5E Seems like the End of D&D

[veekie]

One thing to consider is that less profitable lines tie up human, research and management resources, however significant they might be otherwise. Take a look at the electronics industry, Sony's been taking a brutal beating because of holding on to marginal profit lines rather than jettisoning them in favor of developing new experimental lines. If it doesn't get enough margin, you cut it loose. The bigger the company is, the higher these margins must be to give better returns than risking a new intellectual property, because you can afford large and rewarding risks, while holding on adds little to the bottom line.

Of course, they usually splinter off a subsidiary to deal with the 'profitable, but not enough' bit, which then sustains itself with minimal oversight from the parent. Or sell the IP. Hasbro is a bit ornery about such things though.

[caelic]

That being said, I'm surprised Hasbro/WotC doesn't treat D&D like a loss leader.  Maybe they are, but they just aren't willing to commit to that.  A loss leader is something that they sell knowing they will take a hit on, but is designed to get people to buy other products that are more profitable.  Keeping people (like us) obsessed with D&D means they can sell more Planescape:  Torments and minis and novels and what have you. 

It's entirely possible, and even probable, that they do.  Remember: D&D, the tabletop RPG, hasn't been the most profitable facet of D&D, the intellectual property, since at least the mid-90's, and possibly earlier than that.  Yet there's always been an edition of D&D in publication.  If I were to go out on a limb and speculate, I'd say that using D&D as a loss leader is one of the major reasons for that.

@Star Wars
I misspoke, they declined to renew the license.  Though the difference is a little bit academic.  And, they had effectively abandoned the line before then -- I think there was a year where only a single book came out.  If RPG books just aren't profitable, then maybe it wasn't worth it to them.  They weren't really going to benefit from the ancillary market.  Although it seems weird that they'd even bother going through all the effort to acquire a long-term license from Lucasarts if they didn't think it was going to be profitable.  And, like D&D, it had an attached minis game, etc. 

Well, that's just it: they weren't going to benefit from the ancillary market, so the question had to boil down to whether the line was profitable enough to justify the royalties to Lucasarts.  I suspect that it WAS profitable, just not profitable enough.

Which is a damned shame; I think SWSE was one of the best things they put out.

[caelic]

^ I totally buy your conversations with the folks that worked at WotC and Hasbro.  You seemed to be speaking authoritatively on it, so I was wondering where your info was coming from, that's all. 

Heh.  One of the byproducts of a failed go at being a professional game designer; you wind up with a lot of acquaintances in surprising places.  (Heck, I still remember occupying a little booth at Gen Con '91, right next to another little booth occupied by a company called Wizards of the Coast.  Boy, did I ever pick the wrong obscure little gaming company to work for!)

[FlaminCows]

If the "RPG as a loss leader" theory is really the case, then perhaps it is in Hasbro's benefit to have new editions whether they will actually increase sales or not. It gets people's attention, has them thinking about D&D, and even if the fanbase as a whole decides to remain with what they have rather than buy the new edition they would still buy the peripheral products with the new edition driving up the number of peripheral products sold.

On the other hand, it is my policy to not buy claims that start with a variation of "I know a guy," no offence meant. Until some actual data is posted somewhere, it amounts to speculation at best.

[darqueseid]

I wasn't saying my model leads to astronomical profit margins that hasbro might want, but I'm saying it creates a working game system and would provide profits.  Sure it won't be a huge moneymaker, I think the time for it to do so is past at this point, but it still has the potential to make SOME profit.  And more importantly, its could still be a good product that people actually want. 

[Unbeliever]

If the "RPG as a loss leader" theory is really the case, then perhaps it is in Hasbro's benefit to have new editions whether they will actually increase sales or not. It gets people's attention, has them thinking about D&D, and even if the fanbase as a whole decides to remain with what they have rather than buy the new edition they would still buy the peripheral products with the new edition driving up the number of peripheral products sold.
...

I'd be skeptical that would actually work as a loss leader, though.  I am not a good example as I don't consume ancillary D&D products.  So, I could be totally wrong.

But, I expect if people aren't playing/reading the new Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc. books they are a lot less likely to be consuming the novels, games, miniatures, etc. base don them.  This gives some weight to Darqueseid's suggestion, I think.  Multiple settings, even if they aren't all that different -- Birthright isn't all that different from classic fantasy or from Forgotten Realms, it is just awesome -- offer more vectors to deliver novels, computer games, etc.  Although D&D has been pretty quiet on the computer game front. 

All that being said, I will reiterate that I would not expect much business acumen.  Barring super intelligent investment strategies, I would always suggest that the best way to make a business profitable is to make and produce a good product.  Make a better mousetrap.  D&D doesn't have the clout it used to as a brand, so they have to stand or fall sales-wise based on the quality of the product.  And, the materials so far haven't been very encouraging.  I am sure that they would like to make a good product, I don't expect they are deliberately sabotaging it or anything.  It just seems that they don't have the skills or approach necessary to do so.

EDITed to actually say what I meant.

[darqueseid]

All that being said, I will reiterate that I would not expect much business acumen.  Barring super intelligent investment strategies, I would always suggest that the best way to make a business profitable is to make and produce a good product.  Make a better mousetrap.  D&D doesn't have the clout it used to as a brand, so they have to stand or fall sales-wise based on the quality of the product.  And, the materials so far haven't been very encouraging.  I am sure that they would like to make a good product, I don't expect they are deliberately sabotaging it or anything.  It just seems that they have the skills or approach necessary to do so.

It just seems that they don't have the skills or approach necessary to do so.

is that what you meant to say?

if so I agree, the materials they've released so far have been DIScouraging, for me.  and I'm not sure you CAN create a good product with 15000 designers, at some point you have to say its too many chiefs...

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm reminded of the plumbing analogy: The more pipes, the more likely it is to clog up.  It might very well be true of the designers here where too many of them can screw up the game.

[caelic]

On the other hand, it is my policy to not buy claims that start with a variation of "I know a guy," no offence meant. Until some actual data is posted somewhere, it amounts to speculation at best.

Perfectly reasonable.  My experience drives my predictions; only time will demonstrate whether those predictions continue to be borne out.

[Unbeliever]

All that being said, I will reiterate that I would not expect much business acumen.  Barring super intelligent investment strategies, I would always suggest that the best way to make a business profitable is to make and produce a good product.  Make a better mousetrap.  D&D doesn't have the clout it used to as a brand, so they have to stand or fall sales-wise based on the quality of the product.  And, the materials so far haven't been very encouraging.  I am sure that they would like to make a good product, I don't expect they are deliberately sabotaging it or anything.  It just seems that they have the skills or approach necessary to do so.

It just seems that they don't have the skills or approach necessary to do so.

is that what you meant to say?

if so I agree, the materials they've released so far have been DIScouraging, for me.  and I'm not sure you CAN create a good product with 15000 designers, at some point you have to say its too many chiefs...

Ummm ... yeah, oops.  Will edit the above post. 

[veekie]

5E's core design team is basically 5 guys at WotC isn't it?

[Bozwevial]

5E's core design team is basically 5 guys at WotC isn't it?

If they do have a small team, it makes things even sadder. One designer is talking about bounded accuracy while another is talking about level-appropriate attack, damage, and AC values.

[veekie]

A little bit of checking clarifies that its likely about 5 guys working full time designing 5E. Additional assets are there for art/fluff, etc, but the actual team is more or less just Mearls and co.

[Bozwevial]

A little bit of checking clarifies that its likely about 5 guys working full time designing 5E. Additional assets are there for art/fluff, etc, but the actual team is more or less just Mearls and co.

And even then they still don't have an internally consistent design philosophy.

[veekie]

I've seen fantasy heartbreakers with more consistency done as a hobby, out of free time and unpaid.