Whither the Ultimatum?

[Iosue]

Per Ryan Dancey's follow-up to the Escapist article, he revealed that Hasbro divided its properties into "Core" brands and "Non-Core" brands. Core brands made more than $50 million annually and had a growth path towards $100 million; Non-Core brands did not. Core brands would get financing help from Hasbro, Non-Core brands would not, and might even be mothballed.

The uptake from this was that 4e and the DDI were an attempt to bring D&D over the $50 million mark, and into Core brand status. The conclusion many seem to have drawn from this is that if Wizards had not done this, D&D was in danger of being mothballed.

So now we have 5e. And the read seems to be that we have 5e because 4e didn't make that $50 million mark. But this suggests a question: if 4e was a roll to Save against $50 Million Ultimatum or die, why do we have 5e? Is D&D really in danger of being mothballed?

Over on RPG.net, there was an interesting exchange between posters Cargo Culture and Polaris over who owns the D&D IP, and what exactly Hasbro can do with it (the conversation basically runs from page 30 to 33 or so). I am not at all sure which is correct, although Cargo Culture's arguments seemed to me more convincing.

At the least Cargo Culture's arguments presented a plausible explanation for a 5e despite 4e not making $50 million. The $50 million goal was something that Wizards, as a subsidiary of Hasbro, could aim for, but even not reaching it Wizards still retained the ability to market the IP on its own merits, even without Hasbro's proactive support (cf. Dancey's post, "[Non-Core brands] would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support.") In other words, IP owned straight out by Hasbro might be mothballed, but D&D would not be, since Wizards, not Hasbro, directly owned the IP.

Another possibility might be the return of the D&D video game license from Atari. Might not revenue from the license push D&D over the $50 million barrier? Could this be why 4e was announced at a convention, but 5e was announced with a full out marketing blitz, including NYT, CNN, and Time?

Just some idle speculation. I'm just having difficulty with the idea of "$50 million or mothballs" and the new edition.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Sounds like its time for another D&D movie!

 

[Stormonu]

Supposedly, they just did "Book of Vile Darkness" - what happened to that movie anyway?

D&D 4E must have made a profit on what it put out, otherwise only a foolish company would attempt to sink money into boat that's gone more than half-under.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Supposedly, they just did "Book of Vile Darkness" - what happened to that movie anyway?

D&D 4E must have made a profit on what it put out, otherwise only a foolish company would attempt to sink money into boat that's gone more than half-under.

A profit, certainly. 50 - 100 million? Not likely.

Rather than expanding the market with 4e WotC instead split the market. Not good, not good at all.

I think that 5e is an attempt to regain lost ground rather than trying to grab the brass ring. That they are not trying to reach $50 Million, but just get back some of the folks they lost.

I do not know if the $50 Million is still on the table, or if Hasbro is willing to accept a more achievable goal. I very much hope that it is the latter.

Though I am not certain that even regaining the lost ground is possible. Much will depend on whether they have something like the OGL, or tie a millstone around the new game with something more like the GSL.

I hope they reveal the license soon. The longer the wait the more I expect another GSL debacle.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

 

[Celtavian]

The more I read, the more my past musing are proven correct. I knew Hasbro wasn't much interested in D&D when they bought WotC. They wanted the card games. D&D was bonus money. If it made money, great. If it doesn't, they sell it or let it die. When they split their own market with 4E, I knew it would eventually come back to bite them.

Pen and paper RPGs have been and always will be a small niche market. They should always look to cater to their current customer base as a whole and not try to attract new customers thinking they can take D&D mainstream. They can't. Video games already attract the audience they want. Pen and paper RPGs are for us strange folk whose imaginations aren't completely satisfied with a video game. We want to write our own stories and create our own worlds. Though most of us can't write code and we don't have the money to create an MMORPG, we do enjoy using words and rules to create our own material. The entire nature of the hobby will never be attractive to a large demographic no matter how much they simplify it.

I for one am interested to see 5E. Not sure I'll buy it, but I hope it makes D&D interesting to read again. Less modular and more flavorful and unique.

 

[nedjer]

The more I read, the more my past musing are proven correct. I knew Hasbro wasn't much interested in D&D when they bought WotC. They wanted the card games. D&D was bonus money. If it made money, great. If it doesn't, they sell it or let it die. When they split their own market with 4E, I knew it would eventually come back to bite them.

Pen and paper RPGs have been and always will be a small niche market. They should always look to cater to their current customer base as a whole and not try to attract new customers thinking they can take D&D mainstream. They can't. Video games already attract the audience they want. Pen and paper RPGs are for us strange folk whose imaginations aren't completely satisfied with a video game. We want to write our own stories and create our own worlds. Though most of us can't write code and we don't have the money to create an MMORPG, we do enjoy using words and rules to create our own material. The entire nature of the hobby will never be attractive to a large demographic no matter how much they simplify it.

I for one am interested to see 5E. Not sure I'll buy it, but I hope it makes D&D interesting to read again. Less modular and more flavorful and unique.

It's probably true that a simulationist RPG brand cannot have mass appeal - because of the likes of EVE, which offers a level of simulation sufficient to make a railway modeller weep.

Storytelling/ imaginative gaming/ improvised drama is a massive industry which tabletop RPGs have repeatedly refused to join by refusing to build bridges. Or so I blogged the other day at tiresome length.


The Vile Darkness sleeps with the fishes

 

[francisca]

If it made money, great. If it doesn't, they sell it or let it die.

If they follow suit and do what they did with Avalon Hill (purchased in '98 for $6M), they'll just sit on it, while letting loose a license every once in a great while (Valley Game's reprint of Titan, and Multi-Man's ASL line being examples.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

....

Another possibility might be the return of the D&D video game license from Atari. Might not revenue from the license push D&D over the $50 million barrier? Could this be why 4e was announced at a convention, but 5e was announced with a full out marketing blitz, including NYT, CNN, and Time?

Just some idle speculation. I'm just having difficulty with the idea of "$50 million or mothballs" and the new edition.

Ironically 5e might be needed for a big voideo game push. I not sure a realtime D&D 4e would much resemble 4e since immediate interrupts and reactions are somewhat problematical with a videogame UI.

 

[francisca]

I dunno, in the big picture view of the D&D porperty, compared to videogame and novels, the RPG line is somewhere around "jack squat" in comparison.