• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E WotC, DDI, 4E, and Hasbro: Some History

After Vince Calouri was pushed out of Wizards of the Coast he was replaced by Chuck Heubner. Chuck basically had to manage Wizards on the downslope from the Pokemon salad days. Hasbro has been through many boom & bust cycles in the toy business and they have a standard response when it happens: cut headcount and reduce overhead. Since Wizards was de facto the only part of the business that had not been rolled up into Hasbro proper it was not insulated by the successes of other things at Hasbro like GI Joe or Transformers.

While this was happening there was a big internal fight for control over the CCG business within Hasbro. Brian Goldner who was at the time the head of the Boys Toys (i.e. half the company) division of Hasbro thought that the company was missing a huge window of opportunity to follow up Pokemon with a series of mass-market CCGs linked to Hasbro's core brands GI Joe and Transformers. These battles resulted in things being escalated all the way to the C-Suite and the Hasbro Board, where Brian lost the fight and Wizards retained the exclusive ability within Hasbro to make CCGs. The downside for Wizards is that they were forced to do things with the Duelmaster brand that they did not want to do, and it never got the traction in the US that Wizards thought it could achieve. (In Japan, by contrast, it became a huge best-seller).

Chuck left after two years and Loren Greenwood, who had been the long time VP of Sales, replaced him in 2004. He was also a visible proponent of the idea that Wizards, and not Boys Toys, should set Hasbro's CCG strategy. Thus when Brian was named COO of the whole company in 2006 and CEO in 2008, Loren had a big problem on his hands. Loren guided the company through the post 3.5e crash of the TRPG market, the loss of the Pokemon franchise, and the unwinding of the Wizards retail strategy. All of this was pretty bitter fruit for hm since he'd been instrumental in building up much of what had to then be torn down. The combination of all these things led to Loren's exit and his replacement by Greg Leeds, who is the current CEO of Wizards.

Sometime around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. Core brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and Non-Core brands, which didn't.

Under Goldner, the Core Brands would be the tentpoles of the company. They would be exploited across a range of media with an eye towards major motion pictures, following the path Transformers had blazed. Goldner saw what happened to Marvel when they re-oriented their company from a publisher of comic books to a brand building factory (their market capitalization increased by something like 2 billion dollars). He wanted to replicate that at Hasbro.

Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason). Non-Core brands would not. They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support. In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids.

At the point of the original Hasbro/Wizards merger a fateful decision was made that laid the groundwork for what happened once Greg took over. Instead of focusing Hasbro on the idea that Wizards of the Coast was a single brand, each of the lines of business in Wizards got broken out and reported to Hasbro as a separate entity. This was driven in large part by the fact that the acquisition agreement specified a substantial post-acquisition purchase price adjustment for Wizards' shareholders on the basis of the sales of non-Magic CCGs (i.e. Pokemon).

This came back to haunt Wizards when Hasbro's new Core/Non-Core strategy came into focus. Instead of being able to say "We're a $100+ million brand, keep funding us as we desire", each of the business units inside Wizards had to make that case separately. So the first thing that happened was the contraction you saw when Wizards dropped new game development and became the "D&D and Magic" company. Magic has no problem hitting the "Core" brand bar, but D&D does. It's really a $25-30 million business, especially since Wizards isn't given credit for the licensing revenue of the D&D computer games.

It would have been very easy for Goldner et al to tell Wizards "you're done with D&D, put it on a shelf and we'll bring it back 10 years from now as a multi-media property managed from Rhode Island". There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to. Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content. So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D. That's something between 50 and 75 people.

Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either.

Greg wasn't in the hot seat long enough to really take the blame for the 4e/DDI plan, and Wizards just hired a new exec to be in charge of Sales & Marketing, and Bill Slavicsek who headed RPG R&D left last summer, so the team that committed those numbers to Hasbro are gone. The team that's there now probably doesn't have a blank sheet of paper and an open checkbook, but they also don't have to answer to Hasbro for the promises of the prior regime.

As to their next move? Only time will tell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryan S. Dancey

Ryan S. Dancey

OGL Architect
This has been the strategy used by TSR and WotC since D&D's inception. Do you honestly believe that 1e didn't have a board of directors saying, "We must earn X amount of money in Y amount of time,"?

Actually, yes.

TSR was a pretty badly run business, running into serious problems on at least two occasions. The first of these was the mid-80s, due to some truly mind-bogglingly bad acquisitions. The result of that was the rushed production of some products, notably "Unearthed Arcana". The second time, of course, was the tail end of 2nd Edition, and we all know how that turned out.

Basically, the guys at TSR were pretty good at that 'game' stuff, but they sucked at the 'business' side.

So, yeah, there's a distinct possibility that there wasn't anyone doing the "$X by date Y" calculation. Not that that's a good thing, of course.

It seems to me that people operate on this romantic notion that D&D existed in a vacuum, untouched by corporate realities until the big, bad, meanie-heads at Hasbro summoned the Dark Forces of Accounting & Liability to destroy the dreams and ambitions of True Geeks everywhere.

For me, the problem is not that Hasbro have somehow set out to kill D&D. Of course they haven't - they just don't care.

But the problem is that Hasbro have certain requirements of their brands (the $50M number), or they're just not worth their while. And they essentially never release IP once they own it, even though the only reason they own D&D is that WotC owned it (basically, "buy two CCGs, and get an RPG free!").

The problem is that D&D can't make those numbers. And so, sooner or later, it's going to get killed. Not because it's not profitable, and not because it's a bad product, but because the giant just doesn't care.

The 4e designers talked about "fixing the math". Sadly, it looks like the math had a big brother, and doesn't believe in level-appropriate challenges.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

What I find really weird about this plan is that if I was in charge of making my game into a U$50M brand, I wouldn't start by alienating a huge part of my current market share through a new edition dramatically different from the one being played at the time. A new edition? Sure, you have to sell core books and maybe grab those who lost their faith in the game, but I wouldn't trade the safety of a revised game for the uncertainty of one built from the ground with other premises. If Paizo did show us something, is that there was still some good money to be made with 3E D&D.
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Do you honestly believe that 1e didn't have a board of directors saying, "We must earn X amount of money in Y amount of time,"?
My feeling is that whatever business goals they had were set by company insiders and were reasonable, as opposed to being imposed by an external force that isn't especially interested in D&D. There's a difference.

It's also important that those goals be used for post hoc analysis, not to drive everyday work. Some retail outlets set hard quotas for individual sales and fire low performers. Others pay by comission. Others track individual sales, and give bonuses to high performers but don't penalize the low ones except maybe for extra training.

Having worked under various conditions like that, I know that performance depends on how much the workers care about it. In some businesses, no one cares and you have to pay them by performance to incentivize them to work. In other businesses, people do care, and that kind of pay structure or hard goal creates unwarranted stress and pressure and reduces performance.

D&D is one of the latter. People in rpgs are usually pretty passionate about them.
delericho said:
TSR was a pretty badly run business, running into serious problems on at least two occasions. The first of these was the mid-80s, due to some truly mind-bogglingly bad acquisitions. The result of that was the rushed production of some products, notably "Unearthed Arcana". The second time, of course, was the tail end of 2nd Edition, and we all know how that turned out.

Basically, the guys at TSR were pretty good at that 'game' stuff, but they sucked at the 'business' side.

So, yeah, there's a distinct possibility that there wasn't anyone doing the " by date Y" calculation. Not that that's a good thing, of course.
That's true. Wizards, on the other hand, was arguably very good at the business stuff-for a while.

D&D was ALWAYS a business. And the facts of the matter are that D&D has NEVER been bigger than it is RIGHT NOW. Whether that translates into financial success is another matter entirely. I know that doesn't fit with the dreamy unreality of Real Roleplayers, but at some point everyone has to join the real world.
Even big business can still be conducted well or conducted poorly. Good business involves setting realistic goals based on previous experience and creating high-quality work to meet them, as opposed to setting unrealistic goals and trying to find any means necessary to achieve them.

For me, the problem is not that Hasbro have somehow set out to kill D&D. Of course they haven't - they just don't care.
And this is what I was getting it. TSR cared about D&D both because the people did and because it was how they made money. They may not have always been competent, but they cared. Wizards cared. Paizo cared. Hasbro doesn't. Thus the effects of Hasbro are striking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

What I find really weird about this plan is that if I was in charge of making my game into a U$50M brand, I wouldn't start by alienating a huge part of my current market share through a new edition dramatically different from the one being played at the time.

I would most certainly have gone for a significantly different new edition. I applauded their decision to take the game apart, fix what was broken, and then build up from a new foundation. Despite not liking the 4e that we have, I still believe that that was the right way to go.

But I sure as hell would have marketed it very differently. (I also wouldn't have pulled the magazine license in-house, and would have worked very hard to keep Paizo, in particular, on-side. Plus, I wouldn't have walked away from the OGL.) IMO, it was that marketing, plus the ready availability of an alternative, that did most of the work of alienating people.

That's true. Wizards, on the other hand, was arguably very good at the business stuff-for a while.

They probably still are. Remove that absurd $50M requirement, and I bet D&D under Wizards would thrive. But working under that requirement is killing them.
 


Ahnehnois

First Post
They probably still are. Remove that absurd $50M requirement, and I bet D&D under Wizards would thrive. But working under that requirement is killing them.
That may be true, though I think Mr. Dancey has a good point about the rise of MMO's, which have also created a serious external problem for WotC.
 

Gaming Tonic

First Post
I believe u DB, and here's why:

even 'stickers' u could bake in the oven, what were those things called? Pretty much everything that could have the D&d name on it back then did, and it sold like hotcakes!

Shrinky Dinks I believe. The 80's were great for D&D branding. Seems like a missed opportunity perhaps for a toy company. Maybe we will see a bit of that kind of marketing going forward.
 

That may be true, though I think Mr. Dancey has a good point about the rise of MMO's, which have also created a serious external problem for WotC.

As a WoW player myself, I'm inclined to disagree. From the point of view of roleplayers willing to bring new blood to the hobby, MMOs can be seen either as enemies or allies, and everybody seems to be seeing them as enemies nowadays, which I believe is a terrible mistake.

Take WoW for an example, with its 10.3 million subscribers. That is just a lot of people learning about and playing a fantasy game. From my own experience, people don't stop playing D&D because there is WoW (I do know some who play WoW for their fantasy gaming fix because there's no D&D group available, but that's a different thing), but they do start playing D&D because their friends on WoW are doing it.

If I was working on the industry, I wouldn't be losing my sleep thinking of ways to take people from MMOs to TRPG, but in ways to make MMO players who are also TRPG players assume the acquisition, because they have everything in hand to make the difference.

Cheers,
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
As a WoW player myself, I'm inclined to disagree. From the point of view of roleplayers willing to bring new blood to the hobby, MMOs can be seen either as enemies or allies, and everybody seems to be seeing them as enemies nowadays, which I believe is a terrible mistake.

Take WoW for an example, with its 10.3 million subscribers. That is just a lot of people learning about and playing a fantasy game. From my own experience, people don't stop playing D&D because there is WoW (I do know some who play WoW for their fantasy gaming fix because there's no D&D group available, but that's a different thing), but they do start playing D&D because their friends on WoW are doing it.

If I was working on the industry, I wouldn't be losing my sleep thinking of ways to take people from MMOs to TRPG, but in ways to make MMO players who are also TRPG players assume the acquisition, because they have everything in hand to make the difference.
That would be the synergy I alluded to in one of the other threads on this topic. I agree that MMOs and TRPGs could have a positive relationship, but that doesn't seem to be the goal of WotC (at least, not unless it's their MMO).
 


Rogue Agent

First Post
If Pathfinder 'wins' and D&D goes down as a game, it's not that Paizo will be able to buy the rights and re-publish D&D 'the right way' like people keep hoping, it's that there will be NO D&D RPG.

Is there any rational reason why we should care about that? If Coke starts selling licorice water in their Coke cans, my nostalgia for what Coke used to taste like isn't going to make me keep buying the brand because otherwise there will be "NO COKE SODA".

As I have told many people, Hasbro did not really buy D&D for D&D, they bought it for Drizzit, and Elminister, and the like.

Hasbro didn't buy D&D. They bought WotC. And they bought WotC for Magic and Pokemon.
 

Aberzanzorax

First Post
The <ACRONYM title="Dungeons & Dragons Insider">DDI</ACRONYM> pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with <ACRONYM title="Dungeons & Dragons Insider">DDI</ACRONYM>. <ACRONYM title="Dungeons & Dragons Insider">DDI</ACRONYM> had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the <ACRONYM title="Dungeons & Dragons Insider">DDI</ACRONYM> team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when <ACRONYM title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</ACRONYM> launched, and the explicit link between <ACRONYM title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</ACRONYM> and <ACRONYM title="Dungeons & Dragons Insider">DDI</ACRONYM> that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make <ACRONYM title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</ACRONYM> work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to <ACRONYM title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</ACRONYM> didn't help either.

First, I want to be very clear...the murder/suicide was a horrible thing. I don't wish to diminish the importance of this impact on the D&DI team (I'm sure it was devastating to them emotionally, as well as a major hit the project to lose the leader of their team).

However, I believe the quoted paragraph is a bit misleading (still true, but misleading), and I'd like to point out some facts.


The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched (which was June 6th). The tradgedy occurred on July 28th. That's nearly 2 months after 4e was released.

D&DI was being developed by another company (a software company), they failed to produce it, and the tools were brought back in house. I've looked for the company's name and a timeline for when this occurred, and haven't been able to find one. (Maybe someone else remembers, or has better google-fu).


I can imagine that without the tragedy, WotC may have been able to pick up the pieces of D&DI...however, it was not this event that caused it to be in pieces in the first place.


Just one more time, to close...it was a terrible tragedy, but I don't think it's fair to blame it for the state of D&DI (especially at launch).
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Is there any rational reason why we should care about that? If Coke starts selling licorice water in their Coke cans, my nostalgia for what Coke used to taste like isn't going to make me keep buying the brand because otherwise there will be "NO COKE SODA".

Yes, there is a rational reason. Let's think of the RPG market as the concert from Sting's Bring on the Night DVD. It's Sting's first major outing after the Police breakup, right after Dream of the Blue Turtles is released. It's him and a bunch of mostly jazz musicians like Kenny Kirkland and Branford Marsalis (years before he raised his public profile and took over for Doc Severinsen on the Tonight Show). While they were reasonably well known in jazz circles, most people know Sting way more than they know any of the rest of the band. If Sting pulls out of the concert, how much exposure does it get? How much mindshare among the public at large will a tour without him but including the others have? How many ticket holders get refunds?

Sting represents D&D. Widely known by people even outside the normal community. He draws attention. He's an easily accessible entry point to the music represented at the concert, on the album, and on tour. There's plenty of quality musicians in the band, but they all have much smaller niche appeal (like the non-D&D RPGs in the market). People who were attracted by Sting will likely enjoy Kirkland's piano playng, Marsalis's saxophone playing, Omar Hakim's drumming (particularly on "I Burn for You"). They may even become fans... but they came for Sting.
 

TheAuldGrump

First Post
Sigh.

Do you not understand that 3.5 wasn't making enough money to sustain the company? Ie. it was a dead edition. Like or loathe it, WotC wouldn't exist at all without 4e.
D&D, not WotC - WotC would continue, just being limited to Magic and the like.

But, yeah, being marginalized was not going to be a good thing for D&D. I may think that they fumbled the ball, but they needed to do something.

Sounds like there was some panic there, as well as all the craziness. :(

The Auld Grump
 

TheAuldGrump

First Post
Yikes, a murder-suicide was at the crux of this? How incredibly horrible and sad.

I appreciate finally knowing the details, may those poor people rest in peace.
Yikes is right - I had not realized that she was involved with the DDI.

That... explains a lot.

May she rest in peace.

The Auld Grump
 

Shemeska

Adventurer
However, I believe the quoted paragraph is a bit misleading (still true, but misleading), and I'd like to point out some facts.


The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched (which was June 6th). The tradgedy occurred on July 28th. That's nearly 2 months after 4e was released.

D&DI was being developed by another company (a software company), they failed to produce it, and the tools were brought back in house. I've looked for the company's name and a timeline for when this occurred, and haven't been able to find one. (Maybe someone else remembers, or has better google-fu).

Radiant Machine was the name of the company. When WotC brought everything back in house, the in-house team was given a 6 month timeline. They restarted on everything, the previous quasi-3d VTT was scrapped along with the 3d character viewer, and only the compendium and offline-character builder were ready for (late) release, missing the launch date originally given.

Only recently did WotC release a VTT that was purchased from another company and adapted to their needs.

The outsourcing problems, and other problems with management in-house didn't seem to have been caused by the murder/suicide (though as a contributing factor it was a horrible one), since that was never mentioned as a major factor by one of the developers of the character builder when I spoke with him later that year. But they'd dropped double digit millions and didn't have anything to show for it close to launch.
 


Aberzanzorax

First Post
So, here's the D&DI timeline I've been able to hammer out (corrections or additions welcome):


August 17, 2007 Announcement of Radiant Machine Entertainment (their existence).

October 10, 2007 Gleemax Alpha

June 6, 2008 RELEASE DATE OF 4e. (along with only Dungeon and Dragon available)

July 28, 2008 The tragedy.<TRAGEDY>
July 28, 2008 The announcement that Gleemax would be shut down.

October 1, 2008 Gleemax shut down.

January 10, 2009 Article on how people can't cancel their D&DI subscriptions.

April 6, 2009 WotC stops selling pdfs (via RPGnow)

November 3, 2010 WotC announces Silverlight Character Builder
November 22, 2010 Virtual tabletop initial, closed beta



Other dates I'd like to add but can't find at the moment:
-The date they added "coming soon" to the D&D insider launch page (it was after June 6th, but not sure when).
-The date each component came out (original character builder, the compedium, etc)
-The date they announced officially that the components would be piecemeal.
-The date WotC pulled the products in house from Radiant Machine.
-The date WotC fixed the problem with recurring subscriptions and made it easier to cancel subs.

Sources:
http://www.wizards.com/company/downloads/Announcing_Radiant_Machine_Entertainment.pdf
Gleemax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hasbro Casts Spell Of Greater Invisibility Over D&D Cancellation Page - The Consumerist
Is D&D Insider's move to Silverlight for Character Builder too little, too late?
Dungeons & Dragons Virtual Table Beta FAQ
 

Kzach

First Post
TSR cared about D&D both because the people did and because it was how they made money.

I think you need to brush up on your corporate history; TSR was a complete mess of individuals vying for personal power in order to take advantage of a hot property. Few, if any, had any passion for the game at all.
 

Kzach

First Post
I wonder where these money ended.

Can someone that has experience with this kind of business present us with a plausible scenario?

WotC: Hi.

Developer: Hi.

WotC: We want X, Y & Z for A dollars to be delivered by B time. Can you do it?

Developer: Of course we can! GIMME GIMME GIMME! Yay! We're rich! Whooo!

WotC: Umm... B time has arrived... err... where's our stuff?

Developer: Erm... we spent all that money you gave us on whores and ale... they're very time-consuming activities!
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top