D&D 4E Hasbro, Greyhawk, and 4E speculation

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

As hilarious as the "Tell us what you like and don't like about 4e" thread is, I have been thinking about all of the 4E speculation and setting oddness...here's my suspicion:

Hasbro/Wizards has no concrete plans on releasing 4th Ed, BUT I don't think thats the good news that many suppose.

Wizards has been acting funny. Re-acquiring licenses/settings, even ones that they have no intention of supporting or using. And the rumours circulating might be just a bunch of babbling...or they may mean something, but not what everyone thinks. Its the "own it, but not use it" aspect that really sticks out to me.



The recent deal with Atari/Infogrames deal with Hasbro is also interesting. I don't know if anyone else picked up on it, but the wording and terms were odd. There are three groups in this deal. The first group are the games Hasbro re-acquired all rights to for themselves. Thats these games:

My Little Pony
Connect Four
Candyland
Playskool
Tonka
Transformers
Magic: The Gathering

For the second group, Infogrames secured "an exclusive, seven-year license on nine major Hasbro properties":

Monopoly
Scrabble
Game of Life
Battleship
Clue
Yahtzee
Simon
Risk
Boggle

...but the terms of that agreement are: "obtaining seven-year rights to nine major properties for wireless, Internet (online games), and interactive television formats..."

Notice the specific delineation of rights.

Now, Infogrames/Atari deal for D&D was part of the same package, along with everything else. But there is only one license out of all 17 brands in this deal that has its own specific deal: D&D.
Here are the terms for D&D: Infogrames recieves rights to D&D for "all interactive formats" for another 10 years

Notice the two major differences:
1) the deal for D&D rights is for TEN years, not seven, like everything else.
2) the deal is for "all interactive formats", not for specifically limited formats, like all the others.


You know what that looks like to me?
It looks like Hasbro has squeezed everything they can out of D&D, and its time to get rid of it.

And all the setting re-acquisition?...consolidating their IP, cleaning up licensing issues, so they can get rid of it.



So here's the bottom line: Wizards is preparing to sell off D&D.



It makes sense. This simplifies any future acquisition. And just as a new edition is not something you would want to announce because of its effect on sales, you wouldn't want to announce something is for sale either. It creates a "deathwatch" mentality, people will assume things will change, your sales will drop, diminishing any income you would have recieved before the actual sale.


Now there are probably people saying, "So what? That doesn't mean they will release 4th Edition."
Here's what: Do you honestly think someone is going to shell out 8 figures for the privilege of continuing a line that is deemed not worth keeping by Hasbro, just to make you happy?

The fact that Hasbro/Wizards isn't planning 4E D&D doesn't mean that 4E D&D won't happen. It just means Wizards isn't planning on it right now. Which could be because Hasbro thinks D&D is crap, and by extension 4E D&D is crap, and not worth producing.

If my surmise is correct, one of two things will happen.

Scenario 1:
D&D is permitted support and a team as long as it makes a profit. When it no longer makes a profit, everyone is laid off, and D&D becomes a moribund property, consisting of a library of products and a brand name. I suspect this will be soon, because endless-release churn drives more and more people away.

Scenario 2:
Someone comes in and buys D&D. Guess what they will do first? Maybe what Wizards did right after they bought TSR?



Mostly likely: it will be both scenario 1 and 2, in that order.

I remember on a recent thread here on ENWorld, a designer or developer said there was a kind of doomsday cult around a lot of hobbies.

But I remember something else, too. I remember about seven years ago on usenet, people wondering why they weren't getting their Dungeon and Dragon subscriptions. I remember talk from Tracy Hickman that he was no longer being paid royalties. Of the events of the era, the writer's royalties is what really struck me. Things like that get you lawsuits, and potentially prison. That doesn't happen unless something is DEEPLY wrong.

If D&D dies again, it won't be like last time. This isn't a single business company, where the whole thing comes crashing down. Hasbro will simply liquidate an unprofitable division and move on, without blinking an eye.



Of course, I could be wrong. I could just be a doomsday cultist. Could be.

 

[Crothian]

So, that brings up the following question: Who do you want to buy D&D??

 

[Truth Seeker]

This is a very insightful analysis...and scary too. And yes, who would buy it? Who has the spunk, imagination, and the great foresight to take D&D, places where few has gone?

Who?

*1940's series climatic drama music, plays in the background*

 

[the black knight]

I will. Now where did I put that 25 million?

*starts searching around*

 

[William Ronald]

So, that brings up the following question: Who do you want to buy D&D??

I think that Crothian's question is valid. First, the D&D license would be worth money to Hasbrow, if it wishes to eliminate an unprofitable division. In a financial sense, it would be better for Hasbro to receive some money on a property than to merely close down the Dungeons and Dragons line/or WotC.

As for the licenses, I understand that the rights to Ravenloft and Gamma World expired, and it was a matter of the licenses reverting to WotC.

If I recall correctly, there was a provision in the sale of WotC to Hasbro that would give Peter Adkison a priority in any sale of the company by Hasbro. So, possibly a group consisting of Adkison and other interested buyers might acquire the D&D line and/or WotC. There would likely be a few companies and individuals willing to join Adkison in such a venture.

I think that someone would acquire the D&D license, if Hasbro decides that it is not worth the expense of keeping the line active. The Dungeons and Dragons line has been through several rough spots, and will survive.

As I recall, there was some preliminary work down on 3rd edition by TSR, prior to its acquisition by WoTC. So, a new owner may want a new edition -- or may decide that 3.5 is profitable enough. Indeed, much of the talk on the boards is that 3.5 is selling well. A new company might also have to take steps to establish trust with the customer base.

The future is uncertain, but I see little hard evidence indicating an imminent sale of WotC or the D&D line. I could be wrong, but I think that incredible claims require incredible proof. I think that there are reasons to wonder why Hasbro has different standards for some of the properties associated with D&D than other lines, but I tend to be cautious on rumors. Mind you, I think that D&D is the most valuable RPG property and that WotC is still making a profit.

 

[Turjan]

And yes, who would buy it?

Who?

*1940's series climatic drama music, plays in the background*

Matthew Sprange! After having torn out his last hair out of despair that Greg Stafford insists on personally planting each single tree in Glorantha for Runequest, he lets Runequest be Runequest and grasps the next best thing: D&D!

*dramatic fanfare*

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

So, that brings up the following question: Who do you want to buy D&D??

Who do I want? Well, I can think of a couple that I wouldn't mind, but I don't think thats the pertinent question.

The pertinent question is: who is capable of and willing to shell out 8 figures for it?

That is a tiny group.

Even when you factor some kind of designer/developer/author collective (which is an iffy proposition in the first place) I don't see them being able to leverage more than high seven figures. I could be wrong though.

I can tell you a couple I would dread though:

Alliance Distributors or the owner of Decipher (assuming he is still solvent. My impression is that he took a bloodbath on the LOTR franchise).


...Or there's this possibility, which would just crack me up: Adkinson, again.

Aside from a few authors, he's the only guy I can think of who possibly has the money and desire to buy it and do it some justice.



Another theory about Greyhawk though. I was thinking that Wizards might want Greyhawk (and every other setting) dead, Dead, DEAD. Why? To increase sales on their core setting lines: FR and Eberron.

Now they can't kill Scarred Lands and their ilk, but who needs to really?

The flaw in this theory of mine is this: If this was WotC's reasoning, why would they permit Dungeon to set single adventures in Greyhawk, but not the long-term adventure path?

It looks more like they are specifically trying to keep their options open. Which reinforces my original theory. And by the way, the previous statement about Greyhawk and Dungeon comes from Mona. You can go read it on the WotC boards if you don't believe me.

 

[Zenodotus of Ephesus]

4E speculation

Thank goodness someone had the Sanguinemetalballs to broach this subject!

 

[Crothian]

Who do I want? Well, I can think of a couple that I wouldn't mind, but I don't think thats the pertinent question.

The pertinent question is: who is capable of and willing to shell out 8 figures for it?

It might not have been the pertinent question, but its a lot more fun.

 

[William Ronald]

If I recall correctly, Erik Mona stated that the Greyhawk city reference in the Age of Worms adventure modules was struck so that the adventures would be easier to place in various settings. Of course, I would argue that it would be difficult to produce a Greyhawk setting book that would please the various factions of Greyhawk fandom. This division may be part of what prevents WotC from doing more with the setting.

Mind you, I think that part of what might spur a future sale of WotC or the Dungeons and Dragons line is if Hasbro decided that either the line or the division did not fit its corporate vision. So far, Hasbro seems to be in fairly good shape but reorganizaitons are always possible in any large corporation.