will 4.0 succeed?

[Tequila Sunrise]

What is an open question is whether 4e's life-cycle was short because it was different or simply because ten year editions are no longer financially viable. Time, and 5e, will tell...

I suspect that the 5ish-year edition cycle is simply more optimal, from WotC's PoV. It'll be interesting to see if its third edition confirms the new pattern.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hard to say.

It could also be that the 5 year cycle increases development costs, which could fuel cyclical increases & reductions in the workforce in order to control overall costs...

And that's not exactly efficient. Too much churn in your workforce leads to decreased employee satisfaction and resultant drops in productivity & quality control, increased recruitment costs, and brain drain/difficulty in recruiting hot new talent.

 

[HiLiphNY]

Interesting read going back to the postings from 2008 - lots of unbridled optimism and praise that seems somewhat naive now. I see some pretty similar sentiments playing out for this new iteration.

 

[Mercurius]

What is an open question is whether 4e's life-cycle was short because it was different or simply because ten year editions are no longer financially viable. Time, and 5e, will tell...

I'll take option C: both. I think 4e ended up having narrower appeal than expected/hoped for, and certainly narrower than 3.x. But I also don't think we'll ever see a 12 or 11 year cycle again like we did with 1e and 2e.

That said, the cycle might be less important as how compatible editions are with each other. 1e material was still quite usable with 2e, and the same, of course, is true with 3e, 3.5, and Pathfinder. I would expect that WotC's goal isn't as much, or only, to make an edition last much longer than 4e, but for whatever comes next (6e) to be resonant with 5e. This is one of the reasons I think they've been trying to create a simple core for 5e.

If I had to guess I think we'll see a "5e revised" sub-edition in a few years, depending upon how much errata and broken areas there are in 5e. If they call it "revised" it might be less controversial than "5.5" which brings back back memories for many. "Revised" can be interpreted to mean, "We just want to make it better for you."

 

[tangleknot]

4th edition was a success and it was a terrible game! There is no doubt that D&D next will do well; hell I bet they could release it as a popup book and it would probably still sell.

 

[Dungeoneer]

If I had to guess I think we'll see a "5e revised" sub-edition in a few years, depending upon how much errata and broken areas there are in 5e. If they call it "revised" it might be less controversial than "5.5" which brings back back memories for many. "Revised" can be interpreted to mean, "We just want to make it better for you."

I think they just need to be honest up front if they're going to do this. "In a couple years we will probably release revised versions of the core books based on what we've learned about the game." Then maybe give people who bought the original core books a small discount. I think that would go a long way towards alleviating anger over revised versions of the game.

 

[Umbran]

It could also be that the 5 year cycle increases development costs, which could fuel cyclical increases & reductions in the workforce in order to control overall costs...

Of course, a 5 year cycle increases development costs (compared to a 10-year cycle)! So long as it increases profit to match, that is not really an issue.

And, yes, with it comes the cyclical rise and fall in workforce. There's nothing new in that, either. How many of us have *not* been part of rise and fall of workforces in the last decade?

Modern times move fast, folks. Maybe, half a century ago, there was some idea that your product could be like a shark - evolve once to the perfect form, and last forever without changing. That doesn't happen now, especially with entertainment products. Evergreen is myth. Change is nigh constant, and if you don't embrace it, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The main problem with workplace churn isn't the development costs, its the deterioration in the productivity of employees- supervisors included (especially if the business does not have a dedicated HR staff for conducting the interview/hiring process)- and how that all effects the ability of the company to attract new employees of similar caliber or potential to those lost. Potential hires do listen to the gripes of the outgoing/former employees. It poisons the recruiting pool.

Those are all real economic costs, but most businesses simply don't account for them. And I mean that literally.

 

[Jester David]

It's fascinating to look back at a few of the early posts and see some people predict what ended up happening and so many optimistically predicting success.

I'm suddenly questioning my optimism regarding D&D Next...

 

[Mercurius]

I think they just need to be honest up front if they're going to do this. "In a couple years we will probably release revised versions of the core books based on what we've learned about the game." Then maybe give people who bought the original core books a small discount. I think that would go a long way towards alleviating anger over revised versions of the game.

Hmm...I'm mixed on this. On one hand, why do they need to be explicit? Isn't implied, or at least they "reserve the right" to revise the game? And isn't a revision not a bad thing, meaning it theoretically improves the game?

It seems that with a game such as D&D with so many moving parts, there's no way around some degree of revision - if only in errata-ed later printings. I can definitely see a three-year mark, like they did with 3.5, that not only re-prints with errata, but fixes and problems with math and such that might have arisen in 2+ years of heavy play by thousands of groups.

On the other hand, I agree with you insofar as its a nice gesture. I just don't think they "need" to do it, or need to justify a revision because its implied in the nature of the game.