund and develop an electronic product that could compete and actually present a great RPG experience online -- be it a tabletop one, or otherwise.

Anyway, yeah, I think it’s very hard but it is still not impossible from a theoretical perspective to do this now. Most importantly, Hasbro has the money to do this if they want. That's not a small point. They always did and they always have. The fact that they misunderstand software and lost 100 million on Hasbro Online over a decade ago does not speak to whether it was a good market to get into -- it speaks only to their poor execution and mismanagement of some of the most valuable brands in the history of computer games. I happen to think it was an exceptionally GOOD idea which men whose expertise lay in manufacturing plastic toys in China for sale on the shelves of Wal-Mart was not well suited for.

But that doesn't mean that it's not doable. I believe that it is.

If you disagree -- then you do.

 

[wingsandsword]

Dragon and Dungeon were print magazines. If all DDI offered were electronic were electronic versions of that, you'd be right.

If what DDI offers is a complete updated electronic version of the game, a complete electronic tabletop, freely shareable electronic modules, a massive database of customizable maps and endless 3d minis and a hosting service, LFR campaign etc. and entire Adventure Paths a few clicks away? Then it's not a magazine supplement for the game -- it IS D&D Online.

And that's no longer remotely the same thing at all as a copy of Dragon Magazine, ca. 1981. They are not even REMOTELY the same thing.

Yes it is, more a like than you think.

You change the results around, but in the end it's still a monthly subscription for what support exists for the game. Maps, modules, articles, it's the same concept just updated for a different decade.

It taps the same market: D&D players who are willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for content for the current edition of D&D.

A twenty or twenty-five years ago, a D&D player who wanted to stay current with what was going on in D&D had no choice but to subscribe to Dragon and Dungeon Magazines. For that fee they got all the support that was offered. Errata, modules, commentary, previews of new products, new monsters, spells & proficiencies and character classes. . .all arriving in the mailbox every month or two.

Now if you want officially produced errata, modules, commentary, previews, new content. . .you go to DDI. Same general concept, different decade, still subscribing to get new material.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Yes it is, more a like than you think.

You misunderstand me. I am not talking about making cool things to help you play a game in your kitchen or living room.

I am talking about designing a game intended to be played over the internet, using some means of voice chat, Skype, cameras and a virtual game world. That's not the current DDI. It doesn't tape the same marklet -- if done right - it expands it dramatically. More an MMO, less an RPG.

That's not the same thing as a magazine which supports a TTop RPG. It's a different animal entirely. It may not be the game you would prefer -- but it's the one that if done right, can make the most money.

 

[prosfilaes]

Now, a new edition doesn't get that "brand new start" anymore. It's not the first new edition in over a decade, it's not the first new edition to use a brand new system with a consistent rule system, and it's almost certainly not going to be deeply discounted.

I still think that it will get a big kick. Maybe I'm not the best example, because I bought the 3.0E PHB deeply discounted when 3.5E came in and bought 4E used, but a new PHB will get a lot of hope going. Maybe this will be the holy grail of PHBs. Maybe everyone else will be switching to it. Maybe it will be at least better then what we're playing now.