While i am not entirely sure how i feel about D&D next but i wonder if cutting the support will be a good idea, i mean the whole reason why there moving to a new edition so quickly is not because 4th is no longer profitable it is because of pathfinder, out competiting them. And while pathfinder is an interesting game it is essentially just a slight clean up of 3.5, it is the same game remastered in way to speak. What i am saying is that the problem which caused the release of a new edition was the fact that they just dropped the old edition and moved onto something new, so it will be amusing to see whether this happens again.
What i am saying is that the problem which caused the release of a new edition was the fact that they just dropped the old edition and moved onto something new, so it will be amusing to see whether this happens again.
I'm not sure I understand. Almost every RPG company uses a model that begins with a core book, adds supplements until profit drops, then releases a new edition. Every major RPG company with a large following has done this, pretty much always. This isn't seen as a mistake - it is seen as the only way to survive.
I recommend reading up on the industry, because it is fascinating and helps frame the constraints of our hobby. One of the best sources is the book by Shannon Appelcline, Designers & Dragons, chronicling the history of the industry through a detailed analysis of the individual companies. A shorter and free version can be found through his articles on RPGnet. You may find the one on Wizards of the Coast particularly interesting.
While some companies don't create editions, they tend to be games that are self contained (one or two books) or have a limited following (few buyers means no real reason to reprint). Major games see editions because companies have to (shocking!) make money to keep creating great material.
I would also mention, and this circles back to the first quote above, that games don't have infinite expansion capacity. There are obvious subjects (undead, the planes, psionics) which any RPG in the genre will cover. At some point the obvious ones and even the not-so-obvious ones are largely covered. At that point any publisher has to consider what to do. Do they continue to push into non-obvious subjects and hope they have an audience? Or are they done? Have they explored all the ground worth exploring and need to turn back and create a new game? The answer, in large part, will depend on the current revenue and profit, which is itself an indication of appeal. Take a look at Chris Perkins' column where he polled DMs on what books they like. Most DMs didn't own any recent books even when those books were awesome (such as Monster Vault: Threats of Nentir Vale). I don't know another way to read the obvious conclusion: time for a new edition.
To avoid that, you need an entirely new RPG model. There has, to date, not been a successful other model for a large RPG company with many customers.
What i am saying is that the problem which caused the release of a new edition was the fact that they just dropped the old edition and moved onto something new, so it will be amusing to see whether this happens again.
I'm not sure I understand. Almost every RPG company uses a model that begins with a core book, adds supplements until profit drops, then releases a new edition. Every major RPG company with a large following has done this, pretty much always. This isn't seen as a mistake - it is seen as the only way to survive.
I recommend reading up on the industry, because it is fascinating and helps frame the constraints of our hobby. One of the best sources is the book by Shannon Appelcline, Designers & Dragons, chronicling the history of the industry through a detailed analysis of the individual companies. A shorter and free version can be found through his articles on RPGnet. You may find the one on Wizards of the Coast particularly interesting.
While some companies don't create editions, they tend to be games that are self contained (one or two books) or have a limited following (few buyers means no real reason to reprint). Major games see editions because companies have to (shocking!) make money to keep creating great material.
I would also mention, and this circles back to the first quote above, that games don't have infinite expansion capacity. There are obvious subjects (undead, the planes, psionics) which any RPG in the genre will cover. At some point the obvious ones and even the not-so-obvious ones are largely covered. At that point any publisher has to consider what to do. Do they continue to push into non-obvious subjects and hope they have an audience? Or are they done? Have they explored all the ground worth exploring and need to turn back and create a new game? The answer, in large part, will depend on the current revenue and profit, which is itself an indication of appeal. Take a look at Chris Perkins' column where he polled DMs on what books they like. Most DMs didn't own any recent books even when those books were awesome (such as Monster Vault: Threats of Nentir Vale). I don't know another way to read the obvious conclusion: time for a new edition.
To avoid that, you need an entirely new RPG model. There has, to date, not been a successful other model for a large RPG company with many customers.
I fully understand what you are saying, but what i mean is that 4e seems to of been made to cater for a different type of rpg player, i.e liking 3,5 by no means you like 4e and visa versa, but liking 3.5 nearly defiently would set you up as a fan for pathfinder. I mean they just dropped 3.5 and pazio picked up and look what happened, i am saying that if they had instead continued to support this probably wouldnt of happened. Seriously how do you drop a game and people take an already made game, change a minimal amount of things, re release it and out perform the new game you just released??? I mean i am not saying they were not following the usual industry model, what i am saying is that it was wrong of them to do, and if they had been a loss on 4e do you think they would of been continuing it for so long. I am not saying i know how long 4e will have continued to be profitable but i would say that i feel the player base would of continued to increase if they hadnt announced a new edition. Also 5e is to get their old fans back, would it have been a better buisness decision not to lose them in the first place???
I mean they just dropped 3.5 and pazio picked up and look what happened, i am saying that if they had instead continued to support this probably wouldnt of happened. Seriously how do you drop a game and people take an already made game, change a minimal amount of things, re release it and out perform the new game you just released???
Paizo went on to do well, but there were a lot of factors that led to that... and it wasn't a sure thing. They had deep pockets (see the history of Lisa Stevens), they had fantastic talent that truly new the game (Mona, Bulhman, etc.), and they had an OGL that allowed them to keep a 'closed' edition going. But for all of that, none of the other d20 companies have done well (or particularly well, depending on your view). Paizo did what very few RPG companies have done in the history of RPGs, and they did it with a system a different company wrote.
The same was not likely to be true of Wizards, interestingly. Look at the late 3.5 releases: Book of Nine Swords, for all its acclaim, was not a book many people owned. And it was far better than the other late offerings. Complete Adventurer? Complete Mage and Complete Arcane? Where could 3E go from there? 3E to 3.5 was not an easy transition, so doing a3.75 wasn't an easy task to do. Only an outside company (Paizo) could easily get away with that.
4E is in the same situation. All the obvious content is there. The edition is tremendously well supported. We have thousands of monsters, thousands of feats, thousands of items, tons of adventures, several great campaign settings... what is left to create? (Ok, Greyhawk... but it isn't like any deep fan can't create that content or use everything we already have).
I mean i am not saying they were not following the usual industry model, what i am saying is that it was wrong of them to do
Wrong of them to follow the only profitable model there is? I'm sorry, I don't understand that. While some people have RPGs as their hobbies, the businesses do need to make money. This isn't charity. And, again, it isn't like they are leaving you high and dry. You have tons of product.
Let me pause and ask you a question. Do you own all of the 4E content? Most of it?
If you do own most of it, you are in the vast minority of 4E gamers. Most 4E gamers own very little: maybe 3-4 books, but perhaps even lower than that. So, why should wizards create more content for 4E? Who will buy it?
, and if they had been a loss on 4e do you think they would of been continuing it for so long. I am not saying i know how long 4e will have continued to be profitable but i would say that i feel the player base would of continued to increase if they hadnt announced a new edition. Also 5e is to get their old fans back, would it have been a better buisness decision not to lose them in the first place???
You are assuming it is profitable now. It may not be. None of us know. We do know that their intial model (Divine Power 1, Divine Power 2, etc.) was changed. They then changed again to Essentials, discussing it as a set of Evergreen products. That they abandoned that so soon has to be a very clear indication that the approach wasn't working. They aren't a charity. They have no reason to operate at a loss. (To be clear, the typical RPG model is as follows: borrow money, print core books, make your money back and hopefully a bit more, begin publishing ever less profitable supplements so your fans are happy, use up all the money you made on core books and now they aren't selling anymore, make new edition, repeat). It is very likely they reached that last step, and that's despite some really terrific final products.
It is just painfully clear. If quality material like Mordenkainen's, Gardmore Abbey, Neverwinter, MV:NV, and the like aren't immensely profitable, then it is time for an edition change. I don't see how Wizards could see another option (and if there is one, I've never heard of another RPG finding it).
==
I absolutely understand fans that bemoan an edition ending. Count me amongst the many that would love to see continued 4E support. (I'm one of the guys writing 4E support!) I've been through the transition of AD&D to 2E, 2E to Skills & Powers, S&P to 3E, 3E to 3.5, 3.5 to 4E. And I've been through all the Shadowrun editions, through Spycraft, through L5R, through Deadlands, etc. Change always stings because we love what we have.
At the same time, change is awesome. 4E was my favorite edition yet, and I say that as a guy who loved 3E for a really long time. And I love what they did with Shadowrun 4E. And the latest Legend of the Five Rings is better. And D&D Next really pulls back some of the great things I loved in all the D&D editions. Each edition provides us with something new. And, with major games, they advance the 'science' of gaming. Other RPGs get better when all those designers from all the various companies play each other's latest innovations. It is a good thing, and not just a necessary thing for the RPG company.
If you are a 4E fan, and believe there should be more content, show your support for 4E projects such as the Midgard Bestiary for 4E. I've had the pleasure of playtesting monsters from this book and I highly recommend it.
If you are a 4E fan, and believe there should be more content, show your support for 4E projects such as the Midgard Bestiary for 4E. I've had the pleasure of playtesting monsters from this book and I highly recommend it.
