|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 2:10AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
No. I say this based upon Jeremy Crawford's comments at PAX East during which he said that the D&D brand is branching out and gaining income from new markets such as the boardgames, which allows the RPG to be less motivated on selling books and supplements.
This made me a bit more optimistic about D&Dnext, but I still think D&D (and rpgs in general) are not really suited to be designed in a corporate enviroment.
Rpgs are too much of niche market, as has been stated before there is no way that D&D can become a 100 million $ a year product, maybe the brand, but not the actual PnP rpg.
One of the factors is that, when wotc sells a book, it is most likely selling it to a group of anywhere between 3-7 people. It is only things like the PHB that a group will need multiple copies of. Also there are like infinite free stuff, for any given edtion, floating around on the internet.
These things are toxic to a corporation, they need tight control over their product and they need to have every user of said product, also buy it.
It is still not ideal that D&D is being designed and sold by a corporation, but if the designers can come up with clever ways to take off some of the pressure from the Hasbro Overlords, it can only be good for the players.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 2:32AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
how it went in my mind.
they introduced 4th edition.
they noticed plenty of people who stayed behind in 3.X
they created essentials to apeal to the group of players that stayed behind.
Those people ignored essentials as it still had the 4th edition logo and they made up their mind nothing 4th edition could be good.
but the new design goals of essentials got new ideas flowing.
many intresting ideas came with this but coulden't be done in the essentials like as wizards had sais essentials would remain 4th edition compatible.
so they decided to go for 5th edition.
I think we might see a lot of things from essentials make their return in 5th edition.
5th will be what essentials could have been if it had not been restrained by the 4th edition framework.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 5:09AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
how it went in my mind.
they introduced 4th edition.
they noticed plenty of people who stayed behind in 3.X
they created essentials to apeal to the group of players that stayed behind.
Those people ignored essentials as it still had the 4th edition logo and they made up their mind nothing 4th edition could be good.
but the new design goals of essentials got new ideas flowing.
many intresting ideas came with this but coulden't be done in the essentials like as wizards had sais essentials would remain 4th edition compatible.
so they decided to go for 5th edition.
I think we might see a lot of things from essentials make their return in 5th edition.
5th will be what essentials could have been if it had not been restrained by the 4th edition framework.
That is a mighty positive spin on the whole thing I gotta tell you.
I have no reason to believe anything about what 4th edition will be, but if the words "like essentials" is ever muttered by a developer about what 5th edition wil be like, I will permenantly delete this 11 year old account and say good bye to D&D forever. 5th edition needs to be much much ... MUCH better than anything that took place in the last 4 years, but in particularly essentials.
This community is already divided enough. What they need to do is take their time and figuire out what is actually wrong with D&D today and why these divisions exist. Doing anything else will likely just result in yet another split in the community and making 5th edition more like essentials would be ... a considerable crack.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 8:44AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
I do not think that the ICv2 reports played a huge part in the decision to design 5E, since they are only based on interviews and are too vague.
I also think that a company will rely on more accurate numbers and information to invest into a new edition that will bind a lot of staff, cost money to design a digital platform, needs extensive playtesting etc.
So I think they have more specific information that only they have access to. And I am guessing that this information tells them that 4E is not doing as well as they had hoped. Which does not mean that the game is not successful from a design point of view or if a different company published 4E. It just means that WotC as WotC might have a financial reason to design a new game.
That, IMHO, could be the financial side of things.
Also, they get information about what players like and dislike about any edition. I am sure people told them their opinion about 3.0 before they made 3.5. And about 3.5 before they designed 4E. They will probably do market research on that subject.
And while that market research probably suggested that for many people 3.5 was too unbalanced, their research and comments about 4E told them that they went too far for a significant amount of players.
And because they want to design a game that as many players as possible like, they decided to design 5E.
And that is the design aspect of it IMO.
I have the feeling they are trying not to make any mistakes and to involve every playstyle and most aspects of what players really like. And one of the biggest obstacle is indeed the OGL, which ties them down. Before creating a legal framework like this, they should have thought about how conservative players really are. I think somebody said it before me, but if 5E fails and is unable to draw in those players that stayed with 3.5, we all will be forced to play 3.5 for a very very long time. So I really hope they will succeed, because otherwise I will be unable to play the DnD I like.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 9:04AM
#35
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I do not think that the ICv2 reports played a huge part in the decision to design 5E, since they are only based on interviews and are too vague.
I also think that a company will rely on more accurate numbers and information to invest into a new edition that will bind a lot of staff, cost money to design a digital platform, needs extensive playtesting etc.
Anecdotes are merely one aspect of icv2's mehodology and it is the accepted source of information on sales data in the marketplace. Wizards likely has superior data on its own sales, but it has no way of knowing its competitors' sales (and vice versa). Both Paizo and Wizards employees have stated they have found icv2's figures to be an accurate rough representation of brand success.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 11:22AM
#36
|
|
|
Late last year there was an ICv2 article showing Pathfinder outselling DnD. Up to this point, DnD seemed to be pretty set on their DnD Essentials reflavoring of 4e. I can't help but feel the decision to ditch 4e and rebrand the game as DnD Next was driven in part due to 4e's inability to compete with Pathfinder.
1. Do you think that there is a correlation between the ICv2 article/sales figures and the decision to scrap 4e and move to DnD Next? I could be wrong, WotC may have been planning on moving to DnD Next for a long time and this may have had nothing to do with the article.
2. If so, do you think that a forced edition upgrade will create a rushed development?
1. Correlation is not causation. The ICv2 article was just a straw in the wind. But we have seen a lot of such straws and it seems pretty likely that Pathfinder sales are "fantastic" while 4e sales have been "disappointing" [both terms defined by expectations that may not have been at all realistic and thus consistent with a lot of possible actual figures.] So ICv2 was unlikely to have caused WOTC to work on 5e, but the same forces reflected in the article are a possible reason for 5e.
However, back in 08 when we were just seeing 4e, we were already penciling in 13 for 5e. Few if any deemed that a firm date, but 13 may have needed no further explanation than the feeling that sales jump with a new edition and this was about as soon as they felt it could be gotten away with. So more recent events may have had no effect whatsoever on the start of 5e.
2. 5e seems to be follow the same pattern of development as 4e [except we are hearing more about it and earlier]. So there is little forced or rushed about it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:11PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
Anecdotes are merely one aspect of icv2's mehodology and it is the accepted source of information on sales data in the marketplace. Wizards likely has superior data on its own sales, but it has no way of knowing its competitors' sales (and vice versa). Both Paizo and Wizards employees have stated they have found icv2's figures to be an accurate rough representation of brand success.
About the ICv2 reports: That is very interesting, because this is the first time I read about this.
Can you point me to some source so that I can read the statements (in detail) myself? That would be great. Because I would have to change the way I have to look at the ICv2 reports and what they represent.
About sales information available for WotC: Would you agree that WotC did not base a change of editions on "rough interpretation", but rather compare accurate sales data and sales expectations in a specific business plan (something like: we planned to sell this much, but our own - superior to ICv2 - sales data says we only sold that much and that is not enough)? And then decide to find a way to sell more product by appealing to a broader player base?
At least, that is how I think a business decision works. Is this what happenend?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:24PM
#38
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Can you point me to some source so that I can read the statements (in detail) myself? That would be great. Because I would have to change the way I have to look at the ICv2 reports and what they represent.
They represent comparative standing in the industry, which is all they purport to represent. icv2 doesn't report its numbers just as Wiards and Paizo don't share sales data with one another.
About sales information available for WotC: Would you agree that WotC did not base a change of editions on "rough interpretation", but rather compare accurate sales data and sales expectations in a specific business plan (something like: we planned to sell this much, but our own - superior to ICv2 - sales data says we only sold that much and that is not enough)?
No, I cannot agree because I don't think any single factor drives Wizards' actions. I think they all play a factor. Would you agree that, barring some form of corporate espionage, Wizards does not have access to Paizo's sales data and thus has no way to gauge how its sales compare to Paizo's sales? (And vice versa?)
Do you think Wizards would find that to be useful information in gauging its success in the market?
At least, that is how I think a business decision works. Is this what happenend?
We don't know what happened, because we're not corporate insiders. But the timing certainly raises questions. And the idea that Wizards would not care how its sales measure up to its competitors seems absurd.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:46PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
Serious compagnies with some means usually know their market share and their opponents' market shares. They do not need to resort to corporate espionage. Just do what iCv2 does, question stores and compare currant sells figures with previous sells. Lisa Stevens, the CEO of Paizo, confirmed on ENworld the iCv2 numbers. www.enworld.org/forum/press-releases-ann...As far as I know, WotC didn't release any communique contradicting this. Which would be normal if if weren't true.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 2:01PM
#40
|
|
|
@SleepsinTraffic
I'm glad we can find some common ground. I think all classes should be somewhat "cross trained" in their abilities. What if the wizard (for example)becomes captured or becomes lost during a battle?. All adventurers will need certain basic skills. I think the point of a class is not what it does, but what it does better than anyone else. The wizard can have her toolkit of spells, but they don't allow the wizard to (for example) open locks or disarm traps as well as a comparable level rogue (regardless of level). Likewise, the spells don't allow a wizard to "commune with nature" as well as a comparable level druid or ranger. As I mentioned, this will require a very careful eye on the spell list, compared to previous editions.
I agree that a balance needs to be maintained between classes at every level. In 1e, the wizard died all the time and was pretty useless at low levels. At level 10+ they were very powerful and had a huge range of things they could do well. I think the spell list and spells should be designed to remedy this problem by eliminating/modifying some of the most powerful spells and making the wizard's low level spells more useful. For example, low level spells could be made more potent, but their power would no longer be scaleable with level. A higher level wizard would just use higher level spells.
Note: I am using the wizard as an example, but the same principle applies to all spellcasters
Likewise, the "martial" classes could have a smoother progression of abilities with less "frontloading". That would also help prevent "gratutious" multiclassing, where players choose to give their characters one level in 1 or 2 classes to gain all the cool 1st level abilities for those classes. There should instead be rewards for players who "max out" in one class because their total dedication to their class gives them unique potency in some ways.
A note on hostility to corporations (no I'm not a manager or executive anywhere.): D&D began as something Gygax worked on in his home, but it didn't stay that way forever. Creating things requires resources and corporations pool talent and reources together to create products and services. I agree that Hasbro as a family toy company doesn't see DnD as its lifeblood. This obviously has an impact on how many resources are dedicated to the game and on design decisions. However, it is nice when developing a product to have a reliable money source and to have product diversity so that business mistakes and competition don't kill the company. I personally think DnD can and needs to branch out instead of just fighting with Paizo over people who like the 3.xe rules. I also don't care who is winning this particular fight!
Note: I think arguing about comparative sales of pathfinder and 4e is "edition wars by other means".
|
|
|
