Community

WotC_Trevor wrote:

While I'm not here to stifle people's thoughts, conversations, or opinions, I did want to jump in and say this isn't going to happen. We are currently dedicated to working on the Campaign Tools, and we're not even thinking about any other tools. Once the Campaign Tools are done and out the door, then we'll turn our eye towards the next project.

I personally would love to see the Game Table out some day - it was definitely a tool that had a lot to offer. But for now, we're not dedicating any resources to it, and at this point we don't know when we'll be able to take it off that back burner.

Thanks for the definite word on that, so I wont hold out any false hope now for the table I would have played 4E for sure for the campaign tools not a chance, maybe for 5th ed. But I do wish you guys all the success in the world.

thaX wrote:

Please.

There had been demo's with this unfinished product before, and I doubt Wizards will completely abandon it when it has so much work already done with it.

This is not some cheap, fly by night software company that buys finished games then throws them away for no good reason. Hasbro has put out some cheap games before (Frogger sequel, board games and such) but never has quit on a project, no matter how unlikely it is to make money.

It will be done eventually. I hope that by the time it is done, it and all the other projects will be cross platform (IE, mac and Linex) compatible and have a version for the console systems to use (PS3 and Live)

There have been many non-cheap fly by night software companies who have had all but the finished product and still not released it. I could name over a dozen MMO's out there from such companies as EA, SOE and others that were developed to the point of alpha and then put on 'indefinite hold' while they worked on other projects. This 'indefinite hold' of one project I was working on is now going on 11 years.

Sometimes development reaches a point where the ROI isn't feasible to them and so they shelve the project. I think that this is the case for the virtual game table. My personal belief is that they finally did a cost analysis of what it would take to put up, run and maintain such a system and figured that the price they'd have to charge for it wouldn't get them enough subscriptions in order to make it a monetarily viable option.

Sometimes development reaches a point where the ROI isn't feasible to them and so they shelve the project. I think that this is the case for the virtual game table. My personal belief is that they finally did a cost analysis of what it would take to put up, run and maintain such a system and figured that the price they'd have to charge for it wouldn't get them enough subscriptions in order to make it a monetarily viable option.

That's a completely valid point. There's nothing wrong with realizing you're in over your head and scaling it back.

The problem here is (and, being someone new to this thread, I did some reading back at the beginning) that the GT was something that was originally advertised, as something that made DDi worth subscribing to. Countless individuals subscribed to the service to get that application, and I can understand the feeling when you've already purchased the car to find out that they decided not to finish the engine.

On the whole, I'm happy with 4e, and I don't care too much about the content that's being provided from DDi (which is why I don't subscribe). But what this and many other things shows is that WotC released 4E well before it was ready. Just because the product is modular in nature doesn't mean they should get a pass for that. Do your cost analysis before you start advertising the GT. If DDi's not ready, don't launch it with the books. And if it's worth enough to charge for it, you should hire enough people to make sure it gets done well (Dear Dragon Magazine: I'm talking editors/playtesters here).

There's a level of professionalism that should come with being the standard-bearer in a particular industry. You don't see Apple scrapping iTunes or Mattel forgetting to put a DVD in the SceneIt box. We shouldn't expect anything less from WotC.

Shemeska the Marauder wrote:

One word: Gleemax.

Gleemax wasn't abandoned. It was dropped, but it had already been running for (months? A year?) before the realization hit that it was taking the resources away from DDi. It was outclassed by the other web sites that have been around for much longer, and the color scheme ended up being an April fool's joke on this very forum.
It wasn't a good product, period. Not that DDi is the high point.

I think that Wizards is gonna eventually release the apps that have been advertised.

thaX wrote:

Gleemax wasn't abandoned. It was dropped, but it had already been running for (months? A year?) before the realization hit that it was taking the resources away from DDi. It was outclassed by the other web sites that have been around for much longer, and the color scheme ended up being an April fool's joke on this very forum.
It wasn't a good product, period. Not that DDi is the high point.

I think that Wizards is gonna eventually release the apps that have been advertised.

I doubt it. The WoTC staff member pretty much confirmed that there is no plans on picking up the Game Table.

I guess I'm going to have to round up a few developers to make something of this nature. Then we will have to raise the money to license the D&D4E rules from WoTC for use in the product. After that We'll have to make it plug in to the Character Generator and add VoIP support. Yeah should take about a year with a decent development team and proper planning. So it should be out before WoTC gets theirs out.

So any software developers out there interested in volunteering some time to create a third party game table with a server and lobby type of environment? and dice rollers?

lokiare wrote:

I doubt it. The WoTC staff member pretty much confirmed that there is no plans on picking up the Game Table.

Huh??

I don't recall anyone from WotC ever saying that.

He's referring to this comment made by Trevor, in which Trevor says they are not going to drop the Campaign Tools to bring out the Game Table. Of course Trevor goes on to say that when the Campaign Tools are finished they will then decide what is to come out next and the statement is only saying they are not going to work on the GameTable until sometime after the Campaign Tools are done.

WotC_Trevor wrote:

lokiare wrote:

The only reason we are being so vocal is that maybe if we get enough people riled up, they will take the game table off the "back burner" (or dead software pile if you work in the programming industry) and begin developing on it again. If they did this then I would definitely subscribe and play D&D4E over any MMO any day

While I'm not here to stifle people's thoughts, conversations, or opinions, I did want to jump in and say this isn't going to happen. We are currently dedicated to working on the Campaign Tools, and we're not even thinking about any other tools. Once the Campaign Tools are done and out the door, then we'll turn our eye towards the next project.

I personally would love to see the Game Table out some day - it was definitely a tool that had a lot to offer. But for now, we're not dedicating any resources to it, and at this point we don't know when we'll be able to take it off that back burner.

seTiny wrote:

He's referring to this comment made by Trevor, in which Trevor says they are not going to drop the Campaign Tools to bring out the Game Table. Of course Trevor goes on to say that when the Campaign Tools are finished they will then decide what is to come out next and the statement is only saying they are not going to work on the GameTable until sometime after the Campaign Tools are done.

The key words are that "they don't know when they are going to be able to work on the Game Table" which means it is not scheduled even tentatively. Which means in software development terms that the project is effectively dead. There is about a 1 in 100 chance of them ever picking up the Game Table project.

lokiare wrote:

The key words are that "they don't know when they are going to be able to work on the Game Table" which means it is not scheduled even tentatively. Which means in software development terms that the project is effectively dead. There is about a 1 in 100 chance of them ever picking up the Game Table project.

Or you could take it at face value - the part where they say they are 100% focused on the Campaign Tools. This explains why there's 0% focus on the Game Table (or visualizer).

Now, I'll go so far as to admit that WotC hasn't said they *will* 100% guaranteed pickup the GameTable, but I also see how "gunshy" WotC is about managing expectations with their digital initiative now.

I wish they'd give us more information, but with every third post

being about how WotC is full of liars and theives, I can't say I'd behave any differently in their shoes.

*Okay, more like every 4th post, it's called exaggeration for emphasis, and yes its a bad habit. Sue me for my imperfections

WolfStar76 wrote:

Or you could take it at face value - the part where they say they are 100% focused on the Campaign Tools. This explains why there's 0% focus on the Game Table (or visualizer).

Now, I'll go so far as to admit that WotC hasn't said they *will* 100% guaranteed pickup the GameTable, but I also see how "gunshy" WotC is about managing expectations with their digital initiative now.

I wish they'd give us more information, but with every third post

being about how WotC is full of liars and theives, I can't say I'd behave any differently in their shoes.

*Okay, more like every 4th post, it's called exaggeration for emphasis, and yes its a bad habit. Sue me for my imperfections

I know the ins and outs of the software development industry. If they say they are not working on it and they don't have a schedule then the project is dead. This means they will not return to it. One of the reasons may be the lawsuit (cease and desist order) that the FGII makers put against WoTC for using their dice images in the mock up demo that they touted as a "beta". If that is the case it would do them a world of good to just admit to it, rather than keep saying "its on the backburner".

lokiare wrote:

I know the ins and outs of the software development industry. If they say they are not working on it and they don't have a schedule then the project is dead. This means they will not return to it. One of the reasons may be the lawsuit (cease and desist order) that the FGII makers put against WoTC for using their dice images in the mock up demo that they touted as a "beta". If that is the case it would do them a world of good to just admit to it, rather than keep saying "its on the backburner".

Duke Nukem forever?

:D

I still don't feel betrayed though, I think I am getting a good deal for the money

lokiare wrote:

the lawsuit (cease and desist order) that the FGII makers put against WoTC for using their dice images

A lawsuit is not the same as a Cease and Desist order, and the cease and desist has *long* been complied with and is no longer an issue.

mudbunny wrote:

A lawsuit is not the same as a Cease and Desist order, and the cease and desist has *long* been complied with and is no longer an issue.

Really? I'll have to do some searching around on news sites to see how it went. Do you have a link to an article about how it is over with?

lokiare wrote:

I know the ins and outs of the software development industry.

WotC isn't your typical software developer, however. (One could even argue that their slow progress to date is proof of this.

So, while you may know the ins and outs of the software development industry - how well do you know the ins and outs of WotC/Hasbro?

While the situation (software development) is the same - the industry, or at least the focus of the industry in this case, is not the same. To measure them both with the same stick strikes me as a bit of an oversimplification.

That doesn't mean you'll ultimately be wrong (or that I'm automatically right) - but it doesn't mesh with what WotC has been telling us. Given the sheer amount of flak WotC has received at this point, one might even argue that it would be better for them to announced it's a dead project - just to give people "closure".

If they then chose to ressurect it later, they might even earn more goodwill than the closure gives them ill.

Since WotC hasn't simply stated "it's a dead project, not gonna happen" and since they keep saying they're focused 100% on what before them, and that they'll re-evaluate what's next, I have little choice but to believe them.

Admittedly, it's possible that the re-evaluation may become "Sorry, not worth it" - but the "feel" I get when I can get a candid moment with WotC people (at conventions and the like) doesn't make it seem likely.

Of course, that's a non-verifiable, non-measuable result - so feel free to disregard it (I probably would), but it's where I'm coming from all the same.

This means they will not return to it. One of the reasons may be the lawsuit (cease and desist order) that the FGII makers put against WoTC for using their dice images in the mock up demo that they touted as a "beta". If that is the case it would do them a world of good to just admit to it, rather than keep saying "its on the backburner".

lokiare wrote:

Really? I'll have to do some searching around on news sites to see how it went. Do you have a link to an article about how it is over with?

Mudbunny has a much better collection of links than I do, but here's the short version:

• WotC made mock-up images for what they wanted the game table to look/feel like that were meant for internal use only.
  
• To speed the process of making their mock-up they borrowed (without permission) a picture of the dice as promoted on the FGII website and incorporated it into an image in place of where their own "dice tray" would sit.
  
• When releasing images of the Game Table to the website - someone made a REALLY BIG oops, and posted that "For Internal Use Only" image.
  
• Smiteworks (or actaully, one of their forum users) took note of this and posted in their forums, alerting the FG team to the infringement
  
• WotC became aware of it around the same time as I recall news quickly spread to THESE forums as well.
  
• In short order a "Cease and Desist" about using the FGII image of dice was served
  
• WotC complied - corrected the image to one without infringing works (IE with their own modeled dice)
  
• WotC posted (I think it was Solice? I remember Wot_DM commented on the matter as well. . . ) about what had happened.
  

At that point the C&D had served its purpose, and it never proceeded further. There were no legal proceedings beyond that point.

[EDIT]
The way of the Google is strong with me today.

The original thread has been moved to the archives, which means the formatting for things like quotes has been lost, but I found the thread all the same: http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index … 43881.html

WotC_DM commented, as did The Rouse (WotC_ScottR).

This thread doesn't directly comment on the C&D, and I'm out of time for the morning. I'll have to see if there is/was a direct comment about that. For various legal reasons there may not have been.

Hasbro, though, has had some experience with software development and releases. Not good experience, but it is something that Wizards should have learned from, and perhaps even gotten some "what not to do" pointers.

Anyone still play Frogger 3deep?

thaX wrote:

Hasbro, though, has had some experience with software development and releases. Not good experience, but it is something that Wizards should have learned from, and perhaps even gotten some "what not to do" pointers.

Anyone still play Frogger 3deep?

Perhaps, but Hasbro, I highly doubt, has daily dealings/control over WotC - especially in the programming field.

Just because Hasbro owns WotC doesn't mean they're in there stirring the pot, or even interfacing directly with the software team. They most likely set budgets and MAYBE approve projects and direction at best.

It would make sense to dip into that experience, though, and use the resources that they have, however limited they may be. Perhaps that what they did, I don't know.

thaX wrote:

It would make sense to dip into that experience, though, and use the resources that they have, however limited they may be. Perhaps that what they did, I don't know.

Ah, you're requesting that WotC reach up the chain to Hasbro for help?

Perhaps that is an option. However, as Hasbro and WotC are on different coasts, it probably isn't that simple. (If I'm not mistaken, Hasbro is HQed in Rhode Island, as opposed to WotC being in Washington State).

thaX wrote:

It would make sense to dip into that experience, though, and use the resources that they have, however limited they may be. Perhaps that what they did, I don't know.

Ah, you're suggesting that WotC may have/should have reached up the chain to Hasbro for help?

Perhaps that is an option. However, as Hasbro and WotC are on different coasts, it probably isn't that simple. (If I'm not mistaken, Hasbro is HQed in Rhode Island, as opposed to WotC being in Washington State).

WolfStar76 wrote:

Perhaps, but Hasbro, I highly doubt, has daily dealings/control over WotC - especially in the programming field.

Just because Hasbro owns WotC doesn't mean they're in there stirring the pot, or even interfacing directly with the software team. They most likely set budgets and MAYBE approve projects and direction at best.

Err since 3.5 Hasbro has had a heavy hand over WotC, at least according to former employee about selling product. The one story related was concerning unit sales despite the counter explanation that the FR logo allowed an extra one dollar profit per unit. Another related was because Hasbro lost money or at least did not meet profit projects, all units were required to do an equaul reduction in force (The units that made money and units that lost money all had to cut payroll costs by the same percent).

Sch reports of course might not include all the facts, however I have seen some hints that such is true. I have not seen any hints that profitable units were not interfered with by the owners.

Kentinal wrote:

Err since 3.5 Hasbro ha had a heavy hand over WotC, at least according to former employee about selling product. The one story related was concerning unit sales despite the counter explanation that the FR logo allowed an extra one dollar profit per unit. Another related was because Hasbro lost money or at least did not meet profit projects, all units were required to do an equaul reduction in force (The units that made money and units that lost money all had to cut payroll costs by the same percent).

Sch reports of course might not include all the facts, however I have seen some hints that such is true. I have not seen any hints that profitable units were not interfered with by the owners.

Sure - but again those are all about number management. As Hasbro controls/sets WotC's budget nothing about sales expectations, nor about prices (and therefore margins) being closely watched by Hasbro would surprise me.

I'd be surprised, however, to learn that Hasbro has someone closely watching how lines of code are coming together on the software tools. IE - I doubt they sent any of their software people to assist WotC's team.

Again - this is all personal speculation. I could be WAY off the mark.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Sure - but again those are all about number management. As Hasbro controls/sets WotC's budget nothing about sales expectations, nor about prices (and therefore margins) being closely watched by Hasbro would surprise me.

I'd be surprised, however, to learn that Hasbro has someone closely watching how lines of code are coming together on the software tools. IE - I doubt they sent any of their software people to assist WotC's team.

Again - this is all personal speculation. I could be WAY off the mark.

Every company is about the numbers. No I do agree that Hasbro is not mentoring the code, however just the cost of writing it is clearly possible. The price increase at an odd time, clearly might be an indication that Hasbro is saying sell more or spend less. The Unit appears under stress, prior profits not a consideration. Current policy appears to be reduce costs and increase sales. There does not appear to be any focus on profit right now, though it clearly should be short or long term goal.

Many companies look to short term goal, the heck with what the future holds. Hasbro from all indications I have seen fits into this mode.

Problem is, the more you charge, the less customers you will get.

It is like taxes. The more taxes the government is gonna levy will end up with less income by those that pay it, and will result in less revenue than what was collected before.

The Parallel here is uncanny.

thaX wrote:

Problem is, the more you charge, the less customers you will get.

It is like taxes. The more taxes the government is gonna levy will end up with less income by those that pay it, and will result in less revenue than what was collected before.

The Parallel here is uncanny.

Hmm like taxes, I think not (at least how the US does it). That example tends not to apply. Taxes are asking other people to pay for services you want, while not willing to pay for the services you do want. Oh it could be expanded into complaints about other people using services that you do not want to pay for.

WotC is a company that needs to sell a product for value in order to live. Raising a price for a product is almost required as the product develops and the product is developing. There is more available now then the web content pricing, it also cost money to complete, it costs more money to maintain.

If the WotC product offers increased value, people will pay for the increased value. Of course each user will decide if what is offered now is worth the price. I know, and you should as well, that what was DDI at first fee is less then what DDI is now. It might be worth the price increase.

For me, the original set of tools that was supposed to come out might be worth the "Introductory Pricing" that was being charged. That most of those apps are still not up and running makes for a hard sell. The service should have topped out at 7 bucks a month, for VIP service. Now, it is as much as a WOW account, and isn't a persistent service with continual online entertainment. It is a basic Online Zine service with some electronic aids for the game. I still maintain that a stand alone Character Generator (called "Builder" in DDi) would be better than the client offered there.

Charging more for a service that was already getting more than it should will have a drop in the customer base. It is gonna be aleivated a bit since the Yearly subs will still run out before they leave, but the loss of customers is gonna happen. The price change may make up for that loss, that much is true, but it is a balancing act to know how much is to much vs. just up to the part where it makes the same or a little more. I think it was overshot.

I think the parallel fits.

thaX wrote:

For me, the original set of tools that was supposed to come out might be worth the "Introductory Pricing" that was being charged. That most of those apps are still not up and running makes for a hard sell. The service should have topped out at 7 bucks a month, for VIP service. Now, it is as much as a WOW account, and isn't a persistent service with continual online entertainment. It is a basic Online Zine service with some electronic aids for the game. I still maintain that a stand alone Character Generator (called "Builder" in DDi) would be better than the client offered there.

Charging more for a service that was already getting more than it should will have a drop in the customer base. It is gonna be aleivated a bit since the Yearly subs will still run out before they leave, but the loss of customers is gonna happen. The price change may make up for that loss, that much is true, but it is a balancing act to know how much is to much vs. just up to the part where it makes the same or a little more. I think it was overshot.

I think the parallel fits.

I agree. When they start comparing the current price of $8.00 per month to MMO games. they will see that an online service that you can have interactive playing 24/7 is going to win out for the same price. Since most online magazines go for about $4-$6 dollars a month it is not a bad price. On the other hand these magazines have much less content than is offered in other online magazines. So to me its really not worth it.

I have found the character generator useful, but a little difficult to use. This means that someone who is nearly a software professional has a "little trouble" using it, then you can bet people that are unfamiliar with using software will not be able to use it effectively.

The other tools are almost worthless. The compendium lets you look things up as individual entries, but unless you know what your looking for you won't be able to effectively use it. Most of the time I can flip to the right page in the book before I can find it in the compendium.

The monster creation tool is only useful if you have the Dungeon Masters Guide in front of you so you can look up the different monster types, modifiers, and restrictions otherwise it is just like using notepad.

The encounter builder is a little better its only useful function is to tell you what difficulty an encounter is and how much XP each creature gives. It is difficult to use because there are several monsters that have multiple entries, some entries are incorrect, and others are confusing.

The ability generator is a waste of time. There is really only a few optimized ability score sets that apply to any given class. These can easily be gotten off the ability page of the players handbook.

Dragon magazine has some interesting articles about the background and history or storyline of different things, but as far as game stats and information is concerned there is little that interests me or my players. Most of the powers do the same thing as other powers in the core books with a different description. It also seems that they haven't learned their lessons from 3.5e and they think they must create powers that do more or are more powerful than the previous ones. This just leads to an unbalanced game where players constantly change characters to get "upgraded" powers. This is offset a little because characters can retrain once per level, but not by much.

Dungeon magazine is great the adventures are imaginative. They are complete and include maps and suggested ways of changing levels. They even have some that are for specific game worlds. There are some articles on how to handle situations, and even articles about just a single encounter. The problem is that 66% of the time they don't have a level appropriate adventure that I can use, which means I have to look elsewhere except about every third or forth issue.

For me it is just not worth it when I can do most of the stuff they do and do it better with just a pencil and paper.

I tend to agree that DDI is a big failure. I was even hesitant to sign up after reading tons of horror stories about how difficult it was to cancel.

In the end, I signed up for a year based on one event: for security reasons, my credit card company asked me to change the card number I have held for 15 years. My last purchase with the old card was a 1 year subscription. If wotc wants to make it difficult for me to unsubscribe, I can make it just as difficult for them to make me resubscribe against my will.

The good: character builder is fabulous. If you're the kind of person who often makes characters just as thought-experiments, it's just plain fabulous. It may have the occasional bug, but it is a huge timesaver.

The mediocre: Dungeon and Dragon Magazines. Dungeon could use a little more meat and less columns, but is overall ok. Dragon, on the other hand... If you remove from Dragon all excerpts or previews of stuff that is or will be sold separately, you are left with a block of material that is staggeringly smaller than the material from the print magazine. As of this writing, there are 13 items listed on 'this month in dragon' for issue 375. In order, they are meat, column, preview, preview, preview, preview, meat, meat, meat, column, column, column, column. I have nothing against the idea of previewing items that will appear in say, the phb3. But I resent those bits, which I can buy or not in the phb3, taking the place of gaming material which, during the reign of the print mag, you could only get in the print mag. It makes the useful information in Dragon that much smaller.

The bad: switching which tools get worked on next. I don't care what the biased poll said... what kind of a decision is it to say "we're going to take a tool that we have worked on for years and are XX% complete on (not to mention sunk lots of money into advertising), and shelve it. Instead, we'll start from scratch on somethng new". In my opinion, a much better thing to do would have been to say "we just did a poll that told us you want 'this'. So, as soon as we're done with what we said would come out last year, we'll start working on it. Go community! Your words have determined our next project (after the one we already started)."

Wotc expects to charge for DDI what an MMO costs. An mmo provides gaming content 24/7, to people who can team up and game together from across the country. To compete, wotc needs to provide the same. A campaign builder will not do this. The online gaming table would.

Kavannah wrote:

I tend to agree that DDI is a big failure. I was even hesitant to sign up after reading tons of horror stories about how difficult it was to cancel.

In the end, I signed up for a year based on one event: for security reasons, my credit card company asked me to change the card number I have held for 15 years. My last purchase with the old card was a 1 year subscription. If wotc wants to make it difficult for me to unsubscribe, I can make it just as difficult for them to make me resubscribe against my will.

The good: character builder is fabulous. If you're the kind of person who often makes characters just as thought-experiments, it's just plain fabulous. It may have the occasional bug, but it is a huge timesaver.

The mediocre: Dungeon and Dragon Magazines. Dungeon could use a little more meat and less columns, but is overall ok. Dragon, on the other hand... If you remove from Dragon all excerpts or previews of stuff that is or will be sold separately, you are left with a block of material that is staggeringly smaller than the material from the print magazine. As of this writing, there are 13 items listed on 'this month in dragon' for issue 375. In order, they are meat, column, preview, preview, preview, preview, meat, meat, meat, column, column, column, column. I have nothing against the idea of previewing items that will appear in say, the phb3. But I resent those bits, which I can buy or not in the phb3, taking the place of gaming material which, during the reign of the print mag, you could only get in the print mag. It makes the useful information in Dragon that much smaller.

The bad: switching which tools get worked on next. I don't care what the biased poll said... what kind of a decision is it to say "we're going to take a tool that we have worked on for years and are XX% complete on (not to mention sunk lots of money into advertising), and shelve it. Instead, we'll start from scratch on somethng new". In my opinion, a much better thing to do would have been to say "we just did a poll that told us you want 'this'. So, as soon as we're done with what we said would come out last year, we'll start working on it. Go community! Your words have determined our next project (after the one we already started)."

Wotc expects to charge for DDI what an MMO costs. An mmo provides gaming content 24/7, to people who can team up and game together from across the country. To compete, wotc needs to provide the same. A campaign builder will not do this. The online gaming table would.

Well said!

I don't think the Gaming Table would even be 24/7 content. The players and DM would have to be at the PC at a certain time, and all have DDi subs or guest accounts set up. (Does wizards do this?)

Fact is, the service is simply not the same as an MMO, and doesn't deserve to be paid the same price or higher than an MMO.

WolfStar76 wrote:

WotC isn't your typical software developer, however. (One could even argue that their slow progress to date is proof of this.

So, while you may know the ins and outs of the software development industry - how well do you know the ins and outs of WotC/Hasbro?

While the situation (software development) is the same - the industry, or at least the focus of the industry in this case, is not the same. To measure them both with the same stick strikes me as a bit of an oversimplification.

That doesn't mean you'll ultimately be wrong (or that I'm automatically right) - but it doesn't mesh with what WotC has been telling us. Given the sheer amount of flak WotC has received at this point, one might even argue that it would be better for them to announced it's a dead project - just to give people "closure".

If they then chose to ressurect it later, they might even earn more goodwill than the closure gives them ill.

Since WotC hasn't simply stated "it's a dead project, not gonna happen" and since they keep saying they're focused 100% on what before them, and that they'll re-evaluate what's next, I have little choice but to believe them.

Admittedly, it's possible that the re-evaluation may become "Sorry, not worth it" - but the "feel" I get when I can get a candid moment with WotC people (at conventions and the like) doesn't make it seem likely.

Of course, that's a non-verifiable, non-measuable result - so feel free to disregard it (I probably would), but it's where I'm coming from all the same.

Which sounds like a whole lot of parsing to avoid having to say that the game table announced in 2007 and advertised with the first core books is vaporware.
There may be another product that does the same thing some time in the future, or there may not be, but that particular project is simply not being considered at all at this point. And no matter how much you parse about industry differences, it is more likely that by the time they get around to being able to do it, differences in technology will mean having to start completely from scratch to incorporate all the new graphics that will be available, not to mention accounting for the rules and other product expansions that have become available.

Samwise wrote:

Which sounds like a whole lot of parsing to avoid having to say that the game table announced in 2007 and advertised with the first core books is vaporware.
There may be another product that does the same thing some time in the future, or there may not be, but that particular project is simply not being considered at all at this point. And no matter how much you parse about industry differences, it is more likely that by the time they get around to being able to do it, differences in technology will mean having to start completely from scratch to incorporate all the new graphics that will be available, not to mention accounting for the rules and other product expansions that have become available.

Exactly

Ovarwa wrote:

Maybe WotC will have its act together for D&D5.

D&Di subscriptions begin tomorrow, which makes this the right time to bow out for a few years.

Bye!


Anyway,

Ken

See you in 2011, when 5th edition comes out.

Kavannah wrote:

See you in 2011, when 5th edition comes out.

more like 2020, or later.

thaX wrote:

more like 2020, or later.

I think when the profits start dropping, and 5th edition tanks because its not integrated online coming out the door that they will just drop D&D.

Of course I also see the fans putting together enough capital to buy the game and make it public and make a new impenetrable OGL that doesn't allow anyone to own the actual D&D rules, only print nice books. The updates would be added from year to year by a panel of Dungeon Masters voted in by the public.

Of course that is all just in my brain, too bad it couldn't happen in real life...(oh and this post will probably be deleted by the ORCs so read it while you can).

Speaking hypothetically, for fans to purchase D&D would require a staggering amount of capital.

D&D, as a piece of IP, has an incredible amount of name recognition and would be incredibly valuable to Hasbro.

mudbunny wrote:

Speaking hypothetically, for fans to purchase D&D would require a staggering amount of capital.

D&D, as a piece of IP, has an incredible amount of name recognition and would be incredibly valuable to Hasbro.

I agree completely, but if it came to it I really believe that the roleplaying community at large would be able to come up with the cash to do it. Imagine how many people bought 4th edition books when they came out. Now imagine if each of those people came up with $1000.00 and put it in a community fund to buy out WotC's ownership of the D&D IP. It might take a few years but I have no doubt that if WotC keeps messing up it will happen.

Then it will be a matter of who prints the nicest books or PDF files rather than who "owns" the IP since it will all be public property anyway. Expansions will be created and marketed by individuals and companies rather than one single entity. Game companies could create games with the D&D logo as long as they adhere to the new OGL.

Overall I think that the game would evolve into the masterpiece it should be instead of the *cough* MMO clone *cough* that it appears to be.

thaX wrote:

more like 2020, or later.

Yeah, I agree, it'll probably be 2020 at the earliest.

mudbunny wrote:

D&D, as a piece of IP, has an incredible amount of name recognition and would be incredibly valuable to Hasbro.

Not sure if I can publically say the amount, but the 'purchase price' of all of WotC is currently making the rounds as Hasbro is shopping around for buyers. I'll just say that the "D&D" brand name is actually not all that valuable anymore, though some related brands are a little more prized.

It's more than the 'gaming community' is going to spend, to be sure, even if they all pitched in. Honestly, even at the price they're asking, I really don't think there are any buyers willing to put the money in... it's more cost effective to hit the internet with a new game, particularly an MMO or even a facebook app these days.

lokiare wrote:

I agree completely, but if it came to it I really believe that the roleplaying community at large would be able to come up with the cash to do it. Imagine how many people bought 4th edition books when they came out. Now imagine if each of those people came up with $1000.00 and put it in a community fund to buy out WotC's ownership of the D&D IP. It might take a few years but I have no doubt that if WotC keeps messing up it will happen.

Believing the "roleplaying community at large" could gather the cash is one thing.
Believing Hasbro, notorious for not letting the least bit of IP escape its grasp, is quite another.

Overall I think that the game would evolve into the masterpiece it should be instead of the *cough* MMO clone *cough* that it appears to be.

Well, seeing as how you believe it is possible Hasbro would give up the D&D IP, I suppose it is not that great a leap to believing this. Indeed, I am not even sure where to begin choking over the sheer . . . *something* . . . of this - I cannot even think of a word to describe it.
While I think many of the decisions made with 4E are utterly incorrect (to say the least), to truly believe that the great mass of any RPG system's fandom could collectively elevate the game system to a transcendent state of perfection is beyond anything I could even vaguely convince myself to believe.
Despite the few quality few quality designers out there, their efforts would be completely drowned out by the large quantities of material released by those who despite being decent, even exceptionable, adventure and setting book authors are completely incompetent to the task of actual rules design and development, and both would be utterly swamped by the tidal wave of absolute garbage that the "roleplaying community at large" would convert to pdfs or vanity publish, turning the D&D name into a trademark for nothing more than worthless and near-worthless fanfic.

davethebrave371 wrote:

Yeah, I agree, it'll probably be 2020 at the earliest.

Despite of course the five year cycle demonstrated by 3.5, and the interrupted five year cycle demonstrated by 3E.
And despite Hasbro being due to get the electronic rights back before the end of a five year cycle for 4E as it is, allowing them to significantly better incorporate an electronic product with the next edition of the game.

Samwise wrote:

Despite of course the five year cycle demonstrated by 3.5, and the interrupted five year cycle demonstrated by 3E.
And despite Hasbro being due to get the electronic rights back before the end of a five year cycle for 4E as it is, allowing them to significantly better incorporate an electronic product with the next edition of the game.

Yes. Despite that.

I think that either a) the backlash will have taught them a lesson or (more likely) b) they won't have enough cash to do the stupid move by 2019, much less 2013.

davethebrave371 wrote:

Yes. Despite that.

I think that either a) the backlash will have taught them a lesson or (more likely) b) they won't have enough cash to do the stupid move by 2019, much less 2013.

You don't get how their decisions are made. They don't put out a new edition when they have a lot of money. They put out a new edition when sales and cash flow are down, in order to stimulate them. Based on the blogs we got from designers who were put to work on 3.5, and from designers who were put to work on 4e, the process is something akin to "this years' books sold more poorly than last years' books. Since it will take 2 years from the word 'go', to crank out a new edition, start now. We'll announce it in a year, publish in two."

So.... 2011-2012 is a good guess for the announcement.

Kavannah wrote:

You don't get how their decisions are made. They don't put out a new edition when they have a lot of money. They put out a new edition when sales and cash flow are down, in order to stimulate them. Based on the blogs we got from designers who were put to work on 3.5, and from designers who were put to work on 4e, the process is something akin to "this years' books sold more poorly than last years' books. Since it will take 2 years from the word 'go', to crank out a new edition, start now. We'll announce it in a year, publish in two."

So.... 2011-2012 is a good guess for the announcement.

Correct me (with data) if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the 2008 fiscal year was more profitable than the 2007 fiscal year.

That said, I think you're forgetting that they need to have the ad money and startup money for a new line (R&D, playtesting, launch money set aside, printing costs, etc) in a new budget, and that's what I was referring to. Regardless of a stupid decision made in the next couple years, I just don't see corporate OKing that large of an amount, again, in such a short span of time. I stand by my statement that I simply can't see 5e coming out before 2020, realistically, 2025, hopefully, or 2016, pessimistically.

thaX wrote:

more like 2020, or later.

I'm hedging bets that 5th edition (or at least 4.5E) will be announced at GenCon of 2010.

TFVanguard wrote:

I'm hedging bets that 5th edition (or at least 4.5E) will be announced at GenCon of 2010.

I'll take you up on that bet. I bet it won't be announced at GenCon 2010 or 2011. How much you wanna bet? :D

davethebrave371 wrote:

Yes. Despite that.

I think that either a) the backlash will have taught them a lesson or (more likely) b) they won't have enough cash to do the stupid move by 2019, much less 2013.

a) You mean despite the backlash against 3E not teaching them a lesson with 3.5, the backlash with 4E will teach them a lesson not to improve the game to make 5E?

b) Ummm . . . huh?
If they have the cash, it proves that making changes does not cause a backlash, so why would they not do it?
If they do not have the cash it means the game has failed disastrously, so why would they not change it?

Correct me (with data) if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the 2008 fiscal year was more profitable than the 2007 fiscal year.

Correct an impression with data?
That is not really possible.
Nor, given the limited public statements they make about general profitability is it possible at all.

That said, I think you're forgetting that they need to have the ad money and startup money for a new line (R&D, playtesting, launch money set aside, printing costs, etc) in a new budget, and that's what I was referring to. Regardless of a stupid decision made in the next couple years, I just don't see corporate OKing that large of an amount, again, in such a short span of time. I stand by my statement that I simply can't see 5e coming out before 2020, realistically, 2025, hopefully, or 2016, pessimistically.

They approved it in 1998 (or so); they approved it in 2001; they approved it in 2004. Again, what in the past has created the impression they would have neither the money nor the will?
You are also overlooking how a considerable portion of those costs are amortized in general costs of producing expansion materials for the current edition. They are already paying an R&D staff, printing costs, and promotion of regular releases. The biggest cost would be playtesting, but that is far from prohibitive.

People did not believe 4E was coming last year, despite the statements about it originally being planned for 2005 before being morphed into 3.5 in 2003. They did not believe it despite the very obvious changes in the products being sold. They did not believe it despite the constant stream of subtle turns of phrase by WotC employees when asked about a new edition.
The key is not conflating a personal preference for a particular product with the general practices of a large corporation.

TFVanguard wrote:

I'm hedging bets that 5th edition (or at least 4.5E) will be announced at GenCon of 2010.

Yeah if this wasnt just "flamebait" posting on your part, I would be in on that bet. I dont mind taking peoples money.

davethebrave371 wrote:

I'll take you up on that bet. I bet it won't be announced at GenCon 2010 or 2011. How much you wanna bet? :D

It's probably a little unfair of me to agree to this bet... but, you're betting no new edition announcement by GenCon 2011? Okay, how much are you willing to lose?

TFVanguard wrote:

I'm hedging bets that 5th edition (or at least 4.5E) will be announced at GenCon of 2010.

While I would never underestimate the ability of a large corporation to fail to learn from a blatant object lesson, I would not expect WotC to try a 4.5E.
And perhaps not 5E, but "something else" reflecting the reversion of the digital rights.

Samwise wrote:

While I would never underestimate the ability of a large corporation to fail to learn from a blatant object lesson, I would not expect WotC to try a 4.5E.
And perhaps not 5E, but "something else" reflecting the reversion of the digital rights.

I think I need to talk to Hasbro again this week before I say something that gets me in trouble. :P

WotC learned from the backlash of the 3.0 to 3.5 leap that a 4.5 would be a VERY bad idea. They have stated that they have no intention of doing a 4.5.

I think the highly modular ruleset they went with does a good job of avoiding a 4.5 as well.

Does that mean it ABSOLUTELY won't happen? No, WotC for better or worse, is flexible. But 4.0 would have to be proven to be VERY broken before they'd take that step.

They also said that they hope 4E will have a 10-year lifespan, as they see 10 years is sort of the natural progression for versions (if you count 3.x as a whole, instead of subdividing it into the two versions they meet that timeline well -whether that's a fair measuring stick or not is a matter that's subject to MUCH debate. I can see it as both fair AND unfair).

So, IDEALLY WotC would like 4E to last until 2017 - which would mean announcing a new version MAYBE at GenCon 2015 (to get the press machine rolling).

Again - that's all ideal situations, and so far it sounds like 4E is doing well enough to hit those projections.

TFVanguard wrote:

It's probably a little unfair of me to agree to this bet... but, you're betting no new edition announcement by GenCon 2011? Okay, how much are you willing to lose?

hahahaha, well, even given your insider information, I think things can change (and am hopeful they will, if there's already plans). I'll put my optimism up for...let's say 50 bucks? I'll PayPal it if I lose, you have my word.

WolfStar76 wrote:

WotC learned from the backlash of the 3.0 to 3.5 leap that a 4.5 would be a VERY bad idea. They have stated that they have no intention of doing a 4.5.

They've stated a LOT of things, such as getting the VTT table out by December 2008 ... etc... what they state and what they'll do are often completely different things. In point of order, we know unequivocally that WotC is quite ready to lie to customers to keep the aboard, after all.

But 4.0 would have to be proven to be VERY broken before they'd take that step.

The new edition will not come because 4E is 'broken'. New editions have never come out for that reason. They come out because it's time for the company to sell new core books, which are the only big sellers, period. 4E could be a golden gem of gaming goodness as it is, but they'll ditch it the MOMENT they realize they've hit market saturation and need to get that sales spike again. And, guess what, they're already getting near that point, by their own admission.

New editions are a stunt for sales. They always have been, the Orange Books, 2nd edition, the Black Books, 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, 4th Edition, and the upcoming one are all sales stunts. It's never been about getting a better game - except as a side-effect, if we're lucky.

TFVanguard wrote:

The new edition will not come because 4E is 'broken'. New editions have never come out for that reason. They come out because it's time for the company to sell new core books, which are the only big sellers, period. 4E could be a golden gem of gaming goodness as it is, but they'll ditch it the MOMENT they realize they've hit market saturation and need to get that sales spike again. And, guess what, they're already getting near that point, by their own admission.

I can show written proof of the statement that they decided to begin work on 4E when they realized they were "designing around the problems in 3.5" (From one of the two Pre-4E books, I'd have to find my copies to list the exact book and page number). Can you backup your claim?

You claim their own admission shows that sales are flagging - where I've seen the exact opposite - including the last couple major book releases appearing in in the top 100 of assorted National Bestseller books. That's quite an accomplishment for rules supplements to a niche market game that's (allegedly) already hit market saturation.

I'd love to see your source for this version of "their own admission".

Well I can't say anything about the the trastion from 3.5 to 4th. But I have it from a VERY GOOD source the the financal people at Hasbro forced WOTC to put out 3.5 only a few years after 3rd edtion to sell more books.

WolfStar76 wrote:

I can show written proof of the statement that they decided to begin work on 4E when they realized they were "designing around the problems in 3.5" (From one of the two Pre-4E books, I'd have to find my copies to list the exact book and page number).

OF COURSE they're going to say that in the marketing books. You honestly expect them to come out and say "We need more books to get a cash influx" as their chief reason? Here's a clue, cochise, both 3.5 and 4 came out because Hasbro threatened WotC with closure if they didn't make progress to profitably. Something which, by the way, they've failed to do, even with 4E.

The sales of the core rules of the game have flagged, meaning that the market is already hitting its saturation and well below the numbers for the 3.0 run during it's duration. This is from WotC's own posts in these forums on the subject. Yes, the statements aren't as blatant, but one that was was that they celebrated retaining 60 percent of their consumer base...

And, the top 100 books? They're not the top 100 of all books, just selected categories you'll notice. Watch that spin, there, bud, you're getting dizzy from it.

*Kick*

Ok, off the soap box.

5th edition is a long way away, and 4.5 isn't gonna happen if the Adventurers Vault is any indication. It had some fixed with the Transfer enchantment Ritual and other small things that made some of the strict Parcel System structure to be a bit easier to work with for the characters, though they still will end up poor.

Lets review history a bit, and look at what has happened to TSR. It had the 1st edition "Basic Edition" where the class and race was basically the same thing, and the default elf was hot. Then came the more "Advanced" rules that is more like the game we know now, with classes and races separated out, and higher level play. Second edition introduced a basic upgrade, and wasn't much of a change. It introduced "Alternative" rules for Non Weapon Proficiencies, had a new way to calculate hitting the enemy (THAC0) and cleaned up some of the more abused rules that ruined the game for many. (The exclusion of the Assassin being one of those)

TSR, though, began to do the same thing as other RPG makers, flooding the market with a whole slew of books with no real focus, and began to hemorrhage money like the current Obama economy. Wizards, having made a slew of cash with Magic the Gathering, bought the rights for D&D, and revamped the brand with 3rd edition. It was a wholesale change, adding feats as powers that any could get, multi classing that was free form (A mistake) and skills that fleshed out the character (Basically the Non Weapon Proficiencies along with the Rogue skills) It also simplified some of the rules, threw out the complicated AC scale (10 to -10) along with the THAC0 mechanic and turned some of the old arcane classes into Specialized Schools for the Wizard.

Now we have 4th edition. Multiclassing is more balanced (and level dependent, damn it) PrC's turned into PP's and ED's, and the classes work on the same structure instead of having separate mechanics for each class or set of classes (Read, Wizard and Psionics).

Now, the time period for all this started in the 1970's.

5th edition is a long way away.

IIRC WOTC did not buy the rights to DnD. With the huge money maker M:TG was in the 90s WOTC managed to just outright buy TSR.

According to the Fear the Boot interview with Ryan Dancey, WotC originally went to TSR as they wanted to distribute TSR products. However, when they got there, TSR made the offer to sell the company to WotC.

mudbunny wrote:

According to the Fear the Boot interview with Ryan Dancey, WotC originally went to TSR as they wanted to distribute TSR products. However, when they got there, TSR made the offer to sell the company to WotC.

That is actually pretty cool. Might be the reason the original Open Gaming License came to be.

Buy the rights or simply buy the company, doesn't matter to me. Wizards got the rights to use that brand either way.

TFVanguard wrote:

Not sure if I can publically say the amount, but the 'purchase price' of all of WotC is currently making the rounds as Hasbro is shopping around for buyers. I'll just say that the "D&D" brand name is actually not all that valuable anymore, though some related brands are a little more prized.

It's more than the 'gaming community' is going to spend, to be sure, even if they all pitched in. Honestly, even at the price they're asking, I really don't think there are any buyers willing to put the money in... it's more cost effective to hit the internet with a new game, particularly an MMO or even a facebook app these days.

This an interesting sidebar.

Hasbro clearly can have a wish price on how much WotC should be sold for, a wish however is much like belief.

Oh I am indeed sure the gaming community could purchase WotC as an entire group. If they all could agree to work together, even if WotC did not make a profit last reporting period they had gaming sales that before precosts would likely be enough to purchase the Unit (Oh this does depend on percentage of gross sales is actually profit after taxes and of course expected rate of return on investment).
Of course the gaming community would likely inclide MtCG, D&D, SAGA Star Wars, perhaps even some remaining Pokiman (Or whatever that was) fans. The group clearly can come up with the money, though at a few costs. Instead of buying cards, the PHB or whatever for a year or to, spending their money to get WotC to provide what they want first.

Hasbro of course could put WotC stock back on the market, just those conditions do not appear to be good for target price desired. One listen Hasbro needs to learn is if no one will not buy it now, it has no value short term. They can wait for market to get better, however to do so they will need to keep the Brand name alive, even if there is the need for a few cost leaders. A long term view clearly did not work well for TSR, or policy of giving the gamers what they want. The basic reason there "Was troubles with the printers" was TSR did not have the cash flow to pay them timely, if at all.

As to an ask price, I will add I just saw a brand name be offered for license for about 500,000.00 USD per year, setting the believed IP was worth about 12,500,000.00 (plus or minus depending on expected rate of return and costs of protecting the IP), however some are not buying it. The value has dropped greatly or the license fee will go up very high to maintain value.

TFVanguard wrote:

OF COURSE they're going to say that in the marketing books. You honestly expect them to come out and say "We need more books to get a cash influx" as their chief reason? Here's a clue, cochise, both 3.5 and 4 came out because Hasbro threatened WotC with closure if they didn't make progress to profitably. Something which, by the way, they've failed to do, even with 4E.

The sales of the core rules of the game have flagged, meaning that the market is already hitting its saturation and well below the numbers for the 3.0 run during it's duration. This is from WotC's own posts in these forums on the subject. Yes, the statements aren't as blatant, but one that was was that they celebrated retaining 60 percent of their consumer base...

And, the top 100 books? They're not the top 100 of all books, just selected categories you'll notice. Watch that spin, there, bud, you're getting dizzy from it.

It's sure easy to hand-wave away comments that offer proof while offering none to back up your own statements.

My turn.

You can say whatever you want if you don't provide facts to back it all up. so OF COURSE you're going to claim that it's all going into the toilet.

See how much fun hyperbole and baseless claims are?

I'll be more than happy to discuss any claims you can actually back up - but unverifiable claims of insider information help nobody. If I claimed to have insider information that says you're wrong, but I can't prove it - are we on equal footing, or will that be summarily dismissed (and rightly so).

You say WotC has posted here in the forums that the market is saturated and sales are below expectations. I say prove it. I've been wrong before, I may well be wrong now - all I ask is that you show me I'm wrong.

I offer evidence of my claims - you can hand-wave it away if you like, but you're offering nothing substantial in return. Which makes me wonder which of us is spinning?

Note - the Monster Manual 2 debuted at #14 on the Wall Street Journal bestseller list. The "Selected Category" was nonfiction - if that's some micro-category that falls into a spin zone, then we'll never agree on anything. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … QD98FD9400

I'll also submit that organized play numbers - both for unique members AND for overall play numbers are UP - not down. While that may not DIRECTLY correlate to book sales, I submit that it's shows circumstantially that people are playing a lot more 4E - and with that book sales are a natural follow-up.

WotC_Tulach wrote:

I am counting unique active players, not occurrences of play. We have more active players now than we have ever had in the RPGA's history.

Admittedly, this is not direct evidence of increased book sales, but I maintain it's a strong circumstantial link.

mudbunny wrote:

According to the Fear the Boot interview with Ryan Dancey, WotC originally went to TSR as they wanted to distribute TSR products. However, when they got there, TSR made the offer to sell the company to WotC.

It would have to be a vid, no sound here makes it a bit hard for me to listen to.

Loading Ryan's blog now, or not poker has only some things to do with gaming.

What I have read, some in Usenet, some in other places, TSR was insolvent, unable to pay bills. Oh indeed they had IP worth something, however a contract with Ed Greenwood does not pay the utility bill.

WolfStar76 wrote:

It's sure easy to hand-wave away comments that offer proof while offering none to back up your own statements.

My turn.

You can say whatever you want if you don't provide facts to back it all up. so OF COURSE you're going to claim that it's all going into the toilet.

See how much fun hyperbole and baseless claims are?

I'll be more than happy to discuss any claims you can actually back up - but unverifiable claims of insider information help nobody. If I claimed to have insider information that says you're wrong, but I can't prove it - are we on equal footing, or will that be summarily dismissed (and rightly so).

I offer evidence - you cna hand-wave it away if you like, but you're offering nothing substantial in return.

Hmm, Sean K. Reynolds (SKR) has spoken a little bit about Hasbro and their guidance of WotC. If you require it from me, I will search out links. I will note that his first forum is trashed, corrupted somehow and so far has not been repaired, he could have modified his website deleting older files and even his blog might not still retain post about forum crash (or comments about Hasbro) as he worked 3.0, was terminated before 3.5 was released (though he did indicate he provided some feed back concerning changes to Bard and likely other classes - I suspect it was friend to friend as opposed to outside consultant).

A few things he related or implied, with parody, was that WotC was ordered to reduce force even though the WotC made profit because Hasbro required all Units to share equally in loses and cost recovery, that Hasbro resisted the idea of selling Forgotten Realms books, because unit sales would not reach a certain number (despite the fact the the FR logo increased retail price by 1.00 at no further cost then a little ink that might have been used for something else as well).

I do not know how much Hasbro was involved in deciding when to release a new edition, I do not know that all SKR has posted is true and accurate, it however was an impression that he had about Hasbro interfering with WotC goal to success.

I like all the people on here who seem to think money is the only reason there will be a 5th edition. "When they stop selling enough books they'll just make another edition."

Has anyone ever thought there might be a natural progression to these things? Some guy playing around with something who says "This would be cool to implement." Then figuring out that there's just no way to make it work in the present version. So it gets shelved and talked about over lunch. Then another guy comes up with a different idea. Shelved for the same reason. Then, when there's enough of these guys, they start meeting after work, just a few at first. Then more. Eventually they present it to management and sometimes the managers say 'Yes' and sometimes they say 'No', or at least 'Not yet'. But it continues to get worked on and talked about until eventually there's enough reason to make the new version.

There's an Indian guy I work with who's totally convinced that 9/11 was set up by the US government. Won't see it any other way. He's seen how corrupt the politicians are back in his home province and believes all politicians are like that. My simple argument back is that, considering how incompetent the government is at so many of the things it does, is it really feasible that they managed to pull off something like that and keep it completely quiet? Hundreds of people would have had to have been involved. They all kept quiet, agreeing to kill 3000 civilians and no-one's had a change of heart? He's a cool guy otherwise, but I really feel like I'm banging my head against the wall with that.

Now given that, (I haven't changed the subject, I promise) do you really think Hasbro has this master plan where they're just waiting for the right time to spring 5th ed on people? So many people always see conspiracy theories and cold-hearted masterminds behind all these things, when those of us who've worked for large corporations for some time realize that a lot of this stuff happens just by either the corporation bumbling along or by a small group inside the corp that gets stuff done.

The amount of material being churned out is enough to keep the people at WotC busy, I imagine, especially after the December layoffs. Are the people who think 5.0 is right around the corner thinking that there's some secret Skunkworks that Hasbro/WotC has set up who are busy thinking up new rules for 5e? Because there'd have to be some new stuff for people to switch. Unless you think they think we're all idiots who buy new editions just because it has a higher number on it? And if you think that, why didn't they do that for 4e? Easier than coming up with a new system.

I believe they've got their hands busy with new stuff for 4e. When they start running out of new stuff to add, (sometime after PHB5, I'd think), then I guess they'll start working on the next great thing. I'm not looking for a new version before 2015 or so. Evolution takes time.

Kentinal wrote:

Hmm, Sean K. Reynolds (SKR) has spoken a little bit about Hasbro and their guidance of WotC. If you require it from me, I will search out links. I will note that his first forum is trashed, corrupted somehow and so far has not been repaired, he could have modified his website deleting older files and even his blog might not still retain post about forum crash (or comments about Hasbro) as he worked 3.0, was terminated before 3.5 was released (though he did indicate he provided some feed back concerning changes to Bard and likely other classes - I suspect it was friend to friend as opposed to outside consultant).

A few things he related or implied, with parody, was that WotC was ordered to reduce force even though the WotC made profit because Hasbro required all Units to share equally in loses and cost recovery, that Hasbro resisted the idea of selling Forgotten Realms books, because unit sales would not reach a certain number (despite the fact the the FR logo increased retail price by 1.00 at no further cost then a little ink that might have been used for something else as well).

I do not know how much Hasbro was involved in deciding when to release a new edition, I do not know that all SKR has posted is true and accurate, it however was an impression that he had about Hasbro interfering with WotC goal to success.

If you HAVE links - I actually wouldn't mind reading some of that, though it doesn't demonstrate the current claims of market saturation and poor sales that I'm particualarly calling shenanigans on.

I should also clarify that I'm not completely blind to the fact that there has to be SOME financial motivation when new versions come out. However, I think the motivation is a BLENDED motivation.

As almuric mentions - evolution takes time. There are still lots of good ideas being explored in 4E - and the system is still evolving as the MM2 demonstrates quite well.

There *will* come a time, I've little doubt, that the 4E idea well will start to run dry - that problems with the gameplay (be it from power creep, or simple "boy, if only we'd done it this way from the start" moments) will become as much a detriment to the game as anything else. There will also come a time when market saturation DOES happen - even if each Monster Manual, for example, is an improvement on the last - there comes a point where there are simply more monsters than you can ever even BEGIN to use.

When that happens - WotC/Hasbro will undoubtedly look to see if its economically viable to create a new edition. If sales between now and then have flagged to the (unlikely) point that "nobody" will buy 5E - it won't be worth the development costs to produce - no matter how many great ideas the R&D team have on sticky notes in assorted binders.

Likewise, however, if sales go completely stagnant, and there are NO new mechanics to be had, no new ideas on how to improve gameplay - no edition can be born there either.

There will, I'm sure, be a time for 5E, it's fairly short-sighted to think otherwise. But to claim that what are currently seen as very STRONG sales, STRONG play numbers, and other positive inticators (DDI subscriptions climbing steadily - including a doubling of the subscriber base from launch to February of this year) and saying that there will be a new edition "just because" is equally foolhardy.

One does not snap their fingers and produce a new version out of thin air. There are development costs that go hand in hand with a new version.

If I believed (and I don't) sales were flagging so poorly that Hasbro wanted to ditch 4E I'd be FAR more likely to accept that Hasbro is just going to shut down the entire D&D line for the time being at this point.

WolfStar76 wrote:

If you HAVE links - I actually wouldn't mind reading some of that, though it doesn't demonstrate the current claims of market saturation and poor sales that I'm particualarly calling shenanigans on.

So far one http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/g … story.html and true it does not mean is current policy.

Searching for a non existent forum gets a little hard, though I might find a copy in google.

Kentinal wrote:

So far one http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/g … story.html and true it does not mean is current policy.

Searching for a non existent forum gets a little hard, though I might find a copy in google.

thank ya.

Samwise wrote:

Believing the "roleplaying community at large" could gather the cash is one thing.
Believing Hasbro, notorious for not letting the least bit of IP escape its grasp, is quite another.



Well, seeing as how you believe it is possible Hasbro would give up the D&D IP, I suppose it is not that great a leap to believing this. Indeed, I am not even sure where to begin choking over the sheer . . . *something* . . . of this - I cannot even think of a word to describe it.
While I think many of the decisions made with 4E are utterly incorrect (to say the least), to truly believe that the great mass of any RPG system's fandom could collectively elevate the game system to a transcendent state of perfection is beyond anything I could even vaguely convince myself to believe.
Despite the few quality few quality designers out there, their efforts would be completely drowned out by the large quantities of material released by those who despite being decent, even exceptionable, adventure and setting book authors are completely incompetent to the task of actual rules design and development, and both would be utterly swamped by the tidal wave of absolute garbage that the "roleplaying community at large" would convert to pdfs or vanity publish, turning the D&D name into a trademark for nothing more than worthless and near-worthless fanfic.

I don't think that the entire group of RPG fans could elevate it to some perfect system. I do on the other hand believe that a select few could be voted in by said community that would be able to do it. Having a separate "council" if you will that decides on rule changes.

Then just like now the license would not allow the core mechanics of the D&D game to be changed or altered. Independent publishers could work within the system or tack rules on for their particular game products. This would work very well. If a supplement was seen to be too unbalanced. Players and DMs wouldn't buy it.

Ovarwa wrote:

Hi,

I have enjoyed the D&D4 product roll-out, checking out the new system, metaphorically kicking the tires, playing with the new digital enhancements.

On the whole, I have found the package severely wanting. The quality and treatment of D&Di deserves special notice here, being the decisive consideration in my choice to look away from D&D for my next round of gaming.

Maybe WotC will have its act together for D&D5.

D&Di subscriptions begin tomorrow, which makes this the right time to bow out for a few years.

Bye!


Anyway,

Ken

The real question is: Why even contemplate coming back for D&D5 ?

klausgreen wrote:

The real question is: Why even contemplate coming back for D&D5 ?

Because WOTC will SWEAR the the 5th edtion DnD computer tools will be ready on time and they will be great and not delayed like etools/ master tools or the 4th edtion tools.


Not like they have made promises like that before.

KM wrote:

Because WOTC will SWEAR the the 5th edtion DnD computer tools will be ready on time and they will be great and not delayed like etools/ master tools or the 4th edtion tools.


Not like they have made promises like that before.

Well hopefully they will finish the tools before they even release 5E. I mean if they create the tools first while they are designing the game, then since it should take 10+ years from the release of 4E, then 5E and the tools should be ready at about the same time. Of course that is with a competent programmers/software designer on the team, if they don't have that they are just screwed.

From what I understand, this is what happened witht he 4ed tools. This is just speculation from what I read online.

1. WOTC hires a young company to develop the 4th ed tools. They work on them and have basic demos/ mock ups ready for showing at cons, ect..

2. WOTC heavily promotes the tools, say they will be ready at 4th ed launch.

3. The company WOTC hired goes under, taking whatever code was done with them.

4. WOTC now has to start from square one. They don't want to hire another company and left with nothing again.

5. So they work on it themselves, getting out the character maker.

But one of the issues I see is the majority of people working on the DDi tools don't have much software programing experence. Plus IMO WOTC/ Hasbro does not want to hire the right people, so stuff gets delayed or dropped.

KM wrote:

From what I understand, this is what happened witht he 4ed tools. This is just speculation from what I read online.

1. WOTC hires a young company to develop the 4th ed tools. They work on them and have basic demos/ mock ups ready for showing at cons, ect..

2. WOTC heavily promotes the tools, say they will be ready at 4th ed launch.

3. The company WOTC hired goes under, taking whatever code was done with them.

4. WOTC now has to start from square one. They don't want to hire another company and left with nothing again.

5. So they work on it themselves, getting out the character maker.

But one of the issues I see is the majority of people working on the DDi tools don't have much software programing experence. Plus IMO WOTC/ Hasbro does not want to hire the right people, so stuff gets delayed or dropped.

Any and all code is either leased by or owned by Wizards, not the company that was hired to produce the product. If this isn't the case, then it was a poorly executed contract.

thaX wrote:

Any and all code is either leased by or owned by Wizards, not the company that was hired to produce the product. If this isn't the case, then it was a poorly executed contract.

While that is probably the case, there are some weird scenarios where if WotC pulled funding, the ownership of the code reverts to the development company. Of course this would be a rare case.

lokiare wrote:

While that is probably the case, there are some weird scenarios where if WotC pulled funding, the ownership of the code reverts to the development company. Of course this would be a rare case.

Or it was poorly written/commented code and wasn't worth the effort recover or build upon.

The company I work for has a story (before I got there) of a guy they contracted to write code, then he either quit or got fired. They brought someone else on to recover and fix his code. About 1500 (+/- 500) lines of code without one comment or descriptive variable name. Ended up scrapping it and starting over.

Not saying or confirming this is what happened with D&Di, as there is no hard proof (that I know of) one way or the other. But it does make sense, since they were showing off the tools to bloggers/news sites in the beginning of April, then by the end suddenly saying nothing would be ready in time.

Edit: Given the state in which Gleemax was in when it "launched", I would venture that the D&Di code might have been pretty bad.


Since I try to post some (hopefully) useful information:
The name of the software company was Radiant Machine Entertainment

WolfStar76 wrote:

WotC learned from the backlash of the 3.0 to 3.5 leap that a 4.5 would be a VERY bad idea. They have stated that they have no intention of doing a 4.5.

I think the highly modular ruleset they went with does a good job of avoiding a 4.5 as well.

What is a "highly modular ruleset" supposed to be?
Do you mean something like Magic: The Gathering, where old sets are cycled out as new sets are released? When 4E-PHB4 is released, 4E-PHB1 is retired? I hated to break it to you, but such a modular system by definition increases the number of editions the game will go through, as is evident with M:tG.

Does that mean it ABSOLUTELY won't happen? No, WotC for better or worse, is flexible. But 4.0 would have to be proven to be VERY broken before they'd take that step.

Ah yes, the canard that 3.5 was broken, "VERY" or otherwise.
WotC has made a considerable effort to convince people of that, but every time they turn around they just prove it was more an issue of their staff attempting to force an edition change on the rules that caused the problems rather than any inherent flaw in the rules themselves.

They also said that they hope 4E will have a 10-year lifespan, as they see 10 years is sort of the natural progression for versions (if you count 3.x as a whole, instead of subdividing it into the two versions they meet that timeline well -whether that's a fair measuring stick or not is a matter that's subject to MUCH debate. I can see it as both fair AND unfair).

When did they say that?
And that directly contradicts the direct evidence and statements about 3E and 3.5 from Monte Cook.

lokiare wrote:

I don't think that the entire group of RPG fans could elevate it to some perfect system. I do on the other hand believe that a select few could be voted in by said community that would be able to do it. Having a separate "council" if you will that decides on rule changes.

You think RPG fans are capable of rationally voting for such a council, as opposed to indulging in hero worship, fanatical devotion to a clique, or just plain weirdness?
That is even more unlikely.
You do not get a game by having a popular vote for the designers.

Samwise wrote:

What is a "highly modular ruleset" supposed to be?
Do you mean something like Magic: The Gathering, where old sets are cycled out as new sets are released? When 4E-PHB4 is released, 4E-PHB1 is retired? I hated to break it to you, but such a modular system by definition increases the number of editions the game will go through, as is evident with M:tG.

You must have missed the memo about D&D becoming a collectible rulebook game. You'll buy your books in closed boxes, and hope you get the one you want.

After you've had a couple years to collect all the rulebooks and use them for a given set, those books are retired and reprinted in new sets.

Oh, wait, that's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL. How silly of me to confuse the two.

Ah yes, the canard that 3.5 was broken, "VERY" or otherwise.
WotC has made a considerable effort to convince people of that, but every time they turn around they just prove it was more an issue of their staff attempting to force an edition change on the rules that caused the problems rather than any inherent flaw in the rules themselves.

I did not say anything about 3.x being broken. I saying that for 4E to force and edition change now/next year would have to come from THIS version being very broken.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, however.

When did they say that?

GenCon 2007 after the 4E announcement during the Q&A if I'm not mistaken.

And that directly contradicts the direct evidence and statements about 3E and 3.5 from Monte Cook.

Well, since we're not talking about 3.x I'm not sure how that's relevant.

WolfStar76 wrote:

You must have missed the memo about D&D becoming a collectible rulebook game. You'll buy your books in closed boxes, and hope you get the one you want.

After you've had a couple years to collect all the rulebooks and use them for a given set, those books are retired and reprinted in new sets.

Oh, wait, that's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL. How silly of me to confuse the two.

It should be a completely different business model.
It is not being treated as such by Hasbro or WotC, and has not been for some time.
That is what the whole concept of "releasing a new edition when sales on the current edition start to sag" is all about. You sell the product until its sales peak, then you bring it out in a "new and improved" manner. Other signs are visible as well. Look at how monsters are presented in the monster manual, with multiple variants distinguished by (functionally) unique tags. That is just like Magic cards, or even certain miniatures games, where updated sculpts get new names and new powers, making players need to purchase them to stay up on the power curve.
The problem with that of course, which shows that the people promoting it are as silly as you, is that RPGs do not sell long term on the same model as CCGs or miniature games.

Just because the rules are not in collectible packs (although they are, look at the miniatures), does not change the modular nature you referred to. Perhaps you should make a greater effort to investigate just what that business model entails.

I did not say anything about 3.x being broken. I saying that for 4E to force and edition change now/next year would have to come from THIS version being very broken.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, however.

I put nothing there. You brought up the concept of 3.5 being "broken", and you brought up referring to the preview books where that assertion is first put forward by WotC.

GenCon 2007 after the 4E announcement during the Q&A if I'm not mistaken.

So wait, you have no link to it? You seem to request those from others regularly.

Well, since we're not talking about 3.x I'm not sure how that's relevant.

No, but we are talking about WotC's business model, making it directly relevant.

Samwise wrote:

I put nothing there. You brought up the concept of 3.5 being "broken", and you brought up referring to the preview books where that assertion is first put forward by WotC.

Let's see:

Does that mean it ABSOLUTELY won't happen? No, WotC for better or worse, is flexible. But 4.0 would have to be proven to be VERY broken before they'd take that step.

Where does that say 3.x was broken, exactly? Better still - where have I ever made that claim?

No, you don't put ANY words in my mouth.

So wait, you have no link to it? You seem to request those from others regularly.

Alas, I don't - but then again, this was said in a room full of a few thousand people. It isn't some "insider knowledge" that comes from a source only I know about and won't divulge.

Did they film the 4E announcement? Maybe it's on Youtube, I'll look around.

No, but we are talking about WotC's business model, making it directly relevant.

Only if we assume nothing ever changes at WotC and that the company is the same as it was in the last decade. You're talking about how they approached the last version. I'm talking about THIS version.

As soon as someone offers up these quotes that are allegedly floating about this very forum referring to poor sales and market saturation, I'll read them and take them for fact.

Until then I'll go by what I *AM* hearing out of WotC - that sales are up, play is up, and things are sailing along well.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Where does that say 3.x was broken, exactly? Better still - where have I ever made that claim?

No, you don't put ANY words in my mouth.

Again, I do not have to.
Read what I wrote in context.
It is a canard that a system needs to be broken before a new edition is released for it.
At least that must be true if we are to accept your suggestion that nobody at WotC thought 3.x was broken but they came out with 4E anyway.

Did they film the 4E announcement? Maybe it's on Youtube, I'll look around.

When you find it then.

Only if we assume nothing ever changes at WotC and that the company is the same as it was in the last decade. You're talking about how they approached the last version. I'm talking about THIS version.

As soon as someone offers up these quotes that are allegedly floating about this very forum referring to poor sales and market saturation, I'll read them and take them for fact.

Until then I'll go by what I *AM* hearing out of WotC - that sales are up, play is up, and things are sailing along well.

So your hearsay is better than everyone else's, and better than everyone else's observations and commentary on WotC's past performance?

If you want to exclude hearsay and opinion you are going to have to put up significantly more than just your own as "proof" otherwise.

I have had to remove a couple of posts from this thread. I am going to ask nicely that both sides of this conversation take a moment to calm down, reread one another's posts, and keep away from personal attacks.

Thanks.

Samwise wrote:

WolfStar76 wrote:

Until then I'll go by what I *AM* hearing out of WotC - that sales are up, play is up, and things are sailing along well.

So your hearsay is better than everyone else's, and better than everyone else's observations and commentary on WotC's past performance?

If you want to exclude hearsay and opinion you are going to have to put up significantly more than just your own as "proof" otherwise.

Didn't have to look far, this was posted today in reference to the PHB2 sales and availability.

WotC_ScottR wrote:

We certainly were caught off guard by the sales. We are on a third printing (arrived last week). We sold through 4 months of planned inventory the first day of release. :embarrass

Also some distributors were also caught off guard (like Esdevium UK) so since you are in the UK this is certainly the issue as Charles pointed out:

Emphasis mine.

seTiny wrote:

Didn't have to look far, this was posted today in reference to the PHB2 sales and availability.



Emphasis mine.

Except . . .

1. He does not tell us how many units that expected inventory was.
2. He does not tell us how many units the second and third prints were.
3. He does not tell us how many units the first, second, and third prints of the 3E and 3.5 PHB were, or how fast they sold.

Without those figures for comparison, the statement, while looking great, is utterly without context, and really does not say just how well the game is doing. Indeed, more critically:

4. He does not tell us how many units Hasbro expects a product to sell in the same period and at what margin to be considered successful.

Now before anyone start to frenzy and say I am being grossly unfair, I will make it clear that he (Scott Rouse) has made it clear in the past that they will not reveal those specific numbers, that such is standard business practice, and that I do not expect him to reveal them. I do not thing he is being deceptive, deliberately or incidentally. I believe he is simply declaring his satisfaction to the extent he is able to within the limits of discussing business.
That does not change that I will treat any declaration of good sales without such direct supporting figures as having the limited value they do.

Also, to clarify, what I am challenging is:
1. That one person's hearsay is better than anyone else's.
2. That the current sales are the sole, primary, or even just a critical, determinant of long term policy planning.

They sold out of the entire print run. That doesn't impress?

I could understand if you were thinking that only 10 books was in that run, but I have a feeling it was quite a bit more than that.

thaX wrote:

They sold out of the entire print run. That doesn't impress?

Well . . .
Firing up IE and surfing over to Acaeum, I see that the AD&D PHB went through 17 printings. Looking at the listings:
"True" 1st 6/78
1st 6/78?
2nd 9/78
3rd 1/79
4th 5/79
5th 10/79
6th 1/80
7th - 10th print date unchanged
11th 8/87
12th 11/87
14th 10/88
15th 7/89
17th 7/90

Meanwhile the DMG wound up with 6 printings from August to December of 79 (with problems with several of them).

So I have to say that no, I am not impressed, particularly without print run numbers.

I could understand if you were thinking that only 10 books was in that run, but I have a feeling it was quite a bit more than that.

No, I was thinking the print run was 100,000 or thereabouts.
Under 50,000 would underwhelm me, while over 500,000 would impress me.
Again for comparison, Acaeum notes claims that the 1st print run of the AD&D MM was 50,000, while the first print run of the DMG was 40,000.

At the risk of starting up the whole "It's been cancelled"/"No it hasn't" argument over again, I recommend that people listen to the latest episode of The Tome Show. A bunch of RPG bloggers got a chance to ask Chris Perkins and James Wyatt questions about 4E and the past year.

Near the end (around the 45 minute mark), they (Chris and James) are asked about DDI. One of them (I think it was Chris) says quite explicitly that "The Game Table has not been cancelled." He then goes on to say (and I am paraphrasing from here on out) that they have a number of prototypes and demos floating around the office, but they are not in a state where they are ready to put out. They are not going to release something simply to release it. They are working on tools (and them mention the Campaign Tools) that they can get out with the data that they currently have in-house (rules for monster building, map building, etc).

Again, that is The Tome Show, Episode 106

Samwise wrote:

3. He does not tell us how many units the first, second, and third prints of the 3E and 3.5 PHB were, or how fast they sold.

The quote was for the PHB2 a supplement, not the core rulebook. The Monster Manual 2 which was only released a few weeks ago has sold out as well. So has Arcane Power. All three recently released supplements.

WotC_ScottR wrote:

Yes, we have taken this into account. Arcane Power and MM2 sold out as well but we saw it coming after PHB2 were on top of those reprints sooner.

No we won't get hard numbers. But the print run for the Core Rule books was 39 truckloads, which was calculated to be a minimum of 250,000 (max being over 300,000) of each of the three books. I would estimate the supplements to be around 150,000 (Core Rule books tend to sell more often than supplements) Again this is estimation and could be completely wrong, I don't doubt that possibility.

Samwise wrote:

Also, to clarify, what I am challenging is:
1. That one person's hearsay is better than anyone else's.

Wolfstars comment wasn't that his hearsay is "better" than any other, its that no one brings forth the evidence to support claims (and in this case including him) and until someone does provide that he's going to continue to believe what he is readying.

Quotes can and have been brought forth to support one side of the "hearsay" In fact the claim that was being supported was simply:

Wolfstar]As soon as someone offers up these quotes that are allegedly floating about this very forum referring to poor sales and market saturation, I'll read them and take them for fact.

Until then I'll go by what I *AM* hearing out of WotC - that sales are up, play is up, and things are sailing along well.

So quotes were provided to show WotC is saying that sales are good, which is in contrast to those saying that WotC is claiming "poor sales and market saturation" of 4e. Which no quotes have been pr wrote: