| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1zenwarApr 06, 2011 17:57:27 | I was reading the post about the recent slow-down in product releases, and it seemed very little was being said about what I think is the obvious factor: Hasbro. I feel that Hasbro has always been at a loss about how to manage Wizards of the Coast and especially the D&D line. Hasbro is a toy company and Wizards is a game company. They are similar businesses, but also different. I would not be surprised if Hasbro was putting a lot of pressure on Wizards to sell toys, and to fit the toy business model rather than the game model, and that as various experiments in this fail, they kill projects and/or cut staff. The recent demise of the miniatures line might (ironically) be an example. The good news however is that 4th edition is a good system. Regardless of its future anyone can basically play the game, make up or adapt their own material and have fun. D&D is supposed to be a relatively cheap hobby, and I think what we have been seeing are attempts to make it a more expensive or least profitable hobby for Hasbro. I guess another way of looking at this is that Hasbro acquired a brand, D&D, when they bought Wizards and they want to make money off of that brand -- they do not care how they do it: they do not really care if they sell D&D roleplaying games, or D&D books, or D&D cards or D&D boardgames. It is all all the same to them. They are not in the business of selling roleplaying games, they are in the business of selling. The TINY corner of their empire that is D&D is from their point of view just another means of pushing products, and roleplaying games are irrelevant -- it is just about maximizing the profitability of the D&D brand. AND, there is nothing wrong with that. Profitability has to be their mandate; they are a publicly held corporation The miracle in all this is that 4th edition is (and I have been playing D&D since 1979), by the far the best version of the game to be published yet (IMHO). I have all the material I need to run and play games for the rest of my life, without having to buy any more Wizards of the Coast products. I am personally saddened by the loss of the miniatures line, but if that business is economically feasible, then some on the company will start producing more plastic figures for me to buy, and if it is not economically feasible then I am just lucky to have gotten some cheap pre-painted minis while the experiment lasted. I guess that is my attitude about the whole D&D 4th edition venture. I imagine this is a stressful time for the D&D employees at Wizards, and I hope they weather through it.
|
| #2robertread3Apr 06, 2011 18:17:50 | first of all, very well written i love 4th editon, i hope that the slowdown is just gearing up for new projects to be released later but right now i imagine they have alot of people working on the new CB and the VTT and the new adventure tools and i dont think that the whole of their money/efforts is on bookselling to be fair the virtual table top is a big undertaking and probably requires alot of money/time. because of this i dont think that they have the money to release too much right now, and the books that they canceled were victims of the new focus on digital D&D still we are of a like mind that 4e rules, regaurdless of what happens next, nothing is going to destroy that fun for me :D |
| #3MarandahirApr 06, 2011 18:29:43 | Zenwar, your write up here are my sentiments quite on the mark. I agree with everything except that last bit about miniatures – which I say, GOOD RIDDANCE! I'm happy with my pogs. Miniatures were a cost/demand/price nightmare: the only way they were every affordable to make was if they were cheaply painted and randomized. Or else not painted at all, and just a flat colour, like in the board games. For a player, this isn't adequate nor fair, nor does it allow them to bring something like Orcus to life (the Orcus miniature was a disaster as well, and they knew it was going to be a disaster). Pogs are cheap to make, cheap to buy, and can be produced in far more variants at a far faster rate than miniatures ever were. I'm actually able to represent my characters properly now (or, I would be if they kept increasing the output of Character pogs, but we haven't seen any since the DM's Kit save in the Gamma World box sets. The other great thing about pogs is that I can make my own rather inexpensively. But I agree with you on all your other points. This is a difficult time for WotC and D&D, but hopefully they can weather the storm while still improving on the game as they go forward. |
| #4zenwarApr 06, 2011 18:45:03 | Zenwar, your write up here are my sentiments quite on the mark. I agree with everything except that last bit about miniatures – which I say, GOOD RIDDANCE! I'm happy with my pogs. Miniatures were a cost/demand/price nightmare: the only way they were every affordable to make was if they were cheaply painted and randomized. Or else not painted at all, and just a flat colour, like in the board games. For a player, this isn't adequate nor fair, nor does it allow them to bring something like Orcus to life (the Orcus miniature was a disaster as well, and they knew it was going to be a disaster). I am just fond of figures. Perhaps I need to try out pogs and see if they will work for me. I used to paint figures, but do not have the time now. The minis were a mixed bag. Some were well-painted, some were badly painted, but I found I could get what I wanted. |
| #5zenwarApr 06, 2011 18:52:18 | first of all, very well written Good points. I agree they are doing a lot; it just has very little to do with "real" roleplaying (whatever real means in this context). Digital is not the same for me. I personally think that that the virtual table-top is silly. I suspect that projects like this are HUGE money-drains, and I think they are high risk. Software development is expensive and risky. I suppose I am just wondering what Hasbro is planning on doing. I guess I could dig into their quarterly reports and see if wizards is making them money, and if D&D is making them money. Having said all this I will say that the recent previews in April and Beyond look very good. |
| #6lokiareApr 06, 2011 19:06:33 | I'd just like to note that the VT is not taking up time or resources. It is done by a third party and at most WotC is just customizing it for themselves. Since they haven't done much of anything to change it since they released it, it is unfair to say they are expending resources on it. The monster builder is a joke of an app. If it took them 3 months or more to make it they need to seriously rethink their programming team... |
| #7zenwarApr 06, 2011 19:09:00 | I looked at Hasbro's anual report. There is very little detail on anything. Wizards is only metioned in a significant way once: Amortization expense decreased to $50,405 or 1.3% of net revenues in 2010 compared to $85,029 or 2.1% of net revenues in 2009. The decrease is the result of the property rights related to Wizards of the Coast becoming fully amortized in the fourth quarter of 2009.
|
| #8zenwarApr 06, 2011 19:12:30 | I'd just like to note that the VT is not taking up time or resources. It is done by a third party and at most WotC is just customizing it for themselves. Since they haven't done much of anything to change it since they released it, it is unfair to say they are expending resources on it. The monster builder is a joke of an app. If it took them 3 months or more to make it they need to seriously rethink their programming team... I do not know the details of how the VTT is being developed, but I think it is irrelevant. Assuming you are right, they are paying someone to make it, right? That means they have less money to spend on other things: people, products, etc. |
| #9robertread3Apr 06, 2011 22:17:11 | I'd just like to note that the VT is not taking up time or resources. It is done by a third party and at most WotC is just customizing it for themselves. Since they haven't done much of anything to change it since they released it, it is unfair to say they are expending resources on it. The monster builder is a joke of an app. If it took them 3 months or more to make it they need to seriously rethink their programming team... yes but you are aware that paying a 3rd party costs money? and typically departmentalized buisnesses budget the amout each department (wotc) has to make products right? |
| #10thaxApr 06, 2011 22:23:15 | At this point, it would be cheaper to have a 3pp to adapt their own VTT into DDI than to make one from scratch. Remember, Wizards already spent money on the more advanced VTT with the 3d engine, then dropped the develeper, losing the use of the 3d engine as a result. Think it is possible that Dunjini will become the official mapper? |
| #11calronmoonflowerApr 06, 2011 22:43:41 | I heard the developer of the first virtual tabletop went under. I haven't been able to confirm that, or even find the name of that company. |
| #12zenwarApr 06, 2011 23:10:20 | The real point is that resources are being spent on what amounts to something that I feel has nothing to do with role playing. I think role playing is when a group of people get together in person and use their imaginations. I understand that the virtual table top could make it easier for people to play, but I do not think it will in any way make our game better.
I would like to actually try and keep this on topic, which is that I feel that Hasbro does not see D&D as a end to itself. It's jus a brand to them and they have no real interest in promoting a roleplaying game, and they actually seem to be trying to move D&D AWAY from roleplaying.
Does anyone else get a sense of that? |
| #13thaxApr 06, 2011 23:20:59 | Wizards have an identity of their own and as such have some control overall. It is a condition of the take over, mostly to keep the Magic The Gathering game intact instead of changing it wholesale like a lot of the other CCG's had done. Hasbro does have some pull, however, and branding for the D&D game seems like a given. Right now, Wizards has made the games closely related to the RPG while making them their own. Neverwinter, in my mind, will be a good book no matter the reason it is made. I suggested the next book like this be Sharn, City of Towers at Gen Con. |
| #14MarandahirApr 06, 2011 23:27:53 | The increase in sideline products seem to say so. Board games. TCG elements. These are less "Roleplaying" and more "Game." I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. More structure can be a good thing, and is something Hasbro is more familiar with, and knows sells well. But if you forwent the entire Roleplaying part, then it would cease to be Dungeons & Dragons, even with the D&D™ label on the new board/card/piece game. Don't get me wrong – I love the Castle Ravenloft™ and Wrath of Ashardalon™ board games. And I love the cards in Gamma World™, and am interested in buying a pack or two of Fortune Cards™, even if I don't like the idea of Randomized Booster Packs whatsoever. But the increase in these products worries me. I only see the destruction of the miniature line as happening because it was a financial nightmare, even if it was toy pieces for a chess-like form of the game. The thing that brings me hope is the most recent Podcast, and the Gaming Developers Conferences mentioned therein. That's the sorts of attitudes Gaming companies, and WotC Developers, should have. Hasbro would have to fire all the current management of Wizards of the Coast, and hire people who thought completely differently, in order to change that attitude. WotC has the same vision we do for the game – and that is a game that is in the hands of the DM and the Players to create and send to the edges of their imagination. They don't want structure to impede creativity. As long as the folk at WotC stay true to this vision, we'll be fine. D&D™ will pull through. And if it doesn't? Sales will tell. I don't think Hasbro would risk destroying what makes Dungeons & Dragons™ Dungeons & Dragons, for the sake of what they know and are more familiar with. I think there will always be a push and pull, and this creates interesting periphery games like those mentioned above, or the Fall of Nerath™ risk-esque board game. But I think they know that WotC know what they're doing, and let them do their own thing. As long as they can sell Drizzt™ novels, Dungeons & Dragons is worth them owning Dungeons & Dragon™. |
| #15zenwarApr 06, 2011 23:46:53 | You know, now that I think of it, back in the day when Dragon was a paper magazine, they would publish little board games (Snit's revenge is an example) that were far more further a field than anything that WOTC has done in recent time. I am glad that I started this thread, all of your comments have cheered me up about the future of our game. |
| #16lokiareApr 07, 2011 0:07:18 | well shortly after they aquired WotC with the stipulation that they wouldn't mess with the internals, Hasbro replaced WotC's CEO with one of their own EOs and several members of management were also replaced, then there were many layoffs after that, basically i'd say there's less than 50% of the same people working there than before they aquired them. the 3D VT was scrapped because the development house they hired went out of business. That development house was part of a much larger one, so WotC may have thought they were getting robust development support, when in actuality they were thrown a couple developers that were inexperienced. the reason they went out of business is that the CEO died, and instead of replacing him, the parent company just disolved the firm. the 3D VT was the last project out the door, they probably didn't give WotC the source code, so they couldn't fix the remaining bugs and eventually scrapped it... |
| #17MarandahirApr 07, 2011 0:14:10 | Which is why it's interesting to me that the big names now (which are often contrasted with the big names at the dawn of 4e and in 3e/3.5e) are so invested in the core goal of any roleplaying game – to provide structure to focus the imagination, but without constraining it. |
| #18tsukinousagiApr 07, 2011 6:52:32 | I know Hasborg from other realms as well. Same people that bought Avalon Hill of equal wargaming fame as TSR. They also sell Pokemon cards. Interesting hearing that following a year of making 2 billion on Pokecrack, they only make a billion the next year, and claim they suffered a loss of 1 billion as a result. No, they simply don't realize you can't just sell 2 billion in Pokecrack regular as clockwork. Hasborg is ONLY interested in making money. And as mentioned, nothing wrong with that, we DO live in a capitalist society, never forget that. The moment this brand (D&D) is a no money loser, it's history. It won't matter a damn to them what WE think about it. The only reason Advanced Squad Leader is alive at all, is because MMP begged Hasbro to let them keep it afloat. Otherwise it would be as dead and out of print as the rest of the AH catalogue. I'm just surprised that Hasbro hasn't turned the game into something like their Axis and Allies franchise yet. I'm sure someone has thought of it though. |
| www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/07/h...zenwarApr 07, 2011 9:33:34 | I do not see where you are getting those figures. I rechecked the link I posted. Here is the actual text: html_removed WASHINGTON -- Hasbro Inc. reported fourth-quarter net income of $140 million, or 99 cents a share, down from $165.6 million, or $1.09 a share, earned in the final three months of 2009. Quarterly revenue generated by the Pawtucket, R.I.-based toymaker fell to $1.28 billion from the prior year's $1.38 billion. Analysts had been looking for net earnings of 96 cents a share for the latest quarter. Brian Goldner, Hasbro's president and chief executive, noted that 2011 "will be the first full year in which we have significant initiatives across all the elements of our multiyear branded-play strategy." Said Chief Financial Officer Deborah Thomas: "We expect to begin seeing the return from many of our recent investments, supporting our belief that we should be able to grow revenues and earnings per share in 2011." Read more: www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/07/h... They went from 1.38 per quarter to 1.28 -- a loss of 400M. Which is bad, but not a billion. They easily made their target on net earning per share so that is good. Given the economy of the last year, the lose in revenue is to be expected. I do agree with you about their view of the brand and that they are looking for any channel to profit from it. If it becomes unprofitable they would sell it -- that might not be a bad thing. |
| #20ah_stormbringerApr 08, 2011 6:43:44 | D&D may survive as a name but as a RPG it may not. |
| #21majesticmooseApr 08, 2011 13:13:07 | I looked at Hasbro's anual report. There is very little detail on anything. Wizards is only metioned in a significant way once: I'm not a hasbro accountant, but generally that means that the IP valuation from WotC when it was aquired has been fully depreciated/amortized. It means several things, none of which are bad, but one major thing it means is that basically WotC IP's have passed their expected life span (sort of). Your conclusion is basically correct, and actually means very little in the management of the product lines. It's mostly just a way of saying that the IP's have been fully accounted for in terms of their useful lives. |
| #22majesticmooseApr 08, 2011 13:18:28 | well shortly after they aquired WotC with the stipulation that they wouldn't mess with the internals, Hasbro replaced WotC's CEO with one of their own EOs and several members of management were also replaced, then there were many layoffs after that, basically i'd say there's less than 50% of the same people working there than before they aquired them. It's been a long time since 1999 and it's before I was really paying attention, but 2 things. a.) The CEO has little to do directly with the various brand lines. They hire the brand leaders/developers (people like Bill slavisek) and they tell them these are the results we want, I want to see initiative sthat target x consumer, so on and so forth. They set the broad strategy. So that isn't indicative of Hasbro breaking word. Hasbro put a "loyal" boss in charge of a subsidiary and kept the bulk of the former talent on staff to ensure that the brands had a similar vision as before. b.) IIRC the CEO of wizards (and a couple other people) flat out left. they weren't "fired" that I know of. THe replacements could have been a simple measure by Hasbro to fill the gap. That 90% of those that left WotC went to create Paizo is telling that they had a shared goal when they jumped ship (willingly or otherwise). So it's not exactly fair to say that it was all Hasbro's doing. But again, not a hasbro insider, and they are a big giant of a money grubbing hoe. |
| #23naniApr 09, 2011 10:27:57 |
Under the name Pathfinder! |
| #24lokiareApr 09, 2011 10:28:30 | well shortly after they aquired WotC with the stipulation that they wouldn't mess with the internals, Hasbro replaced WotC's CEO with one of their own EOs and several members of management were also replaced, then there were many layoffs after that, basically i'd say there's less than 50% of the same people working there than before they aquired them. Except last year and the year before there were many layoffs at WotC in the D&D side of things, I'm sure if you google you can find the releveant articles. Yes some left on their own, but many were just laid off... |
| #25Cohen95Apr 09, 2011 19:39:27 | Something I heard a couple of years ago from my FLGS manager/owner, who knows several people at WotC: "Wizards doesn't want to be owned by Hasbro. They want to be owned by Wizards. They're going to put out good enough products to keep from getting fired, but never good enough products that Hasbro won't always be looking to unload them. We'll never see the best thing Wizards has to offer us until Hasbro's name is off the box." *shrug* One thing I do like, that Hasbro likely is responsible for, is the board games. I don't own any, but I've looked at them, and though they're pricey, they're pretty cool, and if I had the money, I'd love to own them. |
| #26MarandahirApr 09, 2011 20:18:25 | QUIET YOU!!! Don't you know Hasbro agents are lurking these threads? You just exposed WotC's big damn secret! Now it'll NEVER come true!! |
| #27majesticmooseApr 11, 2011 11:18:54 |
I wonder how much WotC would cost? |
| #28Obvious_NinjaApr 11, 2011 12:21:22 | Hasbro bought WotC for $325 million in '99. But that was at the hight of Pokamon and Magic (M:tG was the major reason for the purchase.) boardgames.about.com/od/companies/a/hasb... I'm sure it would be a bit less now, but remember all of the businesses involved in the WotC umbrella: books/novels are a big money maker, MtG is like printing money, and the ip for D&D is probably worth more than the RPG alone... |
| #29majesticmooseApr 11, 2011 12:58:42 | I'll buy it... who's with me? I just need a couple hundred (million) dollars for cash investment. |
| #30lokiareApr 11, 2011 13:32:58 | I'll buy it... who's with me? Well we could form a non-profit organization that saves the money up and buys just the right for D&D off them. we could probably get it for $1,000,000... put it under the purview of a democratic election process to elect developers. Do something like OGL with a validation process... |
| #31MirtekApr 11, 2011 14:13:42 | Hasbro bought WotC for $325 million in '99. But that was at the hight of Pokamon and Magic (M:tG was the major reason for the purchase.) Well, if you look at Hasbro's investor fact sheet, they didn't even spare the few inches to put the D&D Logo on there (unlike the logo of MtG which is presented there) |
| #32Luis_CarlosJul 13, 2011 13:48:40 | Do you rebember Transformers and G.I.Joe ten years ago? Those franchises were almost forgotten until the movies... Today all geek teenages know who is Megan Fox... and Optimus Prime and Megatron. If Hasbro knows transfomers is giving money... D&D can be a true machine of getting profits. The key is a good tv show or a blockbuster movie. If things weere done well a official D&D MMO would be the WoW-killer (I know it´s only a hypothesis) or at least the most famous free to play MMO. The D&D of the last years is specialist about powers and rules, not the rich background and mithology created in TSR age. (but today you don´t need buy rpg book to get ideas, only you get wikipedia about videogames, tv shows, films..). My wish is when I buy and read my new D&D book I feel I was creating my character, my "toy" with my imagination, and I am getting inspiration to create stories about my pc race and monsters. If I creat my PC like a videogame but I don´t feel empathy, interest of the life of my character... It´s a bad sign. The key idea: I think Hasbro knows D&D franchise can be the chicken of golden eggs, and the can´t lose it. |