psychopomp posted:

So WOTC released Zendikar as a setting for 5e. Why cross their IPs like this now? Why not a decade ago? Why ever?

Halloween Jack posted:

I had heard D&D 5 sold well; does this indicate plans to treat the brand more seriously?

Iron Crowned posted:

Ice Age was the best setting though

Iron Crowned posted:

Ice Age was the best setting though

Halloween Jack posted:

This isn't new news, but I recently learned that D&D was mentioned in a Hasbro quarterly report as one of several brands on the upswing, the profits from which more than offset losses from several brands that had taken a downturn. I had heard D&D 5 sold well; does this indicate plans to treat the brand more seriously? Not that long ago we were talking about how D&D had become a legacy brand.

Terrible Opinions posted:

That's a weird way to spell Fallen Empires/Homelands.

Covok posted:

That is good news, but it really depends on how management responds to this news. Their downsizing efforts suggests a philosophy of "this is vestigial," but, if it's on the upswing, they might be willing to increase production size and put some more effort in putting out substantial products, instead of just adventures. However, an unfortunate reality of business is that a lot of it comes down to how management responds, regardless of facts and figures. Facts and figures might say "it sold better than expected and is on the upswing," but management, who has been downsizing the project which suggests a lack of faith, may view this success as an anomaly. However, they have been trying to build the brand (things like the attempted movie) so that may also mean management was downsizing due to reality with the hopes thing turn around and this is the proof they needed to justify changing course.

Of course, decisions don't exist in a vacuum. WotC might view this as "this on the upswing...but, we can probably make more on Magic." Or "this is on the upswing...but, will it last?"

Honestly, just spit balling here.

Covok posted:

That is good news, but it really depends on how management responds to this news. Their downsizing efforts suggests a philosophy of "this is vestigial," but, if it's on the upswing, they might be willing to increase production size and put some more effort in putting out substantial products, instead of just adventures. However, an unfortunate reality of business is that a lot of it comes down to how management responds, regardless of facts and figures. Facts and figures might say "it sold better than expected and is on the upswing," but management, who has been downsizing the project which suggests a lack of faith, may view this success as an anomaly. However, they have been trying to build the brand (things like the attempted movie) so that may also mean management was downsizing due to reality with the hopes thing turn around and this is the proof they needed to justify changing course.

Mors Rattus posted:

I would say that the uptick of D&D as a brand has more to do with, say, the resurgence of Baldur's Gate than it does with the actual tabletop game. Brand isn't the same as product.

Iron Crowned posted:

Maxwell Lord posted:

Homelands was a bad expansion but the lore was kinda neat.

Evil Mastermind posted:

Now they get a dozen tables stuffed in a back corner away from the main walking lines of the tabletop area and a rinky-dink sign.

Halloween Jack posted:

See, that's the thing. I have no idea if increased sales have anything to do with a new edition of the RPG or if it's board games, accessories, and/or licensing.

Iron Crowned posted:

psychopomp posted:

So WOTC released Zendikar as a setting for 5e. Why cross their IPs like this now? Why not a decade ago? Why ever?

Halloween Jack posted:

This isn't new news, but I recently learned that D&D was mentioned in a Hasbro quarterly report as one of several brands on the upswing, the profits from which more than offset losses from several brands that had taken a downturn. I had heard D&D 5 sold well; does this indicate plans to treat the brand more seriously? Not that long ago we were talking about how D&D had become a legacy brand.

Alien Rope Burn posted:

Finally, you can play a summoned creature in a tiny piece of the Magic: the Gathering setting.

Terrible Opinions posted:

I can't tell are you trying to claim Diablo 3 was bad or that 4th edition was bad?

Zephirum posted:

Finally! Proof that literally any homebrew could be better than official WotC material!

Evil Mastermind posted:

The Diablo 3/D&D comparison reminds me of when the first Diablo 3 screenshots came out, and people got mad because some of the areas had c-c-c-COLOR instead of being grimy grimdarkness, and this was somehow a violation of the grand legacy of the Diablo franchise. Kind of like the 3e/4e split.

The difference is that Blizzard just pretty much laughed those people off and just kept doing what they were doing, whereas WotC bucked to the pressure from the "old guard" and scrambled to get them back even though their only real complaint was "THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I AM USED TO".

Terrible Opinions posted:

I can't tell are you trying to claim Diablo 3 was bad or that 4th edition was bad? Neither of those things is true.

This thread confuses me sometimes, what with people claiming GW is good becasue they "disregard grogs" and other such blatant falsehoods.

Halloween Jack posted:

As someone who doesn't actually play GW products, I've repeated the meme that GW regards themselves as a unique hobby and deal with periodically shedding customers to attract the next crop of new customers. However, it seems they've bought their own marketing buzz to the point that they think reality no longer applies to them.

Lemon-Lime posted:

He is literally saying the exact opposite of both those things.

Terrible Opinions posted:

Hotdamn I suck at looking over my stuff. I meant that Diablo 3 was good, cause it was not. Diablo 3 was very bad. The people whining about colors were dumb, but Blizzard ignoring them didn't help anything.

Kai Tave posted:

But its badness wasn't related to its color palette, is the point, and cleaving to the people posting badly photoshopped screenshots of Diablo 3 Extra Brown edition wouldn't have made it any better.

Terrible Opinions posted:

It proves that there isn't any virtue in making something to specifically piss off your established fans. There is only virtue in making a good loving game. Otherwise you go full Age of Sigmar or Windows 8.

Zurui posted:

I'm not super interested in the D&D stats. However, I am a whore for the post-Onslaught Magic settings and will gladly consume any and all of these setting books.

Kai Tave posted:

D&D4E was a good game that pissed a bunch of people off, many of whom felt personally and deliberately slighted by it. Is the lesson here that WotC shouldnt have made it? Someone somewhere has written a hundred thousand angry words about why removing mana burn from Magic is a slap in the face, should they be backpedaling over that? The issue here is when a certain subset of fans take ANY change as something done to specifically piss them off, whether it actually was or not.

Terrible Opinions posted:

Just make a good game and don't give a gently caress about people being pissed off. WotC made 4th edition which was good and pissed people off, but they didn't make it to piss people off. Whereas several people involved in 5th edition have specifically stated they want to stick it to people who don't play "Real D&D".

Similarly you have Mk 3 of warmachine which seems to be making a bunch of changes to the game that will improve it's overall feel and competitive health, and they aren't caring if a few people whine on their forums. Then there is Age of Sigmar whose stated goal was to jettison less profitable than desired customer segments under the belief that new customers would flock to fantasy space marines and extra fascism.