|
If they had never introduced an OGL in the first place, Pathfinder would have been prevented. But once they did it, they made things worse for themselves by trying what they could to take it back.
Introducing open content could possibly be a bad idea. Taking it away is definitely an even worse idea.
Would getting back to an OGL help? It probably won't fix the issue of having a strong competitor in Paizo. But with the situation as it is now, getting a new OGL won't do any damage anymore.Except if they then decide to take it away again, that would really be the most terrible descision of all.
A new OGL would allow Pathfinder to move to PF 2.0 as a 5e-OGL-Compatible product.
So, once again, WotC would be spending millions of dollars developing 5e just to let its largest competitor get a free piggyback onto all that it creates, and the OGL would instantly (relatively) mean that D&D 5e is competing with Paizo for market share*.
*(obviously assuming Paizo would move forward, but I assume that if there was an OGL for 5e then they would)
It'd be like GM giving Ford the plans for it's next breakthrough car and allowing that car to compete against it in the market the minute it's introduced.
Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share.
Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve" or else it would have to give up OGL and come up with an entirely new system in order to compete with D&D 5e.
Either way, as a Brand, D&D/WotC/Hasbro would come out ahead--it's stymied it's largest competitor and (assuming the game's good) moved the industry onto it's next level.
On the flip side, I can't see anything positive in ROI or Opportunity Cost if Hasbro allows WotC to do another OGL like the one that spawned Pathfinder...
This thread is like the new editions of D&D, never ending.
|
If they had never introduced an OGL in the first place, Pathfinder would have been prevented. But once they did it, they made things worse for themselves by trying what they could to take it back.
Introducing open content could possibly be a bad idea. Taking it away is definitely an even worse idea.
Would getting back to an OGL help? It probably won't fix the issue of having a strong competitor in Paizo. But with the situation as it is now, getting a new OGL won't do any damage anymore.Except if they then decide to take it away again, that would really be the most terrible descision of all.
A new OGL would allow Pathfinder to move to PF 2.0 as a 5e-OGL-Compatible product.
So, once again, WotC would be spending millions of dollars developing 5e just to let its largest competitor get a free piggyback onto all that it creates, and the OGL would instantly (relatively) mean that D&D 5e is competing with Paizo for market share*.
*(obviously assuming Paizo would move forward, but I assume that if there was an OGL for 5e then they would)
It'd be like GM giving Ford the plans for it's next breakthrough car and allowing that car to compete against it in the market the minute it's introduced.
Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share.
Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve" or else it would have to give up OGL and come up with an entirely new system in order to compete with D&D 5e.
Either way, as a Brand, D&D/WotC/Hasbro would come out ahead--it's stymied it's largest competitor and (assuming the game's good) moved the industry onto it's next level.
On the flip side, I can't see anything positive in ROI or Opportunity Cost if Hasbro allows WotC to do another OGL like the one that spawned Pathfinder...
Millions of dollars?
Don't be ridiculous.
They rehired Monte Cook and had other designers on staff. This isn't nuclear science, and the OGL is what brings players in.
Half of 4E's problems came from entry costs. You can play pathfinder for free with no books. Because they make money from modules.
Not having an OGL is like Ford releasing a car but refusing to let anyone service it other than dealerships. Sure, it might be a great car, but if I can't go to my local mechanic to get an oil change I may not be interested in making the investment.
|
|
Millions of dollars?Don't be ridiculous.
They rehired Monte Cook and had other designers on staff. This isn't nuclear science, and the OGL is what brings players in.
Half of 4E's problems came from entry costs. You can play pathfinder for free with no books. Because they make money from modules.
Not having an OGL is like Ford releasing a car but refusing to let anyone service it other than dealerships. Sure, it might be a great car, but if I can't go to my local mechanic to get an oil change I may not be interested in making the investment.
You're right, clearly all the R&D, Market Impact Studies, Legal, Marketing Funds, Ad Campaigns, Website support/development, product development/testing/feedback loop, layout/design/editing/printing, and salaries/benefits/compensation packages will cost $5.
How has the OGL "brought players in" to WotC/D&D? D&D's OGL effort is dead, unsupported, gone, kaput--not generating any revenue for them. Maybe the OGL-as-Pathfinder is bringing players to the RPG industry, but that's not any direct help to Hasbro's profits. Yet, the actual OGL itself is harming their profits because it's allowed Paizo to go toe-to-toe with them.
Just because it's free hasn't stopped people from buying the books in numbers sufficient to challenge WotC's product line--clearly if no one was purchasing anything but modules that would not be the case.
Yes, not having an OGL would restrict you to only buying from WotC--which is exactly what they want/need to ensure their product isn't toppled by Paizo (or someone else) yet again. Trust me, if auto manufacturers could limit you to only getting serviced at their dealerships, they would.
|
|
You're right, clearly all the R&D, Market Impact Studies, Legal, Marketing Funds, Ad Campaigns, Website support/development, product development/testing/feedback loop, layout/design/editing/printing, and salaries/benefits/compensation packages will cost $5.
If they have that much greater overhead in comparison to every other publisher, perhaps that is part of why they are falling behind.
Not having an OGL means you have to write all of the play content, which considering they sold off the content divisions puts them in a bad spot.
Again, you are assuming a zero sum game. The fact is that if lots of people are playing your game, and you sell content for your game, you make more money based on how many people you can get playing, not in how much they paid you for the right to play your game.
A table top game is a concept that needs to be shared with others by it's very nature. The OGL isn't taking money out of your pocket, it's expanding the numbers of people playing your game, and therefore investing disposible income and time into this hobby rather than, say, knitting or watching movies.
If you make your game closed and inaccessible with a high cost of entry, you don't bring in players and the market shrinks.
You can literally play Pathfinder for free. The books are online. And yet they are outselling WoTC for the last 2 quarters.
It isn't out of charity, it is because more people are playing Pathfinder than 4E, and therefore more products that are Pathfinder compatible are being sold, meaning the market for Pathfinder is growing.
What is good for the industry is for lots and lots of people to decide to game on a friday or saturday night rather than going out to the movies or some other activity.
Making your game closed makes it harder to play. Making it harder to play means less people play.
That isn't good business, as time has demonstrated.
That's not really an alternative. That's actually the sort of thing I was arguing for as real reasons. You didn't rebel against 4e out of disgust at perceived slights in marketing. You just didn't like the system.
I doubt it's the only or principal reason most people refused to adopt 4e. That doesn't prevent it being part of the tapestry though. There are even pro-4e players who thought 4e marketing was a bit off-putting.
This whole implication that people rejected 4e just because of bush-league marketing is largely a bogus rhetorical position.
|
Replacing the GSL was a two-pronged issue: Given that the OGL already existed and that WotC wanted to offer a more restrictive alternative, they would have needed to offer something to outside developers to make that license worth using. Most of the outsiders quickly concluded that the GSL did not offer sufficient benefit for its costs and risks.
I found it entertaining when a handful of 3pp publishers figured out that with a bit of work they could release a 4e module under the OGL.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just expressing my opinion more than anything else. Even if they do "fix" Dungeons and Dragons with 5th Ed, they have lost a lost of face and no matter how you fix the system. Settings like Fogotten Realms will never recover it's glory days from the wreckage 4th left (this isn't an exaggeration it was announced that the realms as we knew it was destroyed)
James Jacob and all the writers and artists that work on Pathfinder were like a shining beacon during a harsh time for table-top gamers like
myself who eagerly waited the development of a world we knew and were familiar with. Golarion gave me hope and rebuilt for me a world of imagination and creativity. What happens with 5th will happen but I have no intention to give my time/business or faith to something that let me down so spectacularly. I also hope there are many other Pathfinders like myself who feel the same way.
5th ed will need to be something really special is all I hae to say.
|
|
But what benefit would an OGL-style 5e-OGL bring them?
The last time...
You're right, they didn't design the OGL well enough to protect their interests and marketshare.
If there were no OGL, and no Pathfinder...
No guarantee you're right there. Alot of people felt 4e was "too different". Some would have switched, some would have stuck with old D&D, and some would have started buying other companies games.
--I'm not seeing the benefit for Wizards, or why another "open" OGL would help them. Nor why they'd be very interested in repeating the mistake of opening the door for Pathfinder and the other 3P OGL-compatible games to once again take their lunch away from them after investing million in development of 5e...
The thing is, the OGL is already out there. It's not going away.
What's the incentive to use their new license if you don't like it? Why would publishers go back to hotdogs when they have nargain priced NY steak?
Obviously you want to protect your marketshare. but if the license isn't good enough to draw in the publishers, they aren't going to stop using the OGL instead. They'll keep publishing for other d20 games. They might do what Dreamscarred Press and Goodman Games did a few times, and release stuff for your new game under the OGL, bypassing your new license entirely.
They backed themselves into a corner with the OGL, and other publishers won't go along with whatever terms are dictated to them to get to attach themselves to D&D anymore.
They're going to have to provide an incentive to use their license, or it won't get much use.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just expressing my opinion more than anything else. Even if they do "fix" Dungeons and Dragons with 5th Ed, they have lost a lost of face and no matter how you fix the system. Settings like Fogotten Realms will never recover it's glory days from the wreckage 4th left (this isn't an exaggeration it was announced that the realms as we knew it was destroyed)
I never cared for the whole "Point-of-Light" design philosophy, and the reason I liked forgotten realms, is that if I wanted to run a game about a group or location, all the heavy lifting was done for me.
Then 4e blew up most of the planet and advanced the timeline by a century, and the setting became "just like those poorly supported and barely fleshed out settings I wasn't very interested in buying into."
Which is fine. Good for them. The goal was to bring in the people who thought FR was too big, by making it smaller. Making it smaller alienated vast swathes of people who already played FR - and many of them stoppoed buying new FR products. Except of course, for the people who still just use the "Old Grey Box" with whatever rule system they want to play the FR in, but then, they're still just using the old grey box.
One of the other big complaints was that people were expected to keep up with the novels, because the campaign setting took place at the same time as those novels. An easy solution to that would have been to place the novels 20 years ahead of the campaign setting; then the novels never "get in the way" or break canon with the actions in your game, assuming you're one of the people who cared.
Finally, some were dissatisfied with the number of high level NPCs in Forgotten realms, but 4e still has many of those, and I've never really been sure why that mattered to begin with. Its pretty easy to not use them, or say they're too busy to save you all day long.
5th ed will need to be something really special is all I hae to say.
I don't know if 5e will accomplish their goal of satisfying everyone (a pretty ambitious goal, I'd say, considering that things many of us like are dealbreakers for others);
But maybe they'll start thinking, and reverse that asinine decision to pull all digital content, even the out of print stuff.
I wasn't terribly interested in 4e, but I was making semi-regular 3e and AD&D2e purchases on dtrpg. Now I'm not.
They were getting money from me on a regular basis even though I didn't like their "newest thing". Now they're getting no money from me. And I can't be the only one.
Hell, I'd love to see "remastered" versions of their old content, either in the same system it original came out for but reedited and with modern production quality, or as system-neutral materials.
System neutral appeals to fantasy gamers of all editions, as well as possibly the Rolemaster, Fantasycraft, Gurps, HARP, WFRP, and Unisystem crowds (and any other fantasy RPG companies I missed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that "betting" on 4e (in the sense that I bought into it) turned out very well for me. It was the right horse. I've played a ton of 3.5, a good deal of Pathfinder, and a lot of 4e, and 4e fits what I want out of D&D better than the others do. So I can't really agree with your insistence that I bet on the wrong horse. Indeed, had I bet on any other horse, I probably wouldn't be as satisfied with my games..
This is something I really struggle to understand in the posts of those Paizo fans who don't like WoTC. Granted I didn't start playing D&D again until after 4E was out so I missed the actual launch. The emotion involved (or the need to see it as a competition) seems weird to me.
Nonetheless, I'm very glad I've been playing 4E in the last few years and that doesnt change because theyre moving on to something else - I don't see it as a choice at all. I "backed both horses" so did much better than I would have had I restricted my involvement to purely WoTC products or just Paizo products.
The coke/Pepsi analogies seem to be off to me - the two companies seem to have much more clearly distinguished brands. (it's closer to burger king vs dominos, rather than burger king vs McDonald's, if you like). There's also the usually overlooked fact that the best way to build market share in a niche, luxury market is to attract new customers, not poach ones competitor's.
|
|
The coke/Pepsi analogies seem to be off to me
I never get those, even with Pepsi/Coke.
I drink both, and not just when I go to a restaurant and they only have one of the two.
Coke is great, but tastes terrible when it starts getting warm. Pepsi isn't quite as good as coke when it's ice cold and not flat, but if I don't want something as sweet, or if there's a good chance it won't be ice cold when I'm done drinking it or it might go flat, I go with pepsi: Read: Coke is only worth it when it's in cans, glass bottles, or out of the fountain. Go with Pepsi if its plastic bottles.
- the two companies seem to have much more clearly distinguished brands. (it's closer to burger king vs dominos, rather than burger king vs McDonald's, if you like). There's also the usually overlooked fact that the best way to build market share in a niche, luxury market is to attract new customers, not poach ones competitor's.
I'm inclined to agree. I like pizza more than burgers. But a burger once in a while is alright.
Just expressing my opinion more than anything else. Even if they do "fix" Dungeons and Dragons with 5th Ed, they have lost a lost of face and no matter how you fix the system. Settings like Fogotten Realms will never recover it's glory days from the wreckage 4th left (this isn't an exaggeration it was announced that the realms as we knew it was destroyed)I never cared for the whole "Point-of-Light" design philosophy, and the reason I liked forgotten realms, is that if I wanted to run a game about a group or location, all the heavy lifting was done for me.
Then 4e blew up most of the planet and advanced the timeline by a century, and the setting became "just like those poorly supported and barely fleshed out settings I wasn't very interested in buying into."
Which is fine. Good for them. The goal was to bring in the people who thought FR was too big, by making it smaller. Making it smaller alienated vast swathes of people who already played FR - and many of them stoppoed buying new FR products. Except of course, for the people who still just use the "Old Grey Box" with whatever rule system they want to play the FR in, but then, they're still just using the old grey box.
One of the other big complaints was that people were expected to keep up with the novels, because the campaign setting took place at the same time as those novels. An easy solution to that would have been to place the novels 20 years ahead of the campaign setting; then the novels never "get in the way" or break canon with the actions in your game, assuming you're one of the people who cared.
Finally, some were dissatisfied with the number of high level NPCs in Forgotten realms, but 4e still has many of those, and I've never really been sure why that mattered to begin with. Its pretty easy to not use them, or say they're too busy to save you all day long.
That's a lot of nail heads you've hit. You come from a long line of carpenters?
Forgotten Realms cannon has suffered way too often from BIG, SWEEPING CHANGES (FANFARE/HAND-WAVING/OOoOoOOOO!) during its existence. The novel line, as mentioned, is a huge culprit in this trend. There's so much old source material floating around that you can choose to ignore every post-3.0 Forgotten Realms release and STILL barely scratch the surface of that world, however, which is an endeavor I still regularly revel in. 4E FR nailed the coffin shut for me. My sympathies, Mr. Greenwood. She died before her time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share.
As seen over the last four years, right? They didn't release 4e under the OGL, and it was great for D&D's market share, right?
Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve"
You know, a lot of people said the same thing four years ago about sticking with 3.x-compatible as opposed to going with 4e. How did that work out?
There is no "curve" to fall off; there is no equivalent to Moore's Law for non-electronic games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share.As seen over the last four years, right? They didn't release 4e under the OGL, and it was great for D&D's market share, right?
The last four years have not been the success for D&D as a brand or for their market share largely because of the OGL, and Pathfinder, right?
So why would they want to ensure that 5e comes out into the midst of competitors using their own system against them?
Without the OGL there wouldn't be the battle for market share with Paizo since Pathfinder would not exist as the supported replacement for 3.X that WotC abandoned.
And WotC must have realized this or else 4e would have shipped with an OGL instead of the GSL. It was a defensive maneuver to protect 4e from 3P 4e products as well as Pathfinder and the rest of the 3.X OGL competitors.
WotC now has to figure out a way to protect 5e much better than they did 3.x, but without alienating people who "expect" to see an OGL.
And, in that regard, the OGL was a complete failure for the D&D Brand--they lost market share, they lost profits, they created the idea that it "has" to be included in future D&D Brand products, and they inadvertently created a system where every 3P can successfully compete with WotC's new products with re-packaged former editions of D&D's own "dead" editions.
So, again, what's Hasbro's incentive to repeat all of that with the launch of a robust 5e OGL? How would any of what has happened before encourage them to use the same type of OGL?
How would a repeat of the last four years of struggle to increase D&D brand's profits or market share help them make the $50-100Million target Hasbro wants out of D&D?
Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve"You know, a lot of people said the same thing four years ago about sticking with 3.x-compatible as opposed to going with 4e. How did that work out?
Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share.
If 5e is succeeds at being the great "Uniter" that will call all previous-edition gamers back to D&D, why open that up to competition when you could corner the market by having your one product appeal to every gamer from every one of your prior editions?
There is no "curve" to fall off; there is no equivalent to Moore's Law for non-electronic games.
Most articles refer to it as the core segment vs. "lapsed gamers" who have fallen out of the purchase cycle.
Dead editions are not driving current sales, Pathfinder and 4e are battling for market share, and dominating most of the industry because people are buying them. If the dead editions were sufficient, then sales would be flat, and clearly that's not the case. New players are not coming into the industry by purchasing the new products, not the old ones.
If you want to play PFS, Encounters, Lair Assault, Essentials, Kingmaker or any of the current products, then you're buying the current systems "off the shelf" to do so. The industry is not driven by dead editions, it's driven by what's currently being marketed and sold and supported. Sure, someone on eBay may have just bought a mint Field Folio, but that's an outlier and nothing compared to the sales of PF or 4e--and that reflects the player base that's interested and motivated to stay "current".
If not, then even Pathfinder wouldn't have found success since everyone would have just stayed with their WotC 3.X products. Instead, Pathfinder was seen as "better", newer, and supported--whereas D&D 3.5e was "dead" and off the curve.
Plus, in another smart move, Paizo made Pathfinder just different enough that while it's still OGL-compatible, you cannot play it with the WotC D&D books. You cannot sit at a table in PFS with your 3.5e PH, you cannot play in a home game with a 3.5e DMG and have it work with Patfinder rules--not exactly, and not completely. So, Paizo has effectively made D&D books "obsolete".
But, on the flip side, players new to the game can buy Pathfinder books and use them with old D&D modules if they want, so it's (essentially) backwards-compatible enough to provide more utility than a 3.5e Boxed Set has for current players.
And, of course, all of this is profit for Paizo based on D&D's OGL...which they don't want to repeat--why give money to your #1 competitor at your own expense?
If they release a 5e OGL that's essentially the same as the current one, then they're admitting that they're giving up on trying to recapture and corner the market that D&D originated...and with the money Hasbro's likely to spend on 5e, I'm not sure that's acceptable to them.
I think WotC has put themselves into a no-win situation, and regardless of how great 5e might be, the brand may yet be doomed by its own prior actions.
Is there a full moon tonight? :)
Nope. :p
...help them make the $50-100Million target Hasbro wants out of D&D?
I think this is a misunderstanding (though I'm no industry insider).
As I understood it the $50m is a threshold annual sales by which Hasbro will regard a brand as 'core' and devote some of their marketing resources towards promoting. The push to get 4E to a $50m annual turnover came from WoTC (so they would enjoy those benefits), not from Hasbro.
I think it's important to remember (if it's true - internet speculation, remember?) that D&D is a trivial thing - not even a decimal point in Hasbro's annual turnover. They care about WoTC because it sells Magic:The Gathering and makes them an enormous amount of money. Wizards performed exceptionally well over the last two years. If you're a Hasbro executive you havent got time to fuss over all the insignificant little details of your subsidiaries. That's what you pay the CEO of WoTC to do for you.
The last four years have not been the success for D&D as a brand or for their market share largely because of the OGL, and Pathfinder, right?
Valmar, Wizards' OGL problem stems from being caught between (1) what many people perceived as too big a change from 3E to 4E on one hand, and (2) said people's newfound ability to continue using 3.x via the OGL on the other.
To paraphrase a certain classical economist... we might as reasonably dispute whether it is the upper or the under blade of a pair of scissors that cuts a piece of paper, as whether the OGL or 4E's mixed reception is responsible for Wizards' woes.
In any case, the OGL was a sunk cost at the time 4E was released, and its even more sunk now. Going forward they can't just pretend its not there, nor can they pretend that large, desirable segments of the market don't insist on it.
|
|
The last four years have not been the success for D&D as a brand or for their market share largely because of the OGL, and Pathfinder, right?
So why would they want to ensure that 5e comes out into the midst of competitors using their own system against them?
Without the OGL there wouldn't be the battle for market share with Paizo since Pathfinder would not exist as the supported replacement for 3.X that WotC abandoned.
Yep, the OGL didn't work out in their best interests. But the cat's out of the bag.
And WotC must have realized this or else 4e would have shipped with an OGL instead of the GSL. It was a defensive maneuver to protect 4e from 3P 4e products as well as Pathfinder and the rest of the 3.X OGL competitors.
But that really didnt work out for them so well.
WotC now has to figure out a way to protect 5e much better than they did 3.x, but without alienating people who "expect" to see an OGL.
Pretty much.
Additionally, if their new license is too restrictive, people will just make compatible products using the OGL, like some of the 3PP products for 4e.
And, in that regard, the OGL was a complete failure for the D&D Brand--they lost market share, they lost profits, they created the idea that it "has" to be included in future D&D Brand products, and they inadvertently created a system where every 3P can successfully compete with WotC's new products with re-packaged former editions of D&D's own "dead" editions.
Yep. they made the license too open. I'd be surprised if the guys who came up with it still work for WotC.
So, again, what's Hasbro's incentive to repeat all of that with the launch of a robust 5e OGL? How would any of what has happened before encourage them to use the same type of OGL?
How would a repeat of the last four years of struggle to increase D&D brand's profits or market share help them make the $50-100Million target Hasbro wants out of D&D?
Well, if they make it too restrictive, they will probably lose money again. If its too open, they'll allow for more direct competition with them from the 3.x guys, but then, I'm not sure that matters anymore, the 3.x guys are already the competition. If they have 3pp stuff being made for 5e, that's more people who may buy the WotC books to play with it, as opposed to now, where "everyone" is going with Paizo's supported ruleset for their games.
Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share.
Yep, but there's nothing that can be done about that now.
I know personally, if that had happened, I wouldn't be playing 4e, I'd still be spending my money elsewhere. I dont enjoy the ruleset, and I'd likely be playing more unisystem, or I'd have picked up all those HARP books that seemed interesting but I've never gotten around to trying yet, or I'd still be playing 3.5.
If 5e is succeeds at being the great "Uniter" that will call all previous-edition gamers back to D&D, why open that up to competition when you could corner the market by having your one product appeal to every gamer from every one of your prior editions?
That's a big if. I'll be impressed if they manage to do it; its a pretty difficult standard to meet. If they fall short of it, they might just lose even more market share, or lose as many consumers as they gain.
3PP means that if they're putting out crap content for the rules system, they might get someone to buy the main books due to well written 3pp. I know personally I can't stand the (at least early)4e and late 3.x module style. So much space is wasted on maps printed several times in the book that there's barely any "module" to speak of, just a handful of combats strung together. Now, maybe they got better at that after I stopped reading them, I don't know. But if lots of 3pp guys were making modules, like back when 3e was still going strong, perhaps I would have enjoyed the 3pp modules for the same ruleset.
Dead editions are not driving current sales, Pathfinder and 4e are battling for market share, and dominating most of the industry because people are buying them. If the dead editions were sufficient, then sales would be flat, and clearly that's not the case. New players are not coming into the industry by purchasing the new products, not the old ones.
True. But if your current edition doesn't satisfy the players, and youre still selling the stuff for the old edition, at least you're still having people buy your products.
Upthread I mentioned this. I wasn't interested in the new 4e stuff, But I was interested in all sorts of 2e campaign setting stuff, and was actively buying them.
Is that the bulk of their sales? No, but its money they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
But, on the flip side, players new to the game can buy Pathfinder books and use them with old D&D modules if they want, so it's (essentially) backwards-compatible enough to provide more utility than a 3.5e Boxed Set has for current players.
Hmm. Yep. Though 3.5e campaign settings, monster manuals, magic items, and spells are all pretty much compatible with pathfinder (you can ditch the exp costs in spells and adjust the gold cost on the fly easily enough). Likewise for feats. Pretty much all thats obsolete are the "core mechanics", classes, and races.
I think WotC has put themselves into a no-win situation, and regardless of how great 5e might be, the brand may yet be doomed by its own prior actions.
Very possible, though I wish them luck, and hope they dont screw it up. I wouldn't mind seeing the various M:tG settings and other IP finding its way into D&D. That might get them some more marketshare in the way of MtG players who dont currently play D&D, and they wouldn't have to commission nearly as much art.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last four years have not been the success for D&D as a brand or for their market share largely because of the OGL, and Pathfinder, right?Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share.As seen over the last four years, right? They didn't release 4e under the OGL, and it was great for D&D's market share, right?
The only thing locking the gate after the horse is out does is make it impossible to for the horse to come back in. No OGL for 5th edition still leaves Pathfinder a perfectly viable game; all it does is guarantee Paizo must continue making its own competing RPG.
Without the OGL there wouldn't be the battle for market share with Paizo since Pathfinder would not exist as the supported replacement for 3.X that WotC abandoned.
If 4e had been OGL, there never would have been the Pathfinder RPG, because given the chance to effectively support 4th, making a competing fantasy RPG would have been foolhardy. It was not the edition change that created Pathfinder RPG; it was the license change.
And WotC must have realized this or else 4e would have shipped with an OGL instead of the GSL. It was a defensive maneuver to protect 4e from 3P 4e products as well as Pathfinder and the rest of the 3.X OGL competitors.
The GSL was not a defensive move against the Pathfinder RPG, because the Pathfinder RPG did not exist until after Wizards decided to go with the GSL. It was fairly obviously an attempt to shut off 3P products, yes; the results of the last four years prove that was a bad decision.
And, in that regard, the OGL was a complete failure for the D&D Brand--they lost market share, they lost profits,
D&D gained market share against other RPGs and profited quite handily under the OGL. It was under the GSL that D&D lost market share and lost profits. Repeating the failure of the GSL would certainly be stupid; going back to the OGL would not.
So, again, what's Hasbro's incentive to repeat all of that with the launch of a robust 5e OGL? How would any of what has happened before encourage them to use the same type of OGL?
Because they made lots of money when they were selling an OGL game, and they lost disastrously when they abandoned the OGL in favor of the GSL.
How would a repeat of the last four years of struggle to increase D&D brand's profits or market share help them make the $50-100Million target Hasbro wants out of D&D?
It wouldn't. That's why they should go back to the OGL, which they abandoned four years ago. A repeat of the GSL would be disastrous.
We know, from the history of 2000-2008, that having the current version of D&D under the OGL is good for the publisher of D&D. We know, from the history of 2008-2012, that having the current version of D&D not under the OGL is bad for the publisher of D&D.
Correlation versus Causation and all that. I wonder how important the OGL is - does anyone know how far the gap is between D20 games and the next on the list of popular games (like Dark Heresy and friends, I presume)?
I think if you make a game people want to play, people will buy it. I doubt there are many who will base that decision around obscure licensing laws (though those who like to be able to choose from a Plethora of companies will obviously not like a game with an overly restrictive or nonexistent license).
|
|
I think if you make a game people want to play, people will buy it. I doubt there are many who will base that decision around obscure licensing laws (though those who like to be able to choose from a Plethora of companies will obviously not like a game with an overly restrictive or nonexistent license).
If you make a game people want to play, people will buy it. Yes.
If you make a game with lots of support that people want, people will buy more of it.
3pp is simply additional support for the same game, providing more content for the people who play it. I think that increases the odds that you'll like some of it, and are therefor more inclined to buy it.
4e had very little in the way of module support. They didnt put out that much of it, it was not generally considered to be well made module content, and few 3pp guys made modules for it, though there were a couple.
If there had been alot of 3pp for 4e, I would not have been surprised if the 3pp started filling gaps the company wasnt covering, in terms of demand, like how for Pathfinder, Dreamscarred made the Psionics books.
As I understood it the $50m is a threshold annual sales by which Hasbro will regard a brand as 'core' and devote some of their marketing resources towards promoting. The push to get 4E to a $50m annual turnover came from WoTC (so they would enjoy those benefits), not from Hasbro.I think it's important to remember (if it's true - internet speculation, remember?) that D&D is a trivial thing - not even a decimal point in Hasbro's annual turnover. They care about WoTC because it sells Magic:The Gathering and makes them an enormous amount of money. Wizards performed exceptionally well over the last two years. If you're a Hasbro executive you havent got time to fuss over all the insignificant little details of your subsidiaries. That's what you pay the CEO of WoTC to do for you.
That's basically my understanding too based don Ryan Dancey's postings over at ENWorld. It stems from how WotC divided itself up into brands back when they arranged the deal with Hasbro and was done largely because of the enormous value of the Pokemon license compared to pretty much everything else. That may have made sense at the time, for some reason, but had they not done so, WotC might have been looked as a single brand when Hasbro decides whether something is core or not, which means it would have had the benefit of D&D and Magic combined.
3pp is simply additional support for the same game, providing more content for the people who play it. I think that increases the odds that you'll like some of it, and are therefor more inclined to buy it.
Maybe. People certainly say they value games with an OGL. As ever, I'd love to see some data on how Dark Heresy (for example) does without an OGL. Are their fans clamoring for it? Or is there a significant cohort who would play it, but for the fact that there is no 3PP support?
When I was playing other RPGs, the wall of competing D&D titles was a disincentive to me. I didn't know where to start and what was necessary.
4e had very little in the way of module support. They didnt put out that much of it, it was not generally considered to be well made module content, and few 3pp guys made modules for it, though there were a couple.
If there had been alot of 3pp for 4e, I would not have been surprised if the 3pp started filling gaps the companyer wasnt covering, in terms of demand, like how for Pathfinder, Dreamscarred made the Psionics books.
In passing, although I agree the adventures are poor, there are actually stacks of them - but delivered via DDI.
I think the essential nature of the DDI and the fact they wouldn't give 3PPs the ability to create compatible content was the greatest reason they got no traction. I know in our group if its not in the character builder, it's too much effort.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I really struggle to understand in the posts of those Paizo fans who don't like WoTC. Granted I didn't start playing D&D again until after 4E was out so I missed the actual launch. The emotion involved (or the need to see it as a competition) seems weird to me.
What you forget is that it is a little miracle that Pathfinder exists.
WoTC plan was to kill 3.5 so that the only viable option on the market for new material was 4E. The fact that they failed to do so wasn't for lack of trying.
They took a game and setting we all were playing and enjoyed and said "We don't like this, because we can't have a monopoly. So we aren't going to support this anymore and all of you will need to buy new books. These books will not be OGL anymore, because we want you to have to buy our material. And while we are at it, we are going to re-write the settings you love so that you will need to buy updated modules to play in that world."
Paizo wasn't supposed to happen. WoTC whole plan was based on the assumption they were the only real game in town.
|
|
Correlation versus Causation and all that. I wonder how important the OGL is - does anyone know how far the gap is between D20 games and the next on the list of popular games (like Dark Heresy and friends, I presume)?
I think if you make a game people want to play, people will buy it. I doubt there are many who will base that decision around obscure licensing laws (though those who like to be able to choose from a Plethora of companies will obviously not like a game with an overly restrictive or nonexistent license).
Everyone is also forgetting that TSR went bankrupt and White Wolf was much more competitive prior to 3E. The OGL basically assured that 3PP and freelance support went to d20 systems.
Having all those d20 systems meant a larger group understood the basic rule system, meaning more people were playing. And since WoTC owned the core product, sure some weekends you would run Mutants and Masterminds, but in generally you would come back to 3.5 (or at least modern/star wars/etc...)
The OGL saved what was literally a bankrupt brand. It wasn't the downfall, it was the salvation. It isn't a coincidence the brand is now in decline after abandoning it anymore than it was a coincidence that the brand was resurgent after embracing it.
Sure. Paizo did very well and WoTC overvalued the power of their brand and underestimated the full effect of the OGL.
I'm not failing to see how well Paizo have performed. I just don't understand the emotion - since a world with a thriving D&D is better for Paizo and pathfinder than one where D&D is shelved (or, more likely, restricted to boardgames and novels).
The OGL saved what was literally a bankrupt brand. It wasn't the downfall, it was the salvation. It isn't a coincidence the brand is now in decline after abandoning it anymore than it was a coincidence that the brand was resurgent after embracing it.
The OGL happened at the same time as WoTC launched 3.5. That doesn't imply that it was what "saved the brand".
I get that you think the OGL is valuable, I'm just skeptical. That's why I was asking for data rather than continuing to guess based on my own impressions.
@Steve Dark Heresy and it's companion games is tapping 25 years of pent up desire for a 40k RPG. It doesn't need 3PP because A) FFG produces a lot of support product and B) there's nothing else on the market that comes close to competing in that genre space.
There are some good fansites that expand into really niche 40k areas too.
|
Everyone is also forgetting that TSR went bankrupt and White Wolf was much more competitive prior to 3E. The OGL basically assured that 3PP and freelance support went to d20 systems.
Having all those d20 systems meant a larger group understood the basic rule system, meaning more people were playing. And since WoTC owned the core product, sure some weekends you would run Mutants and Masterminds, but in generally you would come back to 3.5 (or at least modern/star wars/etc...)
The OGL saved what was literally a bankrupt brand. It wasn't the downfall, it was the salvation. It isn't a coincidence the brand is now in decline after abandoning it anymore than it was a coincidence that the brand was resurgent after embracing it.
Couldn't disagree more. The OGL didn't save D&D - the early OGL stuff was total crap and after buying some of it I never bought any more - D&D was saved by WotC launching 3e. Suggesting the OGL was responsible for that seems nonsensical to me. I was there - the OGL stuff at the time of the 3e launch was terrible, only WotC was putting out quality. Maybe that changed after but by then 3e was established. I'd argue its resurgance was more due to benefitting from being the only game in town as RPGs were in the beginning of their long term decline (which is probably continuing) and receiving the financial backing of WotC (and then Hasbro) after years of mismanagement under TSR.
In fact, the OGL was responsible for the atomisation of D&D by allowing, in perpetuity, so 3e to be supported by rival companies - witness Paizo. Whether this is good for the hobby is debatable - but it certainly isn't good for WotC. In the old days, once a system was superceded by a new edition, it's official support was gone. You can hardly be surprised that WotC are not keen on relaunching OGL as it was, on balance, bad for WotC. So anyone expecting nu-OGL is probably going to be disappointed.
And standardising everything against d20 hardly seems anything is being saved - in fact, lots of stuff outside the d20 model has doubtless suffered as a result. Non-d20 stuff is probably a harder sell. I don't see that as an unmitigated win for the hobby either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the OGL wasn't bad for Wizards in anyway until they abandoned it. If 4E had been OGL, more 3PP like Paizo would have supported it. Because even if they didn't like everything about the system, they'd have been free to release tweaks that they preferred.
As it is, all of the important information has already be released OGL. We have classic spells, classic monsters, game terms like Armor Class, Saving Throw, etc.
So unless 5E comes out with completely new terminology, which is dumb, and a completely alien new system, all of the important parts of 5E are already OGL. You could make an OGL version of 4E or 5E as easily as people have done for 0E, 1E, and 2E.
As far as I can see, an OGL 5E only strengthens Wizard's position the market. Going back to a more restrictive license can only harm them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not at all what they were saying. It's really sort of mind-boggling that people believe that they did.
And, again, there wasn't really any badmouthing going on. Just things like, "We heard a lot of feedback that grappling was too complex, so we made it easier in 4e!"
I know this is from a few days ago, but you are 100% wrong. There was badmouthing, and it boggles me that you didn't see it. Making a video of players of 3rd edition trying to understand the grapple rules and getting mad and looking like they were going to throw their dice means one of two things. They had little respect for the players and were showing them as people who couldn't grasp the rules (which is not what I think they were doing) OR showing that the rules were too hard to follow and did not work. That is what they tried to do, then they said "don't worry, we fixed it for you".
You can't get much clearer than that. It also made those of us who had no problem understanding the grapple rules wonder why we were wrong for liking them/ According to the video they did not work.
|
@Steve Dark Heresy and it's companion games is tapping 25 years of pent up desire for a 40k RPG. It doesn't need 3PP because A) FFG produces a lot of support product and B) there's nothing else on the market that comes close to competing in that genre space.
There are some good fansites that expand into really niche 40k areas too.
Not to mention the juggernaut of Games Workshop, which draws new players into the wargame hobby, and from there, they become potential players of Dark Heresy or Warhammer Roleplay.
Every month, GW launches, relaunches or tweaks a sci-fi army, or a fantasy army, releasing new figures and publishing new army lists and fiction. This month it's the turn of the Vampire Counts. I expect there to be plenty of WHFRP players incorporating that material into their campaigns, or at least mulling it over for later inclusion.
Last year the WH40K players got updates to Blood Angels, Necrons and the Adepta Sororitas (among others), much of which will have helped drive Dark Heresy campaigns, especially the Sororitas, who inhabit a more believable and manageable power level than the Astartes Space Marines. A campaign built round devout warrior nuns seems less likely to implode than one based round 8-foot supermen with two hearts and six spleens, IMHO.
And, yes, those niche areas of the 40K universe are getting some love.
At least two figure manufacturers are supplying the grognards with their fix for the officially discontinued Squats...
|
|
That's not at all what they were saying. It's really sort of mind-boggling that people believe that they did.
And, again, there wasn't really any badmouthing going on. Just things like, "We heard a lot of feedback that grappling was too complex, so we made it easier in 4e!"
I know this is from a few days ago, but you are 100% wrong. There was badmouthing, and it boggles me that you didn't see it. Making a video of players of 3rd edition trying to understand the grapple rules and getting mad and looking like they were going to throw their dice means one of two things. They had little respect for the players and were showing them as people who couldn't grasp the rules (which is not what I think they were doing) OR showing that the rules were too hard to follow and did not work. That is what they tried to do, then they said "don't worry, we fixed it for you".
You can't get much clearer than that. It also made those of us who had no problem understanding the grapple rules wonder why we were wrong for liking them/ According to the video they did not work.
Heh grapple was a pain in the ass from all accounts...they were jokingly letting people know it was something they'd be working on, least that was my interpretation. Pathfinder also changed the grapple rules a bit, didn't they?
I'm generally of the philosophy that people who were offended by those commercials were mostly *looking* for a reason to be offended. I'm more surprised that the nerd rage still boils 4 years later on that commercial...
I know this is from a few days ago, but you are 100% wrong. There was badmouthing, and it boggles me that you didn't see it. Making a video of players of 3rd edition trying to understand the grapple rules and getting mad and looking like they were going to throw their dice means one of two things. They had little respect for the players and were showing them as people who couldn't grasp the rules (which is not what I think they were doing) OR showing that the rules were too hard to follow and did not work. That is what they tried to do, then they said "don't worry, we fixed it for you".
You can't get much clearer than that.
Okay, now tell me what you think this shows. What does this clarity tell you?
If you answer, "That they're bashing 3.5!" you're wrong. That doesn't follow at all. If you are unable to make the mental distinction between a) acknowledging that a particular sub-system was more complicated than it ought to be, and b) bashing an entire edition, you need to take a step back from this discussion and ask yourself why you are conflating the two. They are clearly not the same thing, WotC clearly has no animosity towards 3.5, and it's a little silly to imagine all these dark motives for them when all they were trying to do was show that they understood where some of the "sticking points" of the previous edition were.
And, by and large, they did. The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve Dark Heresy and it's companion games is tapping 25 years of pent up desire for a 40k RPG. It doesn't need 3PP because A) FFG produces a lot of support product and B) there's nothing else on the market that comes close to competing in that genre space.
There are some good fansites that expand into really niche 40k areas too.
Not to mention the juggernaut of Games Workshop, which draws new players into the wargame hobby, and from there, they become potential players of Dark Heresy or Warhammer Roleplay.
Hm, maybe, but do be aware GW HATES rpgs. I mean properly hates them. Has done for many, many years.
Little test for you, go into your local GW store and ask for some advice about the 40K rpgs. If you get anything better than a blank look I'd be amazed. Even when DH was first released I can recall going into the store round the corner and they'd not only never heard of it, they had zero interest in what it was once they heard it was an rpg.
Now, bear in mind many of the chaps who work in GW stores are 40K-fluff obssessives ... and yet not one single member of staff I've ever spoken to in a GW store has even picked up a 40K rpg book. Many barely seem to know they even exist. I find that mind boggling, I've many times tried to explain to them that the rpg books are full of canon fluff about the 40k setting ... by which time eyes are glazing over and they are getting fidgety and trying to change the subject to the inevitable;
"So have you thought about buying an army."
I've had many a futile discussion asking why they don't stock the 40k rpgs in their stores.
"We don't have room."
Err, yes you do, we're talking a few books, there's room over there.
"We don't do rpgs."
Yes, but if you stocked the 40k and wfrp books it would only be good, you could cross-sell between people who only roleplay (like me) - selling them codexes and stuff that also contain setting fluff, and wargamers could pick up rpg books for extra fluff and setting detail too.
Heck, you stock the novels (which is why I go into the places.).
"We're all about 'The Hobby'."
I genuinely believe that someone high up in GW believes they will lose customers who were buying armies of minis, if they get into rpgs.
EDIT - Mind you I still won't forgive GW for what they did to White Dwarf, once the best rpg mag on the market (a looong time ago of course), we saw over a course of several months the rpg articles being dropped, until it was entirely gutted of any useful rpg content and became the cheapo minis catalogue it has remained ever since. Prior to this wargamer coup d'etat there was an increasing sense that wargamers in GW were trying to do away with any involvement with rpgs. Bastards.
|
|
I wouldn't mind seeing the various M:tG settings and other IP finding its way into D&D. That might get them some more marketshare in the way of MtG players who dont currently play D&D, and they wouldn't have to commission nearly as much art.
Given how strangely rich and well-developed the back story and world creation is for "just" a card game, I think those IPs would lend themselves nicely to becoming a new "world"/campaign setting for the D&D brand.
Plus, if 5e launched with these new worlds in addition to the "classics" (FR,DL,GH,EB,DS) then maybe that would increase interest in D&D as a brand, since people would want to play in their specific IP worlds/settings over OGL-X.
I know I didn't like a lot of what they did to the 4e versions of their worlds, but starting new in Mirrodin or wherever wouldn't have that same stigma.
|
|
Couldn't disagree more. The OGL didn't save D&D - the early OGL stuff was total crap and after buying some of it I never bought any more - D&D was saved by WotC launching 3e. Suggesting the OGL was responsible for that seems nonsensical to me. I was there - the OGL stuff at the time of the 3e launch was terrible, only WotC was putting out quality. Maybe that changed after but by then 3e was established. I'd argue its resurgance was more due to benefitting from being the only game in town as RPGs were in the beginning of their long term decline (which is probably continuing) and receiving the financial backing of WotC (and then Hasbro) after years of mismanagement under TSR.
In fact, the OGL was responsible for the atomisation of D&D by allowing, in perpetuity, so 3e to be supported by rival companies - witness Paizo. Whether this is good for the hobby is debatable - but it certainly isn't good for WotC. In the old days, once a system was superceded by a new edition, it's official support was gone. You can hardly be surprised that WotC are not keen on relaunching OGL as it was, on balance, bad for WotC. So anyone expecting nu-OGL is probably going to be disappointed.
And standardising everything against d20 hardly seems anything is being saved...
Yep. The OGL opened the Padora's Box of competition--at first it was crap as you suggest, but with Paizo launching Pathfinder, the OGL has allowed for the creation of a massive market competitor that can exist in perpetuity by using the OGL to continually counter new editions of D&D with reverse-engineered OGL versions of "4e" or "5e"-like games.
The OGL isn't just a sunk cost, it's an ongoing opportunity cost since it's continually allowing competitors to feed on what should be D&D's core market segments and profits.
I can't see how WotC could go to Hasbro and convince them that the OGL was a good idea, that it was a success for The D&D Brand, that it did more help than harm to their bottom line, and that it ought to be done again.
If they were smart, they'd create an open license that's limited to creating modules and world/fluff/extra content, but keep the core system and mechanic to themselves--that way anyone wanting to play "nu-OGL Product X" would still have to buy the D&D Brand PH, DMG, MM, etc to get the system's core rules. Letting everyone have free, unrestricted, and perpetual use of the entire 5e system isn't a good business model for the D&D brand.
|
|
I actually sometimes wonder why WotC keeps D&D on hand - it's a product line that you cannot possibly do well with; no matter what you do and in no matter how much good faith you do it, people will whine about what you're doing and accuse you of selling out Gary and Dave.Because whiners on a messageboard aren't really the determinant of your sales success. For every game that either succeeded or failed, the difference in the amount of people who whined about it, isn't probably substantive.
And, despite the "whiners" D&D is still the brand name most associated with the industry for those outside of it.
For non-gamers, they understand, in broad strokes, what "Dungeons & Dragons" is, and you can explain other games to them via that immediate brand link.
"Want to play Pathfinder?"
"What's that?"
"It's like D&D."
"Oh, gotcha."
It's a recognizable brand name that helps define the entire industry, just like asking for a "Kleenex" when you mean any tissue, or going to "Xerox" something on your Toshiba.
That sort of market presence can't be bought, and for that reason alone "D&D" is a hot property in the industry.
What always interests me in situations like this is the various versions of revisionist history that people invoke to rationalize their positions. It's like Earth-1 and Earth-2. In my world Flash wears a red body suit, in YOUR world he wears pants a shirt and a tin hat. Weird...
I play both 4th edition and PF and while I like them both, I like Pathfinder more. It appears from the way the market has developed, that's more or less exactly how the market itself feels.
4e is a failure in every significant marketing way you can measure. It lost market share. It alienated its customer base. It has had declining profits quarter over quarter for several quarters. It has been beaten by a competitor that was virtually unknown just a few years ago.
The evidence is overwhelming.
I would argue that 4e was a design failure as well, which is what is driving its market failure. But that's harder to prove since there are so many differing opinions on design. But if you give any credence whatsoever to the concept that if you build a better mousetrap, people will beat a path to your door, then the path that people have been beating has been around the 4e door to the PF door. That pretty much says enough for me.
I have high hopes for 5e, but my guess is that it will take a marketing miracle for WotC to recover from their abysmal stewardship of the oldest and best known brand in the RPG industry. I am not much encouraged by the fact that the company who is seeking now to unite all of the fractured elements of the RPG community is the same company who has done the most to splinter that community in the past four years. Corporate culture is hard to change. Real hard.
WotC was known as a profit driven company with a spotty track record for living up to their promises well before they took over the D&D brand. Everything they have done since then has done nothing but reinforce that negative image.
Now we are supposed to believe that they are, overnight, going to change from a divider to a uniter? From an exploiter of the D&D brand to a savior?
It's possible. I've had characters roll three twenties in a row before.
But I never bet on it.
Good luck with 5e WotC, I'm definitely going to be rooting for you.
But I'll be betting on Paizo.
|
|
WotC was known as a profit driven company with a spotty track record for living up to their promises well before they took over the D&D brand. Everything they have done since then has done nothing but reinforce that negative image.
LOL.
You do realise what site you're posting on, don't you?
You do realise who owns this site, don't you?
You are familiar with the contents of their CV, aren't you?
I must say, I'm glad you like Pathfinder, given your eagerness to slander its creators and owners.
WotC was known as a profit driven company with a spotty track record for living up to their promises well before they took over the D&D brand. Everything they have done since then has done nothing but reinforce that negative image.LOL.
You do realise what site you're posting on, don't you?
You do realise who owns this site, don't you?
You are familiar with the contents of their CV, aren't you?
I must say, I'm glad you like Pathfinder, given your eagerness to slander its creators and owners.
Hmm... yeah I think I do. I wonder if you do though.
It has had declining profits quarter over quarter for several quarters.
Where did you get that from?
@Steve Dark Heresy and it's companion games is tapping 25 years of pent up desire for a 40k RPG. It doesn't need 3PP because A) FFG produces a lot of support product and B) there's nothing else on the market that comes close to competing in that genre space.
There are some good fansites that expand into really niche 40k areas too.
Sure, but that doesn't really counter my point (or answer my query, really - I don't pretend to know the answer).
The claim was that the OGL was the reason for 3.5's success. Now I'm skeptical of that claim for reasons basically similar to what you say here - in my view there are many more significant determinants of a game's success than it's licensing arrangements.
I'd be interested to see some data (even anecdotal from game store owners). Is Dark Heresy and it's friends far behind D&D and PF? What about Castles and Crusades, etcetera?
I hate speculating without data - everyone just ends up extrapolating from their own experience which is a terrible methodology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC clearly has no animosity towards 3.5, and it's a little silly to imagine all these dark motives for them when all they were trying to do was show that they understood where some of the "sticking points" of the previous edition were.
And, by and large, they did. The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.
'animosity' and 'dark motives' may be a bit strong, but you ascribe certain fairly benign and helpful motives to the marketers ( 'all they were trying to do was ...') but couldn't it be that they also had a motive of trying to suggest that the then most popular game system in the tabletop rpg world was not as good as its fans thought it was? And that they used mild ridicule as a tool in that marketing? That they wanted to project that game they were launching was 'better' than the current 'game?
( the statement about one game being overall better than the other rarely works and can be inflammatory, it's like saying my baby is prettier than yours)
Sure people may have over reacted to this marketing but marketing is all about presentation and association. Soft drink or breakfast cereal being consumed by professional athletes or hot models Doesn't mean anything but people form an association that is intended. Airlines saying they have friendlier in flight service than their rivals is probably subjective and doesnt mean they are generally better but that is the message they want people to walk away with. That is the intended message. Surely it isnt a stretch to say the intended mild ridicule of a sub system of the game MAY have been intended as a mild ridicule of the game itself? And if it wasn't foreseen as potentially being interpreted as such .... Well that's a bit of a naive marketing blunder.
It appears while some are only prepared to ascribe dark motives to the marketers of 4e, you ascribe purity of motive. Perhaps neither is entirely right.
I keep coming back to this thread hoping to read what people think 5e will look like. There was an interesting post about 2-3 pages back about the modularity. I like the ideas put forward in that post. Sadly this 3e vs 4e marketing stuff is dominant ( and yes I got sucked in too). Surely if Wotc was happy with 4e they wouldn't be launching 5e at this time.
I would be interested in hearing your views ( if you have any on the subject, you may not) of why they decided to launch 5e at this time , and more interested in how you believe it will look.
|
|
Couldn't disagree more. The OGL didn't save D&D - the early OGL stuff was total crap and after buying some of it I never bought any more - D&D was saved by WotC launching 3e. Suggesting the OGL was responsible for that seems nonsensical to me. I was there - the OGL stuff at the time of the 3e launch was terrible, only WotC was putting out quality. Maybe that changed after but by then 3e was established. I'd argue its resurgance was more due to benefitting from being the only game in town as RPGs were in the beginning of their long term decline (which is probably continuing) and receiving the financial backing of WotC (and then Hasbro) after years of mismanagement under TSR.
In fact, the OGL was responsible for the atomisation of D&D by allowing, in perpetuity, so 3e to be supported by rival companies - witness Paizo. Whether this is good for the hobby is debatable - but it certainly isn't good for WotC. In the old days, once a system was superceded by a new edition, it's official support was gone. You can hardly be surprised that WotC are not keen on relaunching OGL as it was, on balance, bad for WotC. So anyone expecting nu-OGL is probably going to be disappointed.
First off, the OGL came out in 2000, with 3.0
A revised OGL for 3.5 came out in 2003 with 3.5, but the OGL came with 3.0. Look it up.
Second, of course it was awful at first, no one knew the system. It got better as people learned the system and learned how to write for it.
Half of the problem with 4E is the closed nature basically means if it isn't created in house it isn't created.
The fact is Paizo is operating under the OGL and thriving while WoTC abandoned it and isn't.
|
|
I actually sometimes wonder why WotC keeps D&D on hand - it's a product line that you cannot possibly do well with; no matter what you do and in no matter how much good faith you do it, people will whine about what you're doing and accuse you of selling out Gary and Dave.Because whiners on a messageboard aren't really the determinant of your sales success. For every game that either succeeded or failed, the difference in the amount of people who whined about it, isn't probably substantive.And, despite the "whiners" D&D is still the brand name most associated with the industry for those outside of it.
For non-gamers, they understand, in broad strokes, what "Dungeons & Dragons" is, and you can explain other games to them via that immediate brand link.
"Want to play Pathfinder?"
"What's that?"
"It's like D&D."
"Oh, gotcha."It's a recognizable brand name that helps define the entire industry, just like asking for a "Kleenex" when you mean any tissue, or going to "Xerox" something on your Toshiba.
That sort of market presence can't be bought, and for that reason alone "D&D" is a hot property in the industry.
I agree 100%
So how poorly must they be running things to be in 2nd place for the last two quarters?
How much must they have alienate their customer base to be losing to a company they sold off?
Every advantage and still losing to a 3PP. How can you argue for their skills at game design and marketing when will all the advantages they are losing market share.
And if they can't get people to play with all of the market advantage they had 5 years ago, what are they going to do 5 years later when they have weakened the brand so significantly?
Frisbee is no longer the leading seller of flying discs. Xerox developed most of what became the PC, without realizing it's value.
When you have brand dominance and still are getting outsold, it is probably due to product quality.
So how poorly must they be running things to be in 2nd place for the last two quarters?
How much must they have alienate their customer base to be losing to a company they sold off?
Every advantage and still losing to a 3PP. How can you argue for their skills at game design and marketing when will all the advantages they are losing market share.
And if they can't get people to play with all of the market advantage they had 5 years ago, what are they going to do 5 years later when they have weakened the brand so significantly?
Frisbee is no longer the leading seller of flying discs. Xerox developed most of what became the PC, without realizing it's value.
When you have brand dominance and still are getting outsold, it is probably due to product quality.
I think it's due to the competitor's management and outstanding, innovative product, personally.
I think paizo are far more responsible for their own success rather than "winning by default" due to WoTC messing up.
|
|
So how poorly must they be running things to be in 2nd place for the last two quarters?
How much must they have alienate their customer base to be losing to a company they sold off?
Every advantage and still losing to a 3PP. How can you argue for their skills at game design and marketing when will all the advantages they are losing market share.
And if they can't get people to play with all of the market advantage they had 5 years ago, what are they going to do 5 years later when they have weakened the brand so significantly?
Frisbee is no longer the leading seller of flying discs. Xerox developed most of what became the PC, without realizing it's value.
When you have brand dominance and still are getting outsold, it is probably due to product quality.
I think it's due to the competitor's management and outstanding, innovative product, personally.
I think paizo are far more responsible for their own success rather than "winning by default" due to WoTC messing up.
Pathfinder is 3.5 cleaned up a bit.
That's it.
While I give them credit for doing it, what they really did was continue the strategy that WoTC abandoned as summed up in this article ironically on the Wizard's website.
They never expected to overtake WoTC. They were just trying to survive.
Nothing they did was new, in the sense that it was the strategy Lisa started with when she worked at WoTC.
To quote from the article, "Here's the logic in a nutshell. We've got a theory that says that D&D is the most popular roleplaying game because it is the game more people know how to play than any other game."
WoTC abandoned this logic, Paizo embraced it.
WoTC had every advantage, but abandoned what was a core principle that made 3.0 successful in an attempt to leverage themselves into a monopoly.