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

[ScottSa]

Like I said, it was gone at least 3 weeks before Xmas (while still being advertised as "available at Wal-Mart and Target" on WotC's splash page the entire time). "Good for the game" is hard to justify unless "not being on shelves or in the online store through most of the Black-Friday-to-post-Xmas period" is unimportant. If all they care about is getting through their limited print-runs, then it's OK, but it's status-quo rather than "raising D&D population levels", and the whole making-it-into-Walmart thing was meaningless.

Also, "making room for D&D", "pushing competitors off the shelves" etc. wasn't even a consideration in this case; the Red Box was stocked with the CCG stuff and was clearly "borrowing" shelf space from MtG for the time I saw it there (i.e. it was sitting directly under the booster pack racks and was totally surrounded by premade decks, booster/deck boxes and whatever). The first thing that I checked after I noticed it was gone, was whether it had been moved to the toys/games section... I agree that "Hasbro would have kept it on the shelves if it had been selling." But turn that around (contrapositive): "It wasn't on the shelves, therefore it wasn't selling."

If we're going with an optimistic interpretation here, we'd be saying that Red Box was underprinted, completely sold out in Oct or Nov, but no one bothered to reprint it for Walmart/Target even though it was popular (and that those stores chose to take down the item entry on their sites, rather than leave it up with a will-ship-when-available option). I lack confidence in that version of events.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, it is all idle speculation in every direction. In any case I've never been all that convinced that the theory of selling D&D in box stores has ever made that much sense. It is a word-of-mouth kind of product, and always was. I'd suspect the goal was keeping the game in the public eye while making sure what they stocked sold. Lets face it, even in the days of the original Red Box D&D wasn't exactly mainstream.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I just wanted to inject this into the conversation: Target or whomever doesn't stock shelves with product out of the goodness of their heart. Hasbro pays for that shelf space. They pay a LOT. The 'real estate value' of a foot of shelf space at a major retailer is hard to pin down exactly (neither the stores nor the companies willingly share the numbers) but it's high. Getting shelf space in the Target toy section is like renting a downtown storefront - you pay high rent in exchange for visibility.

It's highly unlikely that Target looked at the Red Box and said "it doesn't sell, we won't stock it." They don't care that much, they've already got Hasbro's 'rent'. It's Hasbro that has to decide whether the Red Box deserves a spot in the very expensive shelf space they are paying for.

Unless the Red Box and other D&D products prove to be perennial best-sellers, it's unlikely that Hasbro will continue to devote shelf space to them long term. Something could sell pretty decently and still not justify the high cost of shelf space.

FWIW, a search for 'red box' on the Target website doesn't currently turn up any trace of the D&D product.

 

[Firebeetle]

I have a lot of trouble with your premise here:

The red box is EXACTLY the product that D&D needed. No, I haven't bought one because it isn't relevant to my needs. However, my kid's D&D group is excited about it and I'll be surprised if one doesn't come back from Xmas break with one. It's an entry level product and it does a brilliant job at it.

D&D Essentials is also intended for the new gamer, not necessarily at us. I've focused on the tiles and the compendium, and I'll pick up the monster book too.

D&D Insider: My personal biggest disappointment, mainly because I'm still wanting the promised character imager. However, I consider it absolutely vital and have yet to see what the big complaint is.

I don't see D&D going anywhere anytime soon. Things will have to be much worse to get to that mid-90s moment when the brand threatened to go teats up. I think you're feeling this all wrong.

Of course, what happens with the game isn't all that important. The real money in D&D is the novel line. In order to keep that going, they'll need to keep the game in house. Licensing the spring of that particular river of cash would be ill-advised.

In your support, however, there was an old Monte Cook post (which I can't find) in which he suggests that D&D should have a single company dedicated to it. He thought this would be much more manageable for the game and would save D&D problems when the company lays off people everywhere. It would save D&D from having to fill the profit model the corporation wants with the one D&D can expect.

 

[Dungeoneer]

In your support, however, there was an old Monte Cook post (which I can't find) in which he suggests that D&D should have a single company dedicated to it. He thought this would be much more manageable for the game and would save D&D problems when the company lays off people everywhere. It would save D&D from having to fill the profit model the corporation wants with the one D&D can expect.

I heartily agree with this. The problem with D&D as a product line is that it's fairly unique. It doesn't fit in any of the neat product boxes that Hasbro, or even a game company like WotC, has. It's a slow-burn product with a life cycle measured in years, not quarters. Can it turn a profit? Yes. Is that going to show up on quarterly reports? No.

D&D would be better off in the hands of an independent company entirely dedicated to it, albeit one better managed than TSR.

 

[drskeletor1]

Personaly I don't mind 4e, sure there isn't a freaking 80 some pages section of spells for magic casters to select from, but they desided to take a different approach to it, is that bad or good..? Well...that anwser depends on the person. But if it brought in some things people liked, they will know to use that in the 5th edition, if they did something wrong that got complained about a lot, they'll fix it in 5th edition.

Do I see 5th edition coming out by WoTC? Yes. I mean, sure there are other roleplays out there, but if you have a problem with 4th edition, I have a solution, don't buy it anymore...simple. Stop complaining about it, because, unfortunatly we have to wait, what? Another year or two or maybe even three or so on for 5th edition? And go try other roleplays. :-/

The one thing I don't like about WoTC however, is how...I don't want to say greedy..because that's not true...but...they really wanted to rake a lot of money out of D&D fans. I liked 3e (or 3.5e) where all I needed was PHB, MM, and DMG. But now you have 3 PHBs, 3 MM, 2 DMG, and they TONS of other books, like the Ebberon campaign guide, and Dark sun campaign guide, and they have some other books that I think they just made to make some more $$$, and that I believe that they changed and made a few minor "mistakes" on purpose so they could go: "Oh hey! We have a problem, let's make a new $35 - $40 book that covers and solves that problem."

Don't believe the whole they just want to rake money thing? What about the game now requiring you to have minis or tokens to keep track of your location? And now pre-made maps? >_< Where is the imagination in that?

But even though that may be a problem, I don't see WoTC dropping a huge money maker like that soon.

 

[renau1g]

D&D would be better off in the hands of an independent company entirely dedicated to it, albeit one better managed than TSR.

Like Paizo? naw, just kidding, they do make great adventures though...

 

[renau1g]

Don't believe the whole they just want to rake money thing? What about the game now requiring you to have minis or tokens to keep track of your location? And now pre-made maps? >_< Where is the imagination in that?

Use poker chips, or pennies, or any other super-cheap alternative if you don't want to buy minis. Nobody requires you to buy the tiles, I've never bought them myself and use a dry-erase and laminated battlemap. Works fine for me. Not quite as evocative sometimes, but gives me more freedom for really cool maps.

 

[NewJeffCT]

[*]Give the license to Games Workshop. Get a new edition every 3 years. Every class has it's own "classbook" that must be purchased independently of the core rules, and your character mini costs $40 (paint and assembly not included; non-approved minis may not be used).

I always comment about that when people complain about the frequency of new editions in D&D - if it was Warhammer, we'd be on 8E or 9E about now and miniatures from the older editions will look puny next to the more recent versions. Plus, you forgot that with each new classbook, the power often creeps up a little more so the newest class is usually the most powerful in the current edition, while the oldest classbooks feature what are now the weakest classes.

 

[Dausuul]

Plus, you forgot that with each new classbook, the power often creeps up a little more so the newest class is usually the most powerful in the current edition, while the oldest classbooks feature what are now the weakest classes.

Not exactly. Often what you see is that the early release of any given game contains a mix of the brokenly powerful and the utterly pathetic. Over time, the designers get a better feel for balance, and the game stabilizes at a low-ish power level. From there, power creep does take hold, but it never creeps up to the level of the crazy-broken stuff from the first release.

In 3E, for example, the most brokenly powerful classes, spells, and feats were in the Player's Handbook. As far as I can recall, no new base class ever matched the might of the Power Trio (cleric, druid, wizard)*, and no new feat ever outshone Leadership. PRCs did get stronger, it's true, but the most powerful non-caster PRCs were still weaker than a straight-up wizard.

4E never had such glaring balance issues, but even so, there was some pretty overpowered stuff in the original Player's Handbook. WotC's willingness to errata-nerf has fixed most of it.

[size=-2]*Except possibly the archivist from Heroes of Horror.[/size]