Will 2011 be the last year of Wizards D&D?

[Solvarn]

Yeah, I think you've outlined what I would consider a pretty good strategy. It is VERY analogous to the 'free to play' direction that MMOs are starting to take. Let anyone play levels 1-3 for free, run low level VTT sessions, and give them access to plenty of content in that level bracket for free (they already have tons of stuff of this ilk that has easily paid for itself already and can be written down as lost leaders).

I think what they really still need though is a more mass market presence for this kind of a 'new D&D for the 21st Century'. Putting Red Boxes in Target is not bad, but as corny as the old cartoon was it sure plastered the D&D name all over the place and if you had certain well-known actors who have made no secret of having played the game to do some voice acting for it? Hmmmm. Done reasonably well it could certainly suck in a bunch of mind share and grow the game.

Really I think if you look at what they have been doing and trying to do in the past couple years they really ARE moving in this direction. Not with blinding speed or no missteps but it seems to be within reach at least. If that platform, VTT, CB, AT, and a good online community and resources really materializes it could be leveraged to do some very nice things. And if WotC eventually can't manage to pull it off then someone will in some form.

WotC has no competition and doesn't understand software really well yet. I think they have made some strategic hiring decisions recently that will help with that issue.

Vote with your dollar. DDI sucks right now, so they don't get my money. Essentials is good, I'll buy it. I'm on the fence about Gamma World, I need to look into the CCG aspect more.

D&D as a brand could be managed better and has more potential, but I don't think its time to start the funeral dirge anytime soon.

 

[MrMyth]

Oh, I'm not judging it solely on it's failure to fight piracy. I'm also judging it on it's failure to be a better product.

I figured I'd see a response along these lines, and that's fair. But I honestly think that there certainly was a goal, yes, to deliver a better product. They failed at that - probably in large part due to rushing the release - but I'd be very surprised if they actually planned out, "Hey guys, let's release a crappier version of our current product solely to fight piracy."

 

[Dausuul]

"We also wanted to move to a solution that promotes individual account ownership and hinders piracy." - Bill Slavicsek, November Ampersand

Hmm, point taken. He does list a bunch of other reasons, but piracy is certainly prominent. Guess I'm overly accustomed to the edition wars.

 

[Mercurius]

In any case I know how you feel.

Yup, me too. Your point is one that many have missed in this thread as they've accused Merric of being a "hater." He isn't a hater - actually, his complaint is borne out of his love for D&D and, to a lesser extent, the current company that produces it.

May I add how there's nothing new to this perception. Perspective people, perspective!

Thanks for the link, that's a very interesting read - especially about the free-wheelin' early days of WotC! That said, this isn't quite the same thing. The Tynes piece describes the "buying in" of WotC and Adkison, a kind of fall from an idealistic geektopia to a corporate monstrosity; WotC of 2010 has been that corporate monstrosity for over a decade now; the issues Merric has raised aren't quite as profound as the ones Tynes spoke about - they are more on the level of "WotC has been handling D&D poorly" not "WotC has undergone a Kafkaesque metamorphosis."

The metamorphosis already happened; as Tynes illustrated, it began in late 1994 with ill-fated (and perhaps unwise) Truth or Swill game and was solidified with the sale of WotC to Hasbro in 2001. You could say that there is nothing new with that, with the enantiodromia that seems unfortunately inevitable when any kind of idealism is codified; it becomes rigid, calcified, and eventually produces its opposite. So an idealist young geektopia becomes a big corporation; this can be seen most clearly with the contrast of the innovative Everway game in 1995 with the, to quote Tynes, "grotesque" Pokemon trading card game in 1999, which is when, I think you can say, the pact with the Devil was finalized.

Pact with the Devil, you say? Isn't that hating? No, it is just calling a spade a spade: WotC is a corporation, which almost by definition is primarily interested in making money for its shareholders, with any other concerns like "creativity" and "innovation" a distant second place - and only ever in service of the primary concern. This is how the metamorphosis of WotC has been enantiodromic: a reversal from a geektopian company focused on creating games for fun and enjoyment to a corporation that makes profit through the vehicle of games. The difference is subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Scribble]

Disagree on this specific point. The stupidity of this move is just mind boggling. "We're loosing money because people are pirating stuff, let's make it impossible for them to pay us for it, instead!" That is not the logic of any rational mind. Never mind the very idea that piracy = lost sales is simply untrue. This is the sign of a company that's kicking and screaming in the digital age because the rules have changed..

Two things I wanted to point out here...

2. Corporations tend to be kind of slow enacting new things. (Whereas gamers, and I guess all customers in general, tend to feel like things should/can happen over night.)

2. PDFs are not the only way to market your product digitally.

So while cutting pdfs leaves a certain sector of the market uptapped, if tapping that sector with a certain type of product makes use of resources (time, money, employees, etc...) that could bring in better revenue, or just be better utilized elsewhere, cut the pdfs, and look for a better way to market to that now untapped market.

They DO market their game digitally in the form of the DDI- and from the looks of the new book formats I get the feeling they're getting ready to start releasing them in ebook format. Like on the nook or Kindle or ipad, or all of the above.

It just takes a while for old man corporate to finalize things.

 

[Shazman]

Wizards have spent 2010 in a state of one major stuff-up after another when it comes to D&D. They've mishandled a number of key initiatives so incredibly badly that they've managed to completely erode my support for them.

D&D Red Box: not compatible with any other product.

D&D Essentials: so much confusion as to what it is and who it is for.

D&D Insider: a worse disaster of implementation is hard to imagine.

So, will Wizards of the Coast still be making D&D at this time next year? Will anyone care?

Well MerricB, I agree that WotC has fouled up this year more than ever. They have failed so miserably that even the ENWorld optimist is owning up to their massive failure. I would like to hope that they would liscense D&D to a company that gets what RPG's are about, like Paizo, but I doubt it will happen. I think it's funny that the year they mess up the most is the year you don't hear about the annual pre-Christmas layoffs. This is the year more than any other that heads need to roll at WotC.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup, me too. Your point is one that many have missed in this thread as they've accused Merric of being a "hater." He isn't a hater - actually, his complaint is borne out of his love for D&D and, to a lesser extent, the current company that produces it.



Thanks for the link, that's a very interesting read - especially about the free-wheelin' early days of WotC! That said, this isn't quite the same thing. The Tynes piece describes the "buying in" of WotC and Adkison, a kind of fall from an idealistic geektopia to a corporate monstrosity; WotC of 2010 has been that corporate monstrosity for over a decade now; the issues Merric has raised aren't quite as profound as the ones Tynes spoke about - they are more on the level of "WotC has been handling D&D poorly" not "WotC has undergone a Kafkaesque metamorphosis."

The metamorphosis already happened; as Tynes illustrated, it began in late 1994 with ill-fated (and perhaps unwise) Truth or Swill game and was solidified with the sale of WotC to Hasbro in 2001. You could say that there is nothing new with that, with the enantiodromia that seems unfortunately inevitable when any kind of idealism is codified; it becomes rigid, calcified, and eventually produces its opposite. So an idealist young geektopia becomes a big corporation; this can be seen most clearly with the contrast of the innovative Everway game in 1995 with the, to quote Tynes, "grotesque" Pokemon trading card game in 1999, which is when, I think you can say, the pact with the Devil was finalized.

Pact with the Devil, you say? Isn't that hating? No, it is just calling a spade a spade: WotC is a corporation, which almost by definition is primarily interested in making money for its shareholders, with any other concerns like "creativity" and "innovation" a distant second place - and only ever in service of the primary concern. This is how the metamorphosis of WotC has been enantiodromic: a reversal from a geektopian company focused on creating games for fun and enjoyment to a corporation that makes profit through the vehicle of games. The difference is subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world.

I know it is all fashionable to talk about 'corporate monstrosities' but lets remember one key fact here. The RPG hobby is not exactly a font of money. ANY sane objective business analysis of this business will tell you in 5 minutes that if you want to make a high ROI you should get the heck out of it and say buy tobacco stock or maybe just take your money and go drill for oil.

Why then does WotC continue to put significant resources into D&D? I would suspect there are a few different reasons. Some of them are business reasons, but some of them aren't, or at least they are pretty intangible. One basic business reason that is pretty relevant is just that sunk costs are sunk. WotC presumably bought TSR's assets for a price so low that it DID make business sense for them. Sure the RPG industry isn't a great place to make money, but D&D itself at some price was still a decent investment for them at that time and place. Once you own it the price is irrelevant. All that matters is "If I put in $1 can I get out enough more than that in a short enough time frame with a low enough risk to make a decent ROI on that $1?" Why is this an interesting fact to keep in mind? Because it tells us that the D&D product line of WotC, if it is self-sufficient, that is makes enough money to return a profit and make the necessary investments in its own future, will continue to exist.

Now maybe Hasbro would sell it. Surely they would if they could get a good enough price and put the money into something else, but who out there has the money to buy D&D at a price that is worth bothering? It costs money to make such a sale, and if you have a product that makes money and potential buyers that can only pay peanuts (and there's no other game company out there with ANY significant money to invest) then just keep it and run it. Heck, maybe it will make a big hit. If it tanks so what? You already spent the money for it, there's no getting it back. It only makes sense to shut it down if it actually LOSES money.

Beyond that though look at the other motivations. They may not mean much to Hasbro, but the people running this business obviously WANT, for reasons not related to money, to keep making games. They have an actual love of games. This is what they do, and what they want to do. That isn't soulless.

Note also that all of this indicates to me that the D&D product line is profitable and self-sufficient. For all we know it is highly profitable. With absolutely no other facts to go on except the product continues to exist and invest in its future the weight of evidence is entirely in favor of the hypothesis that it makes enough money to worth more than the peanuts it could sell for. Frankly as long as people with a decent business sense are running it I think it is pretty safe. TSR didn't tank because they had a product that couldn't make a profit. They tanked because they didn't know how to run a business. Hasbro DEFINITELY knows how to do that.

 

[Derren]

I can't proof it, but I have the feeling that Hasbro doesn't keep D&D because of the D&D game, but because of the novels and maybe the license (video games).

So as long as those stay profitable they will at least produce token PnP products.
If the novels stop selling and the license becomes less valuable (already happened, no 4E video game so far, many competitive licenses like Dragon Age and the upcoming, and expected to be crappy, game from Cryptic, the lawsuit against Atari) they will drop D&D in an instant.

 

[keterys]

This is the year more than any other that heads need to roll at WotC.

I hope that we can safely discuss our hobby here at enworld without wishing direct ill will on fellow gamers and friends. Please advocate change in policy and output, rather than hoping for Christmas loss of jobs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can't proof it, but I have the feeling that Hasbro doesn't keep D&D because of the D&D game, but because of the novels and maybe the license (video games).

So as long as those stay profitable they will at least produce token PnP products.
If the novels stop selling and the license becomes less valuable (already happened, no 4E video game so far, many competitive licenses like Dragon Age and the upcoming, and expected to be crappy, game from Cryptic, the lawsuit against Atari) they will drop D&D in an instant.

No 4e video game because of licensing issues.

Like I said before though, there's little to no reason to drop a product line that is self-sufficient. Once you DROP it you have nothing. The game ceases to exist and you liquidate the assets associated with supporting it. If you can instantly turn those assets to some other product then you MIGHT do so, but as long as it doesn't lose you money it represents a capability that could be useful and is being maintained for free. Supposing for instance the people working on 4e can say work on a board game. Maybe you don't always need 10 guys to do board games but sometimes you do. If 8 of them can pay their salaries the other 9 months of the year they aren't working on board games writing 4e supplements that just break even, then you have no good reason to want to get rid of that business.

Obviously there are all kinds of ways to look at any business situation and many possible factors you could take into account. Again, if D&D were losing any significant amount of money and wasn't likely to turn around and make a bunch soon (and RPGs rarely make a bunch of money) you'd sell it off pretty quick. Not hearing anyone trying to hock 4e. It certainly has some not insignificant value as IP too, so nobody is going to be ultra quick to shut it down if there is even any chance of say selling off the rights.

In other words if 4e was going to be killed off/sold you'd first hear about rights being SOLD, then probably the people working on it dropped, and the product line would either be licensed or just wrapped up. It isn't happening. Look around. Sure, in theory anything could happen, but we don't even have the slightest evidence to indicate that 4e's core product line, rulebooks, is NOT making them decent money.

Seems more likely to me that the downhill scenario would actually be that other more lucrative projects simply siphon off developer time enough that the game enters a phase of low levels of support and very few new products. That COULD happen, but again there's little or no evidence of it yet. At most we have a few more D&D related board game type products being released this year. I wouldn't read a whole lot into that for a couple reasons. 1) there just aren't that many more books 4e needs, and 2) I'm not actually convinced we're getting less products. I see a book coming out almost every month in 2011 so far. Sure seems like they're pushing them out as fast as they can think up some new thing to produce to me. Even if they do put out few books for a while that doesn't really indicate the game is going away or in trouble, it just indicates they have a mature product line. Eventually someone will get itchy and 5e will show up at that point.