| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 13:50:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
The Red box = D&D 4.5?????
They can package it in books with the original Efreet, and the thief prying the stone form the horned idol, it is still NOT the rules system I want to play. Shiny apple... oooo nice. Bite into it... still a worm.
It's not my thing for sure. I wonder what the 4th edition fans are thinking now?
John
Over on the WotC boards, there's a lot of ... 'discussion' as to whether or not D&D Essentials is version 4.5 or not. I do find it kind of amusing that D&D Essentials seems to be splintering the fan-base yet again. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 30 Jul 2010 13:52:39 |
 |
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 20:22:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
The Red box = D&D 4.5?????
They can package it in books with the original Efreet, and the thief prying the stone form the horned idol, it is still NOT the rules system I want to play. Shiny apple... oooo nice. Bite into it... still a worm.
It's not my thing for sure. I wonder what the 4th edition fans are thinking now?
John
Over on the WotC boards, there's a lot of ... 'discussion' as to whether or not D&D Essentials is version 4.5 or not. I do find it kind of amusing that D&D Essentials seems to be splintering the fan-base yet again.
I have heard that it's like a hornets nest over there that has been shaken up. 
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 09:57:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Probably what fans of all the editions have been thinking when there is a product like this being announced; "What happens now?" I cant exactly see panic spreading.
I am a bit curious about where people get the ideas about 4ed. not selling and all that; from what I have read it seems to be nothing but loose speculations with claims and counter claims by fans of the various editions.
The cutbacks in personnel at WotC certainly suggest that sales aren't as strong as desired... That's the only hard evidence I know of, though I'd also consider Pathfinder's success to be a commentary on 4E's appeal (and thus, sales).
Monster Manual 1 has been reprinted three times. PHB 2, four times. The FRCG is on a second printing. PHB 1 has had at least one reprint. Frankly, having enough stock on hand that you don't need to reprint at the moment isn't necessarily a bad sign. It's the same for Paizo, one reprint so far for their rule set. It means you may have underestimated initial demand or overestimated continued sales, and that's not exactly uncommon in the publishing industry. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 11:42:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Probably what fans of all the editions have been thinking when there is a product like this being announced; "What happens now?" I cant exactly see panic spreading.
I am a bit curious about where people get the ideas about 4ed. not selling and all that; from what I have read it seems to be nothing but loose speculations with claims and counter claims by fans of the various editions.
The cutbacks in personnel at WotC certainly suggest that sales aren't as strong as desired... That's the only hard evidence I know of, though I'd also consider Pathfinder's success to be a commentary on 4E's appeal (and thus, sales).
But on the other hand I seem to have heard about down cuts and firings from WotC since I noticed they existed. Wasn't there a bunch of these during the 3ed. too?
As I said, I have no idea (or care much)about how WotC or 4ed. goes, but I feel there is much speculation done without really anything substantial to tie it to. Is there anything being said by other publishers or designers that might have some inside knowledge? |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 12:14:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Probably what fans of all the editions have been thinking when there is a product like this being announced; "What happens now?" I cant exactly see panic spreading.
I am a bit curious about where people get the ideas about 4ed. not selling and all that; from what I have read it seems to be nothing but loose speculations with claims and counter claims by fans of the various editions.
The cutbacks in personnel at WotC certainly suggest that sales aren't as strong as desired... That's the only hard evidence I know of, though I'd also consider Pathfinder's success to be a commentary on 4E's appeal (and thus, sales).
Monster Manual 1 has been reprinted three times. PHB 2, four times. The FRCG is on a second printing. PHB 1 has had at least one reprint. Frankly, having enough stock on hand that you don't need to reprint at the moment isn't necessarily a bad sign. It's the same for Paizo, one reprint so far for their rule set. It means you may have underestimated initial demand or overestimated continued sales, and that's not exactly uncommon in the publishing industry.
Pretty much.
The FLGS I go to has a bunch of 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E product sitting on the shelves. |
Edited by - Brimstone on 31 Jul 2010 12:15:14 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36968 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 16:03:39
|
I'm not sure why reprints got mentioned... What I'm looking at is that WotC has been cutting back their staff, pretty much across the board -- and that includes some of the folks that created 4E. Companies letting people go is rarely a sign of prosperity. Yeah, there have been layoffs there before, but this time, they've let a lot of people go, and not just on the creative side. Letting the team that created your new product go just a couple years into that product's lifespan doesn't look good. Hiring people indicates your company is doing well. Firing people indicates the opposite.
The reason I say Paizo's success is a bad sign for WotC is because Paizo is right now being very successful running with WotC's discarded material. WotC decided a new edition was the way to go with D&D. Paizo's success shows that the RPG market has not fully embraced that new edition. The RPG market is now essentially split into two camps -- 3.5 and 4. As long as that 3.5 camp exists, that's money not going to the 4 camp.
In a way, WotC is competing with itself. That's not the best situation for a business to be in. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 21:32:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
It's the same for Paizo, one reprint so far for their rule set. It means you may have underestimated initial demand or overestimated continued sales, and that's not exactly uncommon in the publishing industry.
No, not exactly. Paizo's Core Rule Book is now in third printing. It is only a year old. I think it is good sign that there is a huge demand (and not sign of underestimation). |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links • 2ed Downloads |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 01:13:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not sure why reprints got mentioned... What I'm looking at is that WotC has been cutting back their staff, pretty much across the board -- and that includes some of the folks that created 4E. Companies letting people go is rarely a sign of prosperity. Yeah, there have been layoffs there before, but this time, they've let a lot of people go, and not just on the creative side. Letting the team that created your new product go just a couple years into that product's lifespan doesn't look good. Hiring people indicates your company is doing well. Firing people indicates the opposite.
While you are probably right about the firings not being a good sign for sales, you have to consider context. It could also be "not meeting Hasbro's expectations". Those two do not mean the same thing and either could lead to firings to trim the fat. Hasbro is undeniably a much, much larger company than Paizo to the point that "smashing success" for Paizo could be "not worth the time" to the Hasbro execs.
quote:
The reason I say Paizo's success is a bad sign for WotC is because Paizo is right now being very successful running with WotC's discarded material. WotC decided a new edition was the way to go with D&D. Paizo's success shows that the RPG market has not fully embraced that new edition. The RPG market is now essentially split into two camps -- 3.5 and 4. As long as that 3.5 camp exists, that's money not going to the 4 camp.
The one and only way this works is if A) Every single potential customer only buys one or the other (impossible), and B) if paizo's sales, relative to WotC's, really are greater (unknowable) so this is a false set up. We have no way of knowing sales figures for WotC (that I have ever seen) unless they choose to disclose them (as far as I know they haven't, please correct me if I am mistaken, with something concrete) and I would be beyond suprised if there weren't a number of people who bought books from both meaning comparing their sales in terms of "one or the other" is pointless because it's false. People do play both, so every dollar going that is going to Paizo can't be said to be a dollar that isn't going to Hasbro (in the sense that it would have gone to Hasbro if Paizo weren't there, obviously a dollar going to anything else is a dollar not going to Hasbro but that's not the intent of the statement otherwise Coke is beating them both).
Without any solid numbers from WotC/Hasbro, any comparisons are virtually pointless and rely on annecdotal evidence (the plural of which is not "facts").
As for reprintings, without knowing the size of the print runs that comparison is also fairly pointless. A book with a print run of 10,000 going into a 4th print isn't doing as good as one with a run of 100,000 on it's 2nd print. Given the size difference between the companies I don't believe it's an entirely unreasonable assumption to assume they have different size print runs.
I'm not trying to stand up for Hasbro/WotC. They've made some dumb moves at just about every turn. I'm saying without sales numbers there can't be a comparison no matter how much some people want to believe Hasbro/WotC is doing badly. Should they be shown how badly they screwed things up, sure. Are they/will they be shown this in the form of terrible sales, who knows? |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 02:06:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Who the hell is making decisions over there?
I ask myself that for a number of the same reasons you do. Though I do wonder about some of these statements...
quote:
Ravenloft Boardgame? Do they mean vampiric Heroscape?
I don't think they do. I really don't see any connection to Heroscape honestly. They use (unpainted, ugh) D&D minis, not the ones with Heroscape bases. They don't use the hex tiles or those odd looking cards that come with Heroscape figures.
quote:
And seriously, no more random sets of minis - put them in clear plastic boxes the way EVERY OTHER LITTLE FIGURE is marketed (Yu-Gi-Oh, Supers, Pokemon, etc, etc). kids want what they can SEE. You know, like EXACTLY HOW THE HEROSCAPE MINIS ARE MARKETED! Hell, I can't even walk past those things without wanting a box! Or like McFarlane's Dragons - have you SEEN THOSE? Puts those D&D minis to SHAME; at about half the cost, too. I own about a dozen of them (still in the box), and they just make me want to touch myself.
They have said, repeatedly, year after year at GenCon when this question always comes up, that their distributors won't buy non random minis (sets of orcs, dwarves, etc where you know what you get). They are very aware that people want them. They know "some" would sell. But, if the distributors don't give them the go ahead, they don't get made. That's what happened with the gigantic Orcus figure that is only just now seeing a very limited release after (I believe) having been made over 2 years ago. The distributors didn't think they could move a bunch of gigantic demon figures. Before this gets blown off, this happens to larger companies too. Wal Mart all but has absolute control on what does and does not appear on most CD covers. They also stopped a Balrog figure from ever being part of the movie toy line up because they wouldn't a giant fiery demon figure (which was funny because they sold Spawn figures which included similar figures at varying points). It also doesn't help that their one completely non blind outing, the Player's Handbook sets, sold horribly. That reinforcing the idea that non random can't sell, even though the real lesson should be not to sell figures people only want one of like that and instead sell sets of Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Zhentaraim Goons, Red Wizards, Warforged (it covers all settings, not just FR), etc.
The other problem you hit with this scenario is that no matter how hard you try, some sets will sell well and others will stall out. This is a problem because your primary retailer is small game stores that have limited shelf space and who really don't want to have to put sets on clearance with every release just to get them out of the store. If you can change the production in midswing (and everything they have ever said on this issue says, no they can't) then you can adjust and minimize the damage by stopping production on unpopular sets and increasing production on the popular sets. This effect can even be seen with the last 3 DDM sets that have one visible figure. Some sell and some linger on. That's the problem with knowing what you are getting. And no, the viable and practical solution is not "make them all great figures" because if you do that you will never see the types of figures people want for RPG (townsfolk, not-drow and dragons every other figure, etc) and you will only have figures that are good for the DDM game.
As for every other figure series doing this, that is also not right. Heroclix has been blind packaging from the start. Their parent company (Wizkids, absolutely no tie to WotC) went under due to their other games tanking but Heroclix was bought out and is still going. They have been going longer than DDM with the same blind format and far more brittle (in my mind that means inferior) plastic and a far less flexible game system so they must be doing something right.
To be clear though, I do kind of wish that we could get them in non blind packaging. I just accept that it isn't a practical solution without a major sacrifice like a loss of variety (every set has to sell) or loss of numbers (less sets per year and far fewer figures per set). I actually play the miniatures game and a number of their decisions have not sat well with me, but I'm fine with blind packaging.
quote:
But they are trying to market their minis - they make a lot higher percentage off them then they do sourcebooks, because the box they come in probably cost more then the 2¢ worth of Chinese plastic the minis are worth.
They screwed things up with the minis by alienating the fans of the miniatures game with one bad decision after another. All along they kept saying that something like 75-85% of sales were for RPG purposes. Then they upset the players of the minis game and everything started to nose dive. They clearly miscalculated. I honestly always wondered what hole they pulled that number out of because there was no way it was accurate (or in any way verifiable for that matter). Now they don't even support the skirmish game and they wonder why their minis sales are falling. I just don't know about those guys.
quote:
If you have a product you want people to become hooked on, you give some away - its just smart business. look what Paizo did with it's Pathfinder rules. Give kids a handful of those cool minis in the box, along with a booklet showing all the uber-kewl other minis they could purchase, and its pure win. Hasbro should know this - its how you market toys like Legos.
I'm not sure why Hasbro should care how LEGO markets things (given that LEGO doesn't really compete with Hasbro for the same market, construction toys, and given that LEGO doesn't do that anywhere near the level they used to) but Hasbro themselves already do this with their own action figures. The real question is why don't the minis boosters themselves have a booklet like that in them. Beyond that it's a matter of the whole operation needing to do more cross promotion within it's own products (a company catalog type insert showing samplings of all their other products for appropriate age range).
quote:
Those bozos are sitting on a Goldmine, and they don't know how to use the damn IP!!! 
Also, Hasbro is famous for its cartoon-supported product lines - why don't we have a Legends of Drizzt cartoon? If its done well, like Avatar: The Last Airbender, we could eventually see a live-action flick.
Cartoons sell toys, and toys make the cartoon more popular, and the IP more lucrative, and eventually movies come out of it! Transformers, GI Joe, etc... Hello?! Is anyone over there awake? You could all be getting RICH!
This I agree with. I will never understand how we don't have a decent D&D (let's be honest, FR) cartoon by now. I'm really suprised we don't at least have a crappy SciFi (sorry, SyFy) channel series, not that I want that. I suspect it is because there is still lingering doubt about how the public at large will handle it due to the D&D=Satanism scare (even though that was decades ago, people don't forget things like that) so they are reluctant to directly target kids with the brand and are instead testing the waters with things like the D&D Heroscape sets. Or they just have no idea what they are doing (very possible). I mean, we still don't have a new GIJoe animated series despite the fact the figures have been made almost non-stop since the very early 80s. I would've thought by now they would at least be in serious talks about a Drizzt movie if nothing else. Not that I really want that, but it is a popular series of books.
quote:
It truly is 'New Coke' all over again. I have a feeling we are going to see the Old Grey Box again, with 4e rules - something like 'Classic Realms'.
As I understand it, the New Coke fiasco reenergized Coke to the point that it surpassed Pepsi and has enjoyed the lead ever since. So, we can only hope this is New Coke with similar (long term) results. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 03:01:17
|
Just a couple of points after reading through your post.
1) Wal-mart does not "decide" what's on an album cover. Nor do they "decide" what a toy distributor may sell. When distributors come to them, Wal-mart will tell them what they will order from the distributor. In the past, they have asked artists to create censored albums to sell through Wal-mart. Some artists have agreed, releasing the uncensored in other stores. Other artists have not agreed and relied on their album still selling well without Wal-mart. The Balrog toy was not killed by Wal-mart, but by the fact that a large number of retailers did not have confidence the 25" Electronic talking toy would sell. With no orders, they shelved the toy.
2) Heroclix has blind packaging. BUT most of the time, they will release quite a few minis in clear plastic as 'Starter sets' (for example, the newest Blackest Night collection) or in nifty Battle Packs. The key here is that the blind randoms are cheaper than the clear plastic.
3) Lego's 2009 Annual Report listed their Total Revenue as 11,661 mDKK (which is the equivalent of about $2,000,000). Hasbro's 2009 Annual Report lists their Total revenue at just over $4,000,000. I'd say they're on at least close to the same level as Hasbro in toys, especially when you consider they're a Danish company and specialize on a single product vs. Hasbro's 'buckshot' approach to toys and games.
4) New Coke was such a failure that they brought back the original formula and stopped producing it. The return of the original formula is what reenergized Coca-cola's business. And, though I loathe to say it being a Coca-cola fan, Pepsi outdoes Coke almost always. (Although, to be fair, Coke is again a specialist [focuses solely on softdrinks] while Pepsi is another 'buckshot' company [soft drinks, Lay's potato chips, Quaker foods]). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36968 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:14:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not sure why reprints got mentioned... What I'm looking at is that WotC has been cutting back their staff, pretty much across the board -- and that includes some of the folks that created 4E. Companies letting people go is rarely a sign of prosperity. Yeah, there have been layoffs there before, but this time, they've let a lot of people go, and not just on the creative side. Letting the team that created your new product go just a couple years into that product's lifespan doesn't look good. Hiring people indicates your company is doing well. Firing people indicates the opposite.
While you are probably right about the firings not being a good sign for sales, you have to consider context. It could also be "not meeting Hasbro's expectations". Those two do not mean the same thing and either could lead to firings to trim the fat. Hasbro is undeniably a much, much larger company than Paizo to the point that "smashing success" for Paizo could be "not worth the time" to the Hasbro execs.
I didn't say that WotC firing people meant they weren't doing good. I said the indications were there. There's a difference between saying something is and saying something looks like. I don't have hard data, and I'm careful to avoid absolutes when I don't have hard data.
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The reason I say Paizo's success is a bad sign for WotC is because Paizo is right now being very successful running with WotC's discarded material. WotC decided a new edition was the way to go with D&D. Paizo's success shows that the RPG market has not fully embraced that new edition. The RPG market is now essentially split into two camps -- 3.5 and 4. As long as that 3.5 camp exists, that's money not going to the 4 camp.
The one and only way this works is if A) Every single potential customer only buys one or the other (impossible), and B) if paizo's sales, relative to WotC's, really are greater (unknowable) so this is a false set up. We have no way of knowing sales figures for WotC (that I have ever seen) unless they choose to disclose them (as far as I know they haven't, please correct me if I am mistaken, with something concrete) and I would be beyond suprised if there weren't a number of people who bought books from both meaning comparing their sales in terms of "one or the other" is pointless because it's false. People do play both, so every dollar going that is going to Paizo can't be said to be a dollar that isn't going to Hasbro (in the sense that it would have gone to Hasbro if Paizo weren't there, obviously a dollar going to anything else is a dollar not going to Hasbro but that's not the intent of the statement otherwise Coke is beating them both).
I'll acknowledge that there are going to be people playing both Pathfinder and 4E. But the majority of gaming groups pick one edition or game and stick with it. So yeah, there's going to be people that buy both, but the majority of the people are going to go one or the other.
And it doesn't matter who has the greater sales. What does matter is that money given to Paizo is money not given to WotC. Once upon a time, the vast majority of RPG money went into TSR/WotC's coffers. Now there's more games out there, and even with D&D, they have a competitor who is doing quite well for themselves. WotC prolly still gets the majority of RPG dollars (those not spent on MMOs, anyway), but that majority is smaller than it once was. And now they're competing against a polished-up version of their own OOP product.
It doesn't matter if WotC has ten times the sales of Paizo. What matters is that they created their own competition, and that competition is going to be around for a while. Paizo was once a third-party D&D company, making compatible content for WotC. Now Paizo is a first-party D&D company, and third-party companies are making compatible content for them.
That's my point. WotC was once the the biggest kid on the block, and the only big kid on the block. Now another kid has moved in on their block, and while he's still smaller, he's growing fast. WotC's still the bigger kid, but they're no longer the only big kid. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4258 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:31:55
|
| Personally, I think Wooly is just a big kid. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:56:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Just a couple of points after reading through your post.
1) Wal-mart does not "decide" what's on an album cover. Nor do they "decide" what a toy distributor may sell. When distributors come to them, Wal-mart will tell them what they will order from the distributor. In the past, they have asked artists to create censored albums to sell through Wal-mart. Some artists have agreed, releasing the uncensored in other stores. Other artists have not agreed and relied on their album still selling well without Wal-mart. The Balrog toy was not killed by Wal-mart, but by the fact that a large number of retailers did not have confidence the 25" Electronic talking toy would sell. With no orders, they shelved the toy.
From your response I think you understood my intent. Does Wal Mart say "you can't have that album cover anywhere, ever" No they don't (nor could they with any authority). Do they say "we won't sell that album" and force artists/producers to decide if they will sell through the largest seller of CDs or not, yes they do. That is dictating terms and a large number give in to their demands because they can't afford not to. A smaller or leesser known outfit won't pay the expense of having a second album cover made (obviously barring something like just airbrushing the original to meet Wal Mart regulations) for other stores so in effect Wal Mart has forced them to change their cover. When you're the largest retailer in the country, you can tell people it's your way or the highway because for every one who says no a dozen more are in line behind them waiting to say yes.
As for the Balrog, again Wal Mart is the 800lb gorilla in the room that can set terms and shape the mood even if it isn't trying to (though it usually is in one way or another). If they say no, it is enough to kill some items or convince the other retailers it isn't worth the time which will also kill it. The giant demon toy part might be wrong (though I distinctly recall that being a listed reason in the Toyfare issue I read about this, I'll have to find that sometime to double check, maybe they were playing up that part), but the Wal Mart refusing to carry it and basically killing the idea part is not.
I do know Hasbro blames retailers (and sometimes the ever nebulous "market research") for "forcing" them to put tons of the same 4 characters in GIJoe over and over, figure wave after figure wave, all while they know there are plenty of people who will buy multiples of any nameless Cobra soldier (and they get short packed because, you guessed it, the retailers). Then they wonder why the shelves get clogged with Duke and Snake Eyes. The movie line is a noticeable exception (the Cobra soldiers are pretty much all terrible and nothing like previous Cobra soldiers so no one wants armies of them), to be clear.
quote:
2) Heroclix has blind packaging. BUT most of the time, they will release quite a few minis in clear plastic as 'Starter sets' (for example, the newest Blackest Night collection) or in nifty Battle Packs. The key here is that the blind randoms are cheaper than the clear plastic.
Unless Heroclix has drastically altered their set up since I stopped playing then the number of figures in non blind packaging is absolutely eclipsed by blind packaged figures. Starter sets don't discount the fact the products sales are primarily due to blind packaging. I really don't know where you were going with this.
As for why the randoms would be cheaper (and this applies to DDM as well), there are a few reasons. The first, and most direct, is that the starter set also has the rules and a map so you are buying more than the figures therefore a direct comparison of costs isn't effective (you can't state what percent of the starter cost is just the figures). The second has to do with quality (at least in theory, and I'm not sure how well this applies to Heroclix as I recall most of the figures being of the same general quality). If you can see all the figures, they better all look nice. With blind packaging, you can have figures like common goblins and orcs along with uncommon trolls filling out most of the slots and one (in theory) really nicely done rare. If they are all visible, they all have to be of similar quality so either they are all average and have a similar price point to the randoms or they are all pretty good and you pay more (because better figures cost more to make). That's one of the advantages of blind packaging, you get those "lesser" figures that you either wouldn't get or would be paying more to get (because they would be done better). The other advantage is variety. With blind packaging you can have far more figures per set so you have a much greater range. To go non blind you have to start making sacrifices in price, quality, or variety (or some combination of those). This showed up quite a while ago on the DDM message boards and it sums up the situation with miniatures: "Non-Random Packaging, Cheap Prices, and a Large Range of Figures: Choose two." (credit to MerrickB).
quote:
3) Lego's 2009 Annual Report listed their Total Revenue as 11,661 mDKK (which is the equivalent of about $2,000,000). Hasbro's 2009 Annual Report lists their Total revenue at just over $4,000,000. I'd say they're on at least close to the same level as Hasbro in toys, especially when you consider they're a Danish company and specialize on a single product vs. Hasbro's 'buckshot' approach to toys and games.
I didn't say they weren't on the same level as toy companies. I said they sell to different parts of the market (construction toys vs Hasbro's "buckshot approach"), which is true so again I'm not sure what your point is. I also said that LEGO doesn't advertise "in set" anywhere near the way they used to, which is also true because I've been buying them since the 80s and I have the booklets to see the noticeable difference as time goes on. That was my point, that LEGO isn't a great example of what he was talking about. The differences in companies was an aside because I wondered why he was making the comparison.
quote:
4) New Coke was such a failure that they brought back the original formula and stopped producing it. The return of the original formula is what reenergized Coca-cola's business. And, though I loathe to say it being a Coca-cola fan, Pepsi outdoes Coke almost always. (Although, to be fair, Coke is again a specialist [focuses solely on softdrinks] while Pepsi is another 'buckshot' company [soft drinks, Lay's potato chips, Quaker foods]).
First, I was talking drink to drink, not company to company. The latter of those two is a worthless comparison as one sells drinks and the other has their fingers in many pies so it really wouldn't at all relate to anything spinning out of one drink reappearing on the market. Second, looking at Coke's report, they lead in global sales of soft drinks. Pepsi can claim to be number one in Canada, for whatever that's worth. Third, every article I have ever read on the topic (like this one from 2007 illustrate that Coke is the highest selling soft drink on Earth. Or, we can look at the chart (though it is from 1996) at the bottom of this page to see just how badly Coke surpasses Pepsi. Or this article from 2008 with a lovely quote "But, when it comes to sales of the sodas, obviously Coke is the leader." That article links to another article from 2006 with this quote "The great irony of Pepsi's rise is this: It has never sold more soda than Coke, even today."
So, I stand by my statement that Coke (the drink) outsells Pepsi (the drink) and a part of the reason is because the brand was reenergized due to the New Coke fiasco. As for New Coke being a failure, that was kind of the point I was getting at (I thought the use of the word "fiasco" covered the whole affair from the death of New Coke to the rebirth of Coke as Coke Classic). It failed and when the old Coke came back large numbers of people flocked to it and they have stayed there for 2 and a half decades. I thought my implication was obvious in that I was saying that we can only hope this is a New Coke situation because New Coke was a temporary set back that brought the company greater success down the road once they realised the error of their ways. A true disaster would be something like Pepsi Clear that just kind of died.
|
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 07:05:08
|
Okay, it looks like we're on the same page for a lot of stuff. I just wanted to clarify a lot of what was being discussed. I was bringing in the figures to show how a company that specializes may not bring in as much money as one that doesn't, but the specialist may be doing a lot better in direct 'head-to-head' competition.
(And, just for the record, Coke's been the #1 soft drink since it's introduction in 1886.  ) |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36968 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 14:05:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Personally, I think Wooly is just a big kid.
My wife says something similar. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 20:16:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Okay, it looks like we're on the same page for a lot of stuff. I just wanted to clarify a lot of what was being discussed. I was bringing in the figures to show how a company that specializes may not bring in as much money as one that doesn't, but the specialist may be doing a lot better in direct 'head-to-head' competition.
(And, just for the record, Coke's been the #1 soft drink since it's introduction in 1886. )
I hope I didn't come off as a jerk in my response last night/this morning. It was kind of late for me and looking at my post now I'm suprised your reply was as civil as it was. And sometimes my point is clear to me and I can't see how it isn't clear to others. Apologies if it was offensive or overly combative(likewise to Wooly).
I do generally agree with Markustay in that it seems like they are asleep behind the wheel and have been for a while. Meanwhile the IP is sitting there virtually untouched in a time when Fantasy is making a huge come back in the media (LotR, Harry Potter, to an extent Twilight, the Pirates movies, etc) and it seems like right now would be the time to strike. It just gets more frustrating when you see that Hasbro is going full steam ahead with spreading out it's IPs (Transformers, GIJoe) so we know that they know how the game is played (though it's arguable if they know how the D&D game is played).
|
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 20:27:47
|
The biggest problem with D&D in the media is the movie. The movie was such a critical/financial failure, they are now gun-shy.
Edit: Oh, and in regards to your tone; I've been on the net for over 15 years through use.net, messageboards and forums. I long ago learned to not read a tone in a post. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 01 Aug 2010 20:29:47 |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 21:03:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The biggest problem with D&D in the media is the movie. The movie was such a critical/financial failure, they are now gun-shy.
Yeah, the movie is a problem. I think the best approach should be to downplay (but not completely omit) the fact that it is a D&D movie. Using the example that I believe is the most likely approach to a new movie, Drizzt. Somewhere below the main title (whatever it ends up being) have: A Dungeons and Dragons movie, or something to that effect. Or, be a little more round about and don't say that on the first movie but include it on later sequels if the first is a success. Or, instead of D&D say it is a Forgotten Realms product. That name seems to not be soiled in the public eye. Then maybe in a DVD insert or something mention the connection for those who don't know. If it all works, maybe they eventually branch out into other worlds (Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, whatever) for other movies or perhaps shows.
That's the approach I would take anyway. Distance themselves from the old D&D movie as much as possible and make a FR movie. If it isn't Drizzt, I'm not sure what the best approach would be. Something in Waterdeep or Cormyr maybe? Then the real question hits. "Current" (4.0) or "past"? Past is my preferrence. Of course you know a producer/director (maybe Bay) somewhere would be salivating at being able to depict the Spellplague on film.
I do wonder, if they go with an original storyline, is it better to have a "new guy" to have an excuse for lots of exposition or is it better to just have the names of things thrown out there with no real explanation? The latter of those would be like some of the things in the Conan movies and Ghostbusters where fictional items are just thrown out there for the audience to take in with no real explanation. It will never happen, but I would love to see it go the way of the current Marvel movies where they have multiple movies coming out that all exist in the same world with some level of crossover between them instead of one Marvel movie every few years. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 23:42:11
|
| Interesting enough, Hasbro and The Discovery Channel are launching a new TV Network this fall with new Transformers and My Little Pony cartoons as the backbone of the launch. If the channel does well, perhaps we WILL get a D&D cartoon. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 03:43:52
|
| Just as a note, LEGO is a privately owned company, whereas Hasbro is owned by its shareholders. So making 1/2 as much as its corporate competitor is pretty amazing. (I also really like LEGOs, so I like pointing out how awesome of a company they are.) |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 04:06:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Just as a note, LEGO is a privately owned company, whereas Hasbro is owned by its shareholders. So making 1/2 as much as its corporate competitor is pretty amazing. (I also really like LEGOs, so I like pointing out how awesome of a company they are.)
Minifigs make truly awesome miniatures for RPGs, too.
Brick Links (Great place to get minifigs)
Brick Forge (Great place for custom minifig accessories) |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 04:55:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Interesting enough, Hasbro and The Discovery Channel are launching a new TV Network this fall with new Transformers and My Little Pony cartoons as the backbone of the launch. If the channel does well, perhaps we WILL get a D&D cartoon.
Well I didn't see that one coming. As for a D&D cartoon I wonder if they still have the rights to the old one?
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2010 : 05:02:15
|
| Well, Mill Creek Entertainment currently has the rights to the original cartoon, but since Hasbro owns the IP rights to Dungeons & Dragons, they could make a new cartoon without referencing the old. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2010 : 16:58:00
|
Going through the posts I've noticed some people are linking the "Essentials" line of D&D 4e products with a 4.5 analogy and that just simply isn't the case. Since I have a DDI account and have been looking at the Essentials line, and reading the blogs the Essentials is nothing more than a kit. Its a way to modifiy your character class for a specific build while still building on the original class. For example a "knight" is an essential of the Fighter and is designed (a bit) more defender-ish. They gain different benefits at the cost of some baisc fighter features but the class still has access to all the fighter powers, feats, etc. Same goes for all the other Essentials that they're coming out with.
And as far as Errata, the do constant errata every 6 months or so and often change many things. It's mainly because of the large feedback from the community. If they had done this with 3.5, we wouldn't have the 15+ crap classes and PrC classes that were crammed down our throats. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 02:29:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Going through the posts I've noticed some people are linking the "Essentials" line of D&D 4e products with a 4.5 analogy and that just simply isn't the case.
*snip*
Well, that is the official WotC position, and it has many ardent defenders, at least on their own boards.
It's not necessarily everyone's position. Among other arguments, there are a number of people who believe that WotC wouldn't call it "4.5" even if it were, "essentially".
Do you have a link where a designer or spoke-person says that this is akin to the 3.5 revision? If so, I'd love to read or hear it. From my own perspective and from what one designer (can't honestly remember which one) said that the essentials line is completly compatible with the source material of previous 4E books, something that much of 3.0 had some minor toubles with.
Now, since the constant revisions of certain rules and class powers, I wouldn't be suprised that WotC would re-printed the core books that incorporated those changes. Sure, those changes are pretty minor (a fighter's power revision here, a feat revision there) but on the whole, it's just as playable as when it first came out. I believe that the errata 4E receives is directly related to RPGA-play and from the most vocal of members on the WotC boards. And because WotC does cater more to the RPGA players (and why not, they invest alot more time and money than the average gamer) these changes are done on a few months basis. For myself, I've been perfectly fine running with the books with little use of the Errata. My group doesn't attempt to exploit each and every nuiance of the rule-system to find the uber-kewl-bada$$ combo that can kill Orcus in 1 hit, and so I doubt I'd buy the revised books if they were to be published.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Given that it hasn't shipped yet, it's pretty hard to definitively say. I think it's pretty hard to take the marketing spiel of the designers as the sole source for deciding.
I agree but from what I've seen of the information they've released about the Essentials (they did the Knight, Slayer, Mage, and a rogue type) it seems they're attempting to appeal to the older player mainly because much of this is being brought back from D&D's Hey-Day (the rogue build has a feature called Back-stab or somesuch). Not to say that it isn't intriguing, but from the looks of it I see it as nothing more than "builds" or add-ons to your already existing 4E character. It's more or less a theme for your character with some bonus features that fit that theme more than your average Fighter or Wizard. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 05:04:22
|
| Well, from all the various posts and such that came out of GenCon, WotC's position was that they would reprint the Core Rulebooks as needed, but they don't see a need right now since they have a 'warehouse full of books' still available. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 14:42:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Perhaps my language was confusing — I wasn't saying that anyone at WotC was saying that this is a version change. I was writing that there are outside observers who've been making that argument, suggesting that this will be 4.5, or "4.4".
Ahh, now I see. Yea, I was under the impression that a person who works for WotC was saying this is a revision of the edition like 3.5. But I'm not suprised people would think whats going on is an edition revision. But from what I can tell so far, everything already produced is still very valid and (from what DDI articles say) compatible with any future releases with the Essentials line.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
As I'm sure you're aware, there was some backlash at the incompatible changes in 3.5. But that backlash grew considerably when 4E came out, in what some people saw as an indecently short time.
Judging by time I'd say yea it was pretty short duration, 8 years (6 after the revision) but going by product release then I'm going to have to say no. Revising the edition a 3rd time (calling it what 3.75?) would've been just as bad IMO as making 4E. I honestly don't know what WotC could produce that wasn't already covered in some way that would still appeal to the fan-base. So sure, they could've stretched out their production of books, but that would've just prolonged the arguments we're discussing today.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Converting material from 3.0 to 3.5 could be annoying, but it was hardly impossible. Converting from 3.5 to 4 is arguably even harder than converting from 2E to 3E. A number of observers saw that as a money-grab, and were upset. From a WotC perspective, they definitely want to avoid any semblance that would lend credence to those outside observers in this current situation.
First let me address the conversion. With the 25 classes we have now (not including hybrid options or the Essentials line) I'm fairly certain a person could come resonably close to re-creating their 3.5 characters to utilize 4E mechanics. There are some builds that are hard to re-create such as a rogue using all DEX and fighting with Two-weapons since two-weapon powers require STR but aside from those differences, its not that hard. But from the get-go, yea the PHB only had 8 base classes so bards, barbarians, druids, monks, and sorcerers characters from 3.5 were forced to create new characters and keep their 3.5 ones on the shelf until further books came out.
And to discuss the money grab people thought when WotC revised 3E to 3.5, I think WotC intent was to create a better system, not soley to make more money. 3.0 was flawed in many aspects (crit threat with a roll of 12-20 was possible) so WotC made it better. Yes, they charged 30.00 a book which a player might have already purchased but it wasn't needed to use 3.5 materal when an easy errata PDF could've sufficed.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
If the WotC marketing mantra will be that if you're playing 4E, you have to have the Essentials line of products, I'm not sure that the specific question of, "Is it an edition change?" will matter anyway. Those critical observers will claim that it's materially unimportant, if a player has to shell out the cash for the product then whatever you call it, from a practical perspective it's the same as an edition change. If, on the other hand, it's marketed purely for bringing new players into the system, that argument loses weight.
Which is what I think the intet of the Essentials is. A 4E player doesn't HAVE to have the essential elements but it gives a 4E player more options which is always great.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Not having seen the final product, I don't feel comfortable trying to make a coherent argument or take any kind of stand. But I really don't feel comfortable believing that simply because WotC says that it's not an edition change makes it so.
I agree that without the final product, it's all just speculation but from the articles I've seen and having a glimps of what the Essentials are, I'm farily confident that it isn't an edition change. |
Edited by - Diffan on 20 Aug 2010 14:44:16 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 15:16:20
|
Just two things I'll add:
1) 3.0/3.5 had 11 base classes in the PHB, but with the ease of multiclassing and such, you were able to create a large number of combinations (even if you look at just two-class combos, you'll get over 100 possible combinations). Granted, the volume of Prestige Classes, additional base classes and other things (like racial substitution levels) resulted in an overabundance of choices (IMHO), but it still allowed for more freedom of characters than I have yet to see in 4E.
2) The Essentials line is being marketed to 'grab new players' by making the rules easier. Considering that was the original reason for the 4th Edition when 3rd Edition was still out there, I have no problems making a comparison that it's a half edition (since the basic rules set is the same as 4E). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4490 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 16:26:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Just two things I'll add:
1) 3.0/3.5 had 11 base classes in the PHB, but with the ease of multiclassing and such, you were able to create a large number of combinations (even if you look at just two-class combos, you'll get over 100 possible combinations). Granted, the volume of Prestige Classes, additional base classes and other things (like racial substitution levels) resulted in an overabundance of choices (IMHO), but it still allowed for more freedom of characters than I have yet to see in 4E.
I can admit that the customization of 4E characters are more strict and less forgiving than 3E characters but that's a beauty if you ask me. IMO people who combine soo many classes (ftr 3/wiz 4/bbn 1/clr 4) just make for crappy characters. It got to a point where character's roles were so blurred that everyone was a specialtist type. In addition, the great versatility help utilize the Min/Max thinking. Take 1 or 2 levels of barbarian for rage and uncanny dodge, 1 level of cleric for turn undead & domain spells, no more than 4 levels of fighter for bonus feats, 1 level of bard for skill list, 4 levels of paladin for the the divine grace, smite undead, additional turn undead attempts, etc.... it rarely made it worth-while to play a class from level 1-20 besides the Druid, Monk, and Dread Necromancer. Min/Maxing at it's finest and was most prevailent in 3E/3.5.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
2) The Essentials line is being marketed to 'grab new players' by making the rules easier. Considering that was the original reason for the 4th Edition when 3rd Edition was still out there, I have no problems making a comparison that it's a half edition (since the basic rules set is the same as 4E).
Ok, they're simplifying (for clarity sake) certain rules such as Vulnerability of the same type of damage doesn't stack and as long as your proficient with an implement, you can use that implement for any power you use. For example, a bard is proficient with Wands but if they multiclass into say....sorcerer (which isn't proficient with wands) any sorcerer power the bard uses couldn't be aided by his wand and now the rule changes so he can.
But specific rules such as actions in combat, charging, class features, etc... are staying the same. Something that coudln't be said for the 3.5 revision. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What were they thinking?
