I saw an interesting discussion recently that speculated that Hasbro/Wizards may intend to stop being a publisher of D&D and move into being a licensor of D&D. In this model, the D&D brand would be licensed out to companies like Lego or EA, or Larian to make money off the license.
The discussion resolved around the huge layoffs in the D&D writing and creative team that will make it more difficult to produce in-house content as well as the introduction of third-party content to DDB. This would allow Wizards to outsource content creation while only providing a platform for the content. The fanbase would subsidize all content creation, most likely through platforms like KS and Backerkit.
In light of all the changes and the massive issues with Hasbro revenue right now, I think it is plausible.
I know they've been shying away from more generic lore information in their recent books, in favor of setting-specific lore that may be overwritten in any number of settings.
I wonder how a move like this would affect how they approach the lore of the world. At first blush it seems like this would give them a good excuse to ignore large swatches of lore completely, which I would very much dislike.
This speculation assuming, of course, that these rumors have any credibility to them (not dissing you, Jaccsen).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Like most things you see online, this is probably nonsense. Financial disclosures and other legally-required-to-be-true statements by Wizards/Hasbro have consistently affirmed that published D&D products are a significant portion of revenue for this game and are and will remain an important part of their portfolio moving forward. That does not mean Wizards will not also try to capture additional revenue streams, but it does mean they are unlikely to change a core model which has been working for the past fifty years.
Let's look at the "evidence" given in support of this.
Licensing deals to folks like Lego and Larian are a pretty easy way to make money--your lawyers draft up a contract, you give some creative input, you help do some of the advertising, and the other guys do all the rest of the work. But a license is only as strong as the underlying product - if you do not offer a popular, strong product that engages people, no one is going to want to pay for your license. In order to keep the license flowing, Wizards needs to keep D&D relevant as a game, and needs to keep the D&D brand and trademark relevant as something with actual value.
Which brings us to third party producers. Third party producers do not need Wizards and they cannot use any of Wizards' trademarks in their products (they almost were allowed to--but players decided to reject that fairly significant offer). What does that mean? It means that, if Wizards took too far a step back away form publishing, most of D&D would not have the D&D logo or branding on it. That hurts brand and game recognition, reducing the footprint D&D has in the community and reducing its value as something to license. Publishing, instead of just relying on third-party content creators, is a necessary component of keeping the brand identity strong--it means you both get revenue from what you sell and you strengthen the brand so you can pull in more money from licenses. Now, Wizards also is going to want to capture some of that revenue from third party producers--which is why they are giving them a platform on D&D Beyond--but their brand would not really be able to survive in a Wizards-controlled state if they exclusively relied upon third party producers for content generation.
Turning next to the layoffs - layoffs are an unfortunate reality of business... but they are often not fatal to the business. A lot of D&D's' senior development staff remains intact and, while the layoffs hit 20% of their employees, the reality is that you can still function with 20% fewer staff. And, considering Wizards is currently advertising a "Senior Product Manager" position to oversee the production of physical D&D products, it is pretty darn clear that they intend to continue producing products.
All told, be careful what you read online--as a general rule, anyone who pulls together loose threads instead of actual evidence to suggest a major product is suddenly going to undo fifty years of history and pivot to a different direction is probably doing so for sensationalism and page views, rather than because they actually have any useful insights.
Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr>>All told, be careful what you read online--as a general rule, anyone who pulls together loose threads instead of actual evidence to suggest a major product is suddenly going to undo fifty years of history and pivot to a different direction is probably doing so for sensationalism and page views, rather than because they actually have any useful insights.
I thought it was an interesting discussion. It does open the possibility of Wizards vetting third-party publishers to produce content using the D&D Brand and Logo. You'd need a much smaller staff to review and approve the content and you would dramatically reduce expenses.
It looks like D&D may have lost money in the last fiscal year with MTG profits saving the actual bottom line.
I have no clue if it will happen and D&D usually sheds staff when a new edition is complete so it could just be the normal cycle.
It's complete nonsense. While D&D's brand is valuable, it's valuable in large part for being associated with a game system... which has a publisher... which is WotC. They might reduce publications of secondary products (adventures have never been great sources of profit) but the layoffs at Wizards were part of a general haircut for all of Hasbro, not a targeted withdrawal.
Which brings us to third party producers. Third party producers do not need Wizards and they cannot use any of Wizards' trademarks in their products (they almost were allowed to--but players decided to reject that fairly significant offer).
I'll add that even here, 3PP have an avenue to make money off Wizards IP without negotiating a tailored license, that being DMsGuild. Keith Baker is allowed to publish and charge for plenty of Eberron material via that avenue, and any other creator who thinks they have the name recognition or a solid enough idea to attract the community's eyes can do the same, and release it in a place a lot of us are already looking at.
They can't use the D&D logo that way, sure, but the DMsGuild logo is nearly as recognizable within the community that would be their primary audience anyway.
I know they've been shying away from more generic lore information in their recent books, in favor of setting-specific lore that may be overwritten in any number of settings.
I wonder how a move like this would affect how they approach the lore of the world. At first blush it seems like this would give them a good excuse to ignore large swatches of lore completely, which I would very much dislike.
This speculation assuming, of course, that these rumors have any credibility to them (not dissing you, Jaccsen).
This is a terrible business model decision and jeopardizes the existence of a continuous game with set rules.
The simple fact is if you can't make money off your brand then no one else can either. Licensing a dead brand won't save a dead product. The problem is internal. Not the brand. Therefore the business model changes represent bad corporate.
I saw an interesting discussion recently that speculated that Hasbro/Wizards may intend to stop being a publisher of D&D and move into being a licensor of D&D. In this model, the D&D brand would be licensed out to companies like Lego or EA, or Larian to make money off the license.
The discussion resolved around the huge layoffs in the D&D writing and creative team that will make it more difficult to produce in-house content as well as the introduction of third-party content to DDB. This would allow Wizards to outsource content creation while only providing a platform for the content. The fanbase would subsidize all content creation, most likely through platforms like KS and Backerkit.
In light of all the changes and the massive issues with Hasbro revenue right now, I think it is plausible.
Thoughts?
What discussion was this from? Youtubers? If it wasn't from Crawford or a HASBRO representative, I would just ignore it. They have put in way too much money to suddenly back away. If I understand you correctly.
Would prefer to see the IP move to a more competent owner than an outsourcing type model. WotC/Hasbro have more or less burned all their bridges with a large cross section of the community, and it would be preferable for them to be no longer involved in the IP in any capacity in the hopes someone else could set things back on a better course.
They need to keep coherence with the previous lore and the style or the spirit of the brand/franchise.
In the 3.5 Ed Ravenloft was licenced, and the number of published titles should mean it worked. But now all that new elements added to the lore, for example new characters or changes in the plot, are in the canon of the 5ed?
For example now G.I.Joe is licenced to a different comic publisher. Could this reuse those new characters created by the previous licenced publisher?
They need to keep coherence with the previous lore and the style or the spirit of the brand/franchise.
In the 3.5 Ed Ravenloft was licenced, and the number of published titles should mean it worked. But now all that new elements added to the lore, for example new characters or changes in the plot, are in the canon of the 5ed?
For example now G.I.Joe is licenced to a different comic publisher. Could this reuse those new characters created by the previous licenced publisher?
In that case, yes, because Hasbro learned from their experiences with Marvel back in the 80s and 90s and has made sure ever since that their contracts insure that any characters created in new media are clearly owned by Hasbro. That's how Hasbro was able to produce action figures for IDW Transformers characters like Tarn, Javelin, and Kaskade after IDW's license had expired. They're not interested in a repeat of what happened with the Dire Wraiths or Death's Head.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They need to keep coherence with the previous lore and the style or the spirit of the brand/franchise.
In the 3.5 Ed Ravenloft was licenced, and the number of published titles should mean it worked. But now all that new elements added to the lore, for example new characters or changes in the plot, are in the canon of the 5ed?
For example now G.I.Joe is licenced to a different comic publisher. Could this reuse those new characters created by the previous licenced publisher?
There were a lot of problems with that publishing style. Yes, they cranked out a lot of books with with a D& D logo on them. But overall (not just ravenloft, here, but across the whole brand) they were of really inconsistent quality. Additionally, each of their freelancers was working in a little vacuum, so none of the materials were play tested against or in conjunction with each other. That lead to broken combos the like of which put the warlock/paladin with PAM, GWM and sentinel to shame.
The bigger deal, was when they were just gearing up for 5e, they did fine study and found most players buy 4 books. Not per year, 4 ever. One of those was the PHB, so basically 3. We all remember those earlier editions as some kind of golden age for lore, but most people only saw a fraction of it. It was even worse in 2e, where there were so many settings that it splintered the fan base — if you played in dark sun, you were not buying a spelljammer or planescape book — which depressed sales even further.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I saw an interesting discussion recently that speculated that Hasbro/Wizards may intend to stop being a publisher of D&D and move into being a licensor of D&D. In this model, the D&D brand would be licensed out to companies like Lego or EA, or Larian to make money off the license.
The discussion resolved around the huge layoffs in the D&D writing and creative team that will make it more difficult to produce in-house content as well as the introduction of third-party content to DDB. This would allow Wizards to outsource content creation while only providing a platform for the content. The fanbase would subsidize all content creation, most likely through platforms like KS and Backerkit.
In light of all the changes and the massive issues with Hasbro revenue right now, I think it is plausible.
Thoughts?
I know they've been shying away from more generic lore information in their recent books, in favor of setting-specific lore that may be overwritten in any number of settings.
I wonder how a move like this would affect how they approach the lore of the world. At first blush it seems like this would give them a good excuse to ignore large swatches of lore completely, which I would very much dislike.
This speculation assuming, of course, that these rumors have any credibility to them (not dissing you, Jaccsen).
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Like most things you see online, this is probably nonsense. Financial disclosures and other legally-required-to-be-true statements by Wizards/Hasbro have consistently affirmed that published D&D products are a significant portion of revenue for this game and are and will remain an important part of their portfolio moving forward. That does not mean Wizards will not also try to capture additional revenue streams, but it does mean they are unlikely to change a core model which has been working for the past fifty years.
Let's look at the "evidence" given in support of this.
Licensing deals to folks like Lego and Larian are a pretty easy way to make money--your lawyers draft up a contract, you give some creative input, you help do some of the advertising, and the other guys do all the rest of the work. But a license is only as strong as the underlying product - if you do not offer a popular, strong product that engages people, no one is going to want to pay for your license. In order to keep the license flowing, Wizards needs to keep D&D relevant as a game, and needs to keep the D&D brand and trademark relevant as something with actual value.
Which brings us to third party producers. Third party producers do not need Wizards and they cannot use any of Wizards' trademarks in their products (they almost were allowed to--but players decided to reject that fairly significant offer). What does that mean? It means that, if Wizards took too far a step back away form publishing, most of D&D would not have the D&D logo or branding on it. That hurts brand and game recognition, reducing the footprint D&D has in the community and reducing its value as something to license. Publishing, instead of just relying on third-party content creators, is a necessary component of keeping the brand identity strong--it means you both get revenue from what you sell and you strengthen the brand so you can pull in more money from licenses. Now, Wizards also is going to want to capture some of that revenue from third party producers--which is why they are giving them a platform on D&D Beyond--but their brand would not really be able to survive in a Wizards-controlled state if they exclusively relied upon third party producers for content generation.
Turning next to the layoffs - layoffs are an unfortunate reality of business... but they are often not fatal to the business. A lot of D&D's' senior development staff remains intact and, while the layoffs hit 20% of their employees, the reality is that you can still function with 20% fewer staff. And, considering Wizards is currently advertising a "Senior Product Manager" position to oversee the production of physical D&D products, it is pretty darn clear that they intend to continue producing products.
All told, be careful what you read online--as a general rule, anyone who pulls together loose threads instead of actual evidence to suggest a major product is suddenly going to undo fifty years of history and pivot to a different direction is probably doing so for sensationalism and page views, rather than because they actually have any useful insights.
I thought it was an interesting discussion. It does open the possibility of Wizards vetting third-party publishers to produce content using the D&D Brand and Logo. You'd need a much smaller staff to review and approve the content and you would dramatically reduce expenses.
It looks like D&D may have lost money in the last fiscal year with MTG profits saving the actual bottom line.
I have no clue if it will happen and D&D usually sheds staff when a new edition is complete so it could just be the normal cycle.
It's complete nonsense. While D&D's brand is valuable, it's valuable in large part for being associated with a game system... which has a publisher... which is WotC. They might reduce publications of secondary products (adventures have never been great sources of profit) but the layoffs at Wizards were part of a general haircut for all of Hasbro, not a targeted withdrawal.
nah, despite they can get money for third party content, it's very likely publishing still might bringing and will bring them most income.
MTG more profitable wotc product though, but it has no relation to topic imo
I'll add that even here, 3PP have an avenue to make money off Wizards IP without negotiating a tailored license, that being DMsGuild. Keith Baker is allowed to publish and charge for plenty of Eberron material via that avenue, and any other creator who thinks they have the name recognition or a solid enough idea to attract the community's eyes can do the same, and release it in a place a lot of us are already looking at.
They can't use the D&D logo that way, sure, but the DMsGuild logo is nearly as recognizable within the community that would be their primary audience anyway.
This is a terrible business model decision and jeopardizes the existence of a continuous game with set rules.
The simple fact is if you can't make money off your brand then no one else can either. Licensing a dead brand won't save a dead product. The problem is internal. Not the brand. Therefore the business model changes represent bad corporate.
What discussion was this from? Youtubers? If it wasn't from Crawford or a HASBRO representative, I would just ignore it. They have put in way too much money to suddenly back away. If I understand you correctly.
Would prefer to see the IP move to a more competent owner than an outsourcing type model. WotC/Hasbro have more or less burned all their bridges with a large cross section of the community, and it would be preferable for them to be no longer involved in the IP in any capacity in the hopes someone else could set things back on a better course.
They need to keep coherence with the previous lore and the style or the spirit of the brand/franchise.
In the 3.5 Ed Ravenloft was licenced, and the number of published titles should mean it worked. But now all that new elements added to the lore, for example new characters or changes in the plot, are in the canon of the 5ed?
For example now G.I.Joe is licenced to a different comic publisher. Could this reuse those new characters created by the previous licenced publisher?
In that case, yes, because Hasbro learned from their experiences with Marvel back in the 80s and 90s and has made sure ever since that their contracts insure that any characters created in new media are clearly owned by Hasbro. That's how Hasbro was able to produce action figures for IDW Transformers characters like Tarn, Javelin, and Kaskade after IDW's license had expired. They're not interested in a repeat of what happened with the Dire Wraiths or Death's Head.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There were a lot of problems with that publishing style. Yes, they cranked out a lot of books with with a D& D logo on them. But overall (not just ravenloft, here, but across the whole brand) they were of really inconsistent quality. Additionally, each of their freelancers was working in a little vacuum, so none of the materials were play tested against or in conjunction with each other. That lead to broken combos the like of which put the warlock/paladin with PAM, GWM and sentinel to shame.
The bigger deal, was when they were just gearing up for 5e, they did fine study and found most players buy 4 books. Not per year, 4 ever. One of those was the PHB, so basically 3. We all remember those earlier editions as some kind of golden age for lore, but most people only saw a fraction of it. It was even worse in 2e, where there were so many settings that it splintered the fan base — if you played in dark sun, you were not buying a spelljammer or planescape book — which depressed sales even further.