Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
We're way off the subject of DnD here, but suggesting pricing decisions are all about maximizing revenue is not the reality for decision makers. I managed a large product line for several years, and if I had made pricing decisions with the primary intention of capturing maximum revenue I would not have been employed at that company long. The most important thing to most companies is growing profits, with revenue growth a highly desirable secondary goal.
Growing revenue as the primary focus at a very mature company like Hasbro would get the management team fired. Prioritizing revenue over profitability is possible for a period of time in new markets, new technologies, or when a company is trying to capture a dominant market position, but none of these apply to DnD (or MtG for that matter), and the goal with that strategy is to be set up for big profits once maturity is reached.
Agreed 100% that corporate layoffs seldom if ever lead to pricing reductions. In fact almost nothing leads to price reductions, as we see on a continuous loop in the last few years.
So, I think you're putting lipstick on a pig here. For instance we've had a lot of inflation with recent tariff wars. And tariffs are just putting a tax on imports. So to pay for that tax, companies increased their prices. We know this because the US president got very mad publicly about companies doing just that, even threatened them. Now sure, that's all part of a revenue projection model, but is it not also passing on their cost increases to the customer? Also I feel like you really should make it (price - cost) * sales = revenue. It's not like everything here is being produced for free.
Also can we not conflate passing on costs to passing on savings? Obviously if a company finds their base can bare a new price point, they would rather take the money... And when I say bare, it really is dependent on their strategy. For instance, with video game DLC, market psychology has honed in on a price point. Use to be ~$8 if I remember correctly. They knew that if you go higher, people are less likely to buy despite it meaning more profit per sale. It's really a perception thing. This is more likely what WotC will consider when they think about budgeting and pricing changes. Will the consumer bare to pay a little more, or will they be turned off and thus lose the company sales? If market research says the latter they'd likely eat the cost, I think especially if they see it as a one-time expense.
Now will lawyering up affect Hasbro's bottom line? Yes.
Will they lawyer up? Likely, but I think we should wait for any official confirmation or reliable corroboration.
Does that mean that they'll 'pass on the costs' to customer? Not necessarily.
Could they make a really stupid move here or burn away any good will they may have by being heavy handed? It's WotC/Hasbro, but still not necessarily.
I do not think the “costs passed along to consumer” discussion is really relevant to this thread. That said, it is worth noting that Wizards has been historically extremely reluctant to pass costs along to consumers. Even with their recent price increases, both Magic and D&D were the cheapest new MSRP in their respective games’ history when you adjust for inflation. Particularly impressive when you look at how paper products have generally been increasing above average inflation.
So, even if this discussion was relevant, I think it is a bit unfounded based on Wizards’ long history in how it sets prices.
Um... no, that's not actually the way it works. Companies charge whatever maximizes their profit, which is not the same thing (the actual way costs and price interact depends on a lot of factors and is by no means linear, but higher costs generally favor higher prices and fewer units sold).
They hired Fisher-Phillips.
They're a knockoff of the Pinkertons.
This begs the question:
Did WotC(Can't remember who the chief is) hire mercs, or did Hasbro(Chris Cocks)?
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
You are correct, I was oversimplifying it
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hasbro uses the Pinkertons.
And since it’s not the turn of the 19th century, that’s not really a relevant talking point.
I mean, Fisher-Phillips does specialize in the management's side in employment issues, but what else are you expecting? As employers go, Hasbro appears to be best described as "boringly average"; they're not the good guys, they're out for their own profits, but they also don't have a history of being spectacularly terrible.
Tell that to the NUMEROUS unions they've busted, even to this day.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Whaa, whaa. If you're going to keep whining, go cry to somebody that really gives a hoot. Who really cares? Maybe the commies do. Unions are the last thing I would think about when playing dnd.