Why does WotC have to apologize for making money?

[Westwind]

Hasbro's operating margin is 13.5% and their net profit margin is about 8%. These numbers are not particularly crazy compared to other entertainment companies. Assuming that WotC's numbers are comparable to their parent (and they should be), I think I am comfortable with paying 13% of their costs to allow them to make more products in the future.

(I'm not sure what the mark-up is for retailers, but note that that 13% is not 13% of the cover price. It is 13% of something less than the cover price.)

The margin for your standard brick and mortar book retailer is somewhere between 41-43%, depending on your distributor (Ingram, Baker&Taylor, etc.). At first glance this number seems really high, but considering a bookstore will hope to turn over its inventory 1/year, it's not outrageous. For those not in the retail world, that would require a bookstore that stocks 60,000 volumes total to sell 60,000 units/year. The problem is that you're going to sell tons of whatever Oprah's latest bookclub choice is and have dozens and dozens of titles you can't move that end up taking up space (and costing you money). The margin is a hedge against these sorts of titles. It's also why you'll see chain bookstores offer 30%+ discounts off of bestsellers, since the assumption is those titles will sell in bulk. Even with these margins, Borders and Barnes & Noble posted very disappointing numbers for 2007 and Q1 of 2008 so it's not a cut and dried equation.

I certainly don't begrudge Hasbro the chance to make money. I'm semi-selective about what RPG products I buy (I'm trying to break the RPG collector habit) so if a product isn't up to snuff, I just won't buy it. In fact, my only real concern about 4e is that Privateer Press might not convert their Iron Kingdoms setting over to 4e. I'm happy to play IK as 3.5, but not having a setting available in the latest edition will make getting new players difficult indeed.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I'm not really a fan of 4e, but that's because I don't like the system; it has nothing to do with WotC itself.

I suppose I can see why some would see 4e as a way to seek out more money, but they are a business, after all; that's sort of what they're supposed to do.

The designers of 4e don't seem like the type to make a new edition just for the sole purpose of making money. 3.5 had issues, and they set out to fix them.

Now, having issues with the edition itself is understandable. But why bother hating on it by attributing various nefarious motives to WotC? If you like 4e, then buy it; if you don't, then don't. As has been said dozens of times already, speak with your wallet. Their motives - be it to make money or to make teh awesomest edition EVAR - should be irrelevant when it comes time to look at the game itself. If their total goal was to make money, but they have made a truly excellent game in pursuit of that, does it matter why they made it?

 

[Kaffis]

TSR didn't pay 7 digit numbers to design a new edition.

Not to pick on you, as I'm well aware that this one line is hardly reflective of the nuance and scope of the rest of your post, but it always amuses me to see TSR held up as the model of RPG publishing for current markets, compared to the "money grubbing", faceless corporations of today.

If TSR is "doing it right," I welcome people to buy their new products. I suspect it will be a challenge, though.

 

[mlund]

Frankly, it is very common for people to confuse "What I want," with "What ought to be."

The part that people really resent, in the end, is the ability of other people to choose to play / talk about a version of the game that the original person doesn't want to play / talk about. They are afraid of being left without anyone to play with or socialize with because other people choose to move on to other things.

As long as there's no new edition in the market, the bulk of their Old Edition associates stay put. Once a choice is introduced into the equation their status quo is upset. They lash out at Wizards of the Coast because they resent the choices other people are free to make. Then they have to choose between two options they don't like: paying for and playing a game they'd rather not play OR having empty places at their games and discussion forums.

Anyone remember the little "Come back, we miss you!" post from the guys in the General and Rules Forums because too many people were hunkering down in the 4th Ed Forums?

That's exactly what's in play here. Money only factors in for two reasons: either to conveniently demonize WotC with the tired "People that have more money than me are Bad," logic fallacy / trope; or because they know they are going to choose to conform to keep up with everyone else and they resent paying for something they didn't like in the first place.

If Wizards made a crap product that very few people wanted to buy, wanted to play, or could afford to pay for then this wouldn't be an issue. It is precisely because these things are not true and people choose to pick up 4th Edition that we see so much "WotC are fiendish Capitalistic Pigs of Legend," nonsense tossed around.

- Marty Lund

 

[MaelStorm]

Not to pick on you, as I'm well aware that this one line is hardly reflective of the nuance and scope of the rest of your post, but it always amuses me to see TSR held up as the model of RPG publishing for current markets, compared to the "money grubbing", faceless corporations of today.

If TSR is "doing it right," I welcome people to buy their new products. I suspect it will be a challenge, though.

You're right, it's like comparing oranges with apples, it's a bad example. Why choose a Hyundai when you can drive a Ferrari? Sure WotC is doing it right for many people. They had a project, and they did not spare a dime to give the best they could. And it shows.

My idea may not translate well when you create a new product.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't see how I could have misread the post I quoted. "...i shouldn't need to buy phb2 to get classes I had in phb1 in 3.5."

Again, I offer that there is no rule that says Core for Edition X should be Core for Edition X+1, even if arguably you could discuss whether certain classes are quintessentially D&D and a new edition without them better have a pretty good reason for letting them go (Fighter, Wizard, et al).

There is also a difference between a ~10 year old edition/game and a newly developed edition.

The new edition has new strength, new possibilities. They should be explored at the right time with the correct investment. If Warlords and Warlocks can highlight new system strength, and Druids and Bards need further refinement, than that's how it's gonna be.

I have seen and played my share of Bards and Druids and Half-Orcs in 3E. I am not full of them. But if a new edition offers me a few new classes and races, and promises to give me the Bard and Druid in new awesomeness at a later time, I am fine with it. Not only do I get to play with a new system, I also get to play with new classes. Everything is shiny and new, and my imagination is already running hot for the kind of opportunities waiting for me.

You know, there were editions before 3.5.

That's the issue with Bards and Druids. They've just about ALWAYS been around. They're the good ol' reliables. There's a reason the food pyramid has a giant base made of bread. They aren't always the most excitable, but they're the traditional classes, and they're the traditional classes for a reason.

In the previous editions, you have a representative of all of the broad choices right from the start, and the books after that went into the specifics. Whereas in 4e, they're very purposefully just skipping over those broad choices.

If you want to play a druid or anything even REMOTELY similar to a druid, you're out of luck.

Honestly, I think one of the better examples of why I'm irritated is this: count the number of Core classes in 3.5. Count the number of those in 4e. No, I don't mean paragon or heroic or any of that stuff - I'm talking the core base classes you start at.

That's why people think WotC is money grubbing. Because, in terms of actual playable content, they feel they're getting a much smaller return for their money.

 

[SSquirrel]

During the 3.5 switch, there were thousands of posts talking about how WOTC was just grabbing money, and they wouldn't be apart of it. People were adamant about not switching. But guess what, most of them did.

I got those guns right here, never put em aside. I think the only 3.5 era book I bought is Serpent Kingdoms for all the yuan-ti love. Bought it used for $10 I think. It's mostly fluff tho. 3.5 is the only core set of D&D rules I lack since starting in red box basic. No 2E Player's Options either, but those were (by name) optional

 

[PeterWeller]

You know, there were editions before 3.5.

That's the issue with Bards and Druids. They've just about ALWAYS been around. They're the good ol' reliables. There's a reason the food pyramid has a giant base made of bread. They aren't always the most excitable, but they're the traditional classes, and they're the traditional classes for a reason.

In the previous editions, you have a representative of all of the broad choices right from the start, and the books after that went into the specifics. Whereas in 4e, they're very purposefully just skipping over those broad choices.

If you want to play a druid or anything even REMOTELY similar to a druid, you're out of luck.

Honestly, I think one of the better examples of why I'm irritated is this: count the number of Core classes in 3.5. Count the number of those in 4e. No, I don't mean paragon or heroic or any of that stuff - I'm talking the core base classes you start at.

That's why people think WotC is money grubbing. Because, in terms of actual playable content, they feel they're getting a much smaller return for their money.

First of all, I wouldn't say a specialist sub-class of cleric that focused on nature magic is very "old reliable." Second, Bards have gone through so many versions, from weird multi-class thing to jack of all trades to master of song and lore, that it's hard to point to them as traditional. Their tradition changes with every edition. Third, you say you're out of luck if you want to play a nature priest, but what about fey pact warlocks or clerics of nature deities? Finally, you argue there are less broad choices in the PHB this time around, but the mere existence of a race that isn't human-with-minor-physiological-differences (Dragonborn), a viable substitute for clerics, paladins of any alignment, and the warlock with his/her secret pacts points to the contrary.

Honestly, when anyone begins talking about "core" or "traditional" classes and races in D&D, they lose me after fighter, mage, cleric, thief, human, dwarf, elf, and halfling.

 

[Westwind]

You know, there were editions before 3.5.

That's the issue with Bards and Druids. They've just about ALWAYS been around. They're the good ol' reliables. There's a reason the food pyramid has a giant base made of bread. They aren't always the most excitable, but they're the traditional classes, and they're the traditional classes for a reason.

It's tough to get more traditional than the fighter, cleric, mage, and rogue. The bard was introduced to DnD as a prestige class of sorts back in 1e, so the historical argument isn't entirely applicable. I suspect WotC's thinking was (at least) twofold. First, printing books is expensive. If you include Bards, Druids, and Barbarians (and all their associated animal shapes, spells, totems, etc.) the PH gets a lot bigger, which makes it a lot more expensive. Asking $60 for a sourcebook is a good way to kill your initial sales. Printing a book with the number of color plates and stock quality of the PH, in that volume, costs a fortune. Making it bigger also adds a lot of time on to your editing process, which means you either push back the release date (which cannot be after GenCon) or quality suffers. Second, WotC needs to plan releases in a way that they have a steady income stream from quarter to quarter. Since 5e isn't going to come out next year, it makes a certain amount of marketing sense to clump your nature and psionic power sources (or whatever power sources you didn't include in PH1) in the next wave of products.

In the previous editions, you have a representative of all of the broad choices right from the start, and the books after that went into the specifics. Whereas in 4e, they're very purposefully just skipping over those broad choices.

If you want to play a druid or anything even REMOTELY similar to a druid, you're out of luck.

But one of the key ideas behind 4e is that there are four roles a party should cover, and various classes to fill each of those rolls. Even if there's only one controller in the PH1, a party can be designed to fully meet the expectations of the game's design. On a totally subjective level, I'm not a huge fan of the classes being offered in PH2, so I probably won't buy it, unless they make them really attractive.

Honestly, I think one of the better examples of why I'm irritated is this: count the number of Core classes in 3.5. Count the number of those in 4e. No, I don't mean paragon or heroic or any of that stuff - I'm talking the core base classes you start at.

That's why people think WotC is money grubbing. Because, in terms of actual playable content, they feel they're getting a much smaller return for their money.

One of the criticisms of 3/3.5 was that there were a lot of classes that lacked a role. Aside from killing Mages, why bring a Monk? Aside from fodder for Order of the Stick, what role did the Bard play? (pun intended) You could "break" Druids and Barbarians with various prestige classes, but that isn't really much fun past a one-shot. I'd much rather have fewer choices if it means I know whatever choice I make will have a chance to contribute.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I suppose we just have different feelings on that.

I think roles really aren't that important; a creative group can easily bypass the need for them. Instead, I think it's more important to supply a strong focus on a large variance of classes and types of characters for players to choose.