Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
For the record, this is pure speculation, my own thoughts, and based on nothing else.
When I first heard that 4E will allow 3PPs to slap the D&D logo on their books, one of my first thoughts was, "If I ran a publishing company, this would be great. My stuff will be equally valued as Wizards and Necromancer and Goodman." But then I thought... "and so will the most poorly editted, broken, and inane product on the market."
Take a minute and think of the worst product you've ever seen. Ever. EVER! Now slap a Dungeons and Dragons logo on it. One of the biggest problems with the d20 logo is that retailers assumed it was a symbol of quality and just bought anything with the d20 logo. Some retailers are still trying to move that same product. Some retailers now refuse to carry anythign with the d20 logo on it (save Wizards). Now imagine the same thing happening to the Dungeons and Dragons Logo.
But then you say, "A company logo will carry the day, not the D&D logo." But to those that don't pay close attenction to the workings of licenses and PR and such, will see a product in a store on Pirates and Ninjas, flip through, decide the art is nice and buy it without looking to seeing that it was made by Joe Schmoe Crappy Design and not Wizards. How long will it take that customer to give up and just play WoW (or as Wizards would prefer, DDO)?
So then Wizards will decide to bring value back to the name Dungeons and Dragons. How will they accomplish that when so many 3rd party companies devalued it? Well ... get rid of them. Customers will be so use to seeing the D&D logo for compatable products that to suddenly have it removed, customers won't know to buy Tome of Horrors VII. So if Necromancer or other 3PP companies want to keep using that logo, they have to pay for the license. And those known for making crappy products (or more specificly, those that can't meet an increadibly high licensing fee) will not be allowed to get a license.
Thoughts?
Jason Grubiak |
I believe the 3PP version of the D&D logo looks different from the Official WotC D&D logo. SO WotC is covering their butts in that way.
But you are correct. For example I scooped up every Kingdoms of Kalamar book and adventure I could get my hands on when it all came out sight unseen. I assumed that since that was the only 3rd party campaign setting that got the OK for the D&D logo it must be really good.
Bleh. Their splatbooks were just OK and their published adventures had a lot to be desired.
I definitly looked at 3PP stuff more carefully since then.
As far as WotC not having 5th edition be open because of the de-valuing of the D&D brand name? I dont know about that. Im sure they thought of Joe Schmo Crappy Design smearing the quality reputation of D&D when they discussed the idea of the D&D name being allowed.
I dont think the release of a crappy D&D product with the D&D name being published by a 3PP will come as a shock to WotC.
David Marks |
I think the most implausible aspect of your idea is that it presumes an excessive level of planning and implementation within WotC. I suspect that they are much more busy planning out how to market 4E than how to market 5E nearly a decade from now.
Even if said plans had been drawn up, there would be no way to ensure that they are ever implemented, nor that the events that would make them feasible occur. Hell, they can't even be sure the same guys will be working there by then!
As with most "conspiracy theories" I think you give too much credit to your conspirators (and in this case at least, I'll even admit that they're pretty skilled!) But really, a plan like this seems too far reaching and impractical to be a strategy they're relying on.
Cheers! :)
F33b |
Even if said plans had been drawn up, there would be no way to ensure that they are ever implemented, nor that the events that would make them feasible occur. Hell, they can't even be sure the same guys will be working there by then!
I'd like to echo this point. My experience on a multi-year, large scale content migration project, with moderately high turn over on the client's end of things, leads me to doubt the effectiveness of this kind of high level strategy. By extension, we could cite this as one reason that WoTC/Hasbro is moving away from OGL, that is, many of the (high profile) folks who drove that decision are no longer with WoTC/Hasbro, or are in employed in a different role/capacity.
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
Planning... HA! This doesn't require planning. All it requires is a lack of forethought of how letting everyone and their brother use the name D&D. Then several years later, all it takes is one corporate type, that may or may not be currently employeed at Hasbro or any of its holdings, to want to sell books without alot of "riff raff" using their IP name. No planning required.
EDIT: Actually this plan works better when there is less planning since how many would really WANT to de-value the strongest name in role playing.
Fake Healer |
I think the most implausible aspect of your idea is that it presumes an excessive level of planning and implementation within WotC. I suspect that they are much more busy planning out how to market 4E than how to market 5E nearly a decade from now.
Nearly a decade from now? Being naive is soooo cute! I'd be way surprised if it went past 5 years, and I fully expect a 4.5 in 2-3 years.
Craig Shackleton Contributor |
I had a similar but different thought about disaffected 3E players. WotC is driving away a portion of their customer base with 4E. Intentionally or not, they are setting themselves up for a potential repeat of 3E's success at drawing back in all the lapsed players. All they have to do is release 5E with a "Back to our Roots" philosophy.
DudeMonkey |
I had a similar but different thought about disaffected 3E players. WotC is driving away a portion of their customer base with 4E. Intentionally or not, they are setting themselves up for a potential repeat of 3E's success at drawing back in all the lapsed players. All they have to do is release 5E with a "Back to our Roots" philosophy.
This is the statement of the day.
David Marks |
David Marks wrote:I think the most implausible aspect of your idea is that it presumes an excessive level of planning and implementation within WotC. I suspect that they are much more busy planning out how to market 4E than how to market 5E nearly a decade from now.Nearly a decade from now? Being naive is soooo cute! I'd be way surprised if it went past 5 years, and I fully expect a 4.5 in 2-3 years.
Hopefully I can make you eat those words 6 years from now! :P
Edit: And luckily, all the words I speak are extra tasty so I win either way! ;)
Krauser_Levyl |
Planning... HA! This doesn't require planning. All it requires is a lack of forethought of how letting everyone and their brother use the name D&D.
Well, as Jason mentioned, the logo will be different from the official logo, and it will be put in a context like "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons", rather than "This is Dungeons & Dragons". I doubt it will be like Kingdoms of Kalamar, which can really be (easily) mistaken with an "official" product. Just like a bad game which is "Compatible with Nintendo Wii", doesn't devalue the "Nintendo Wii" brand at all.
EileenProphetofIstus |
I had a similar but different thought about disaffected 3E players. WotC is driving away a portion of their customer base with 4E. Intentionally or not, they are setting themselves up for a potential repeat of 3E's success at drawing back in all the lapsed players. All they have to do is release 5E with a "Back to our Roots" philosophy.
I thought this as well. Regardless of who is at the helm when 5th edition comes out, I suspect it will be marketed as back to the basics. It will be a marketing spin more so but we'll be able to see the effort and similarities to earlier editions.
David Marks |
Yeah, except that 6 years is closer to my prediction than to the 'nearly a decade' that you mentioned. I am confident in my ability to feel the flow of the force. How 'bout you, Padawan?
My true prediction would be 8 years, pretty much the same deal we got with 3E. The way I figure, though, this game is like the Price is Right. The closest without going over wins!
Unfortunately, a bout of antibiotics administered at a young age killed off my few midi-chlorians, rendering me dead to the Force. Poor midi-chlorians. :(
Krauser_Levyl |
I had a similar but different thought about disaffected 3E players. WotC is driving away a portion of their customer base with 4E. Intentionally or not, they are setting themselves up for a potential repeat of 3E's success at drawing back in all the lapsed players. All they have to do is release 5E with a "Back to our Roots" philosophy.
I find this possibility unlikely, for a simple reason: unlike 2E or 3E, D&D 4th edition has the clear intention of attracting new players, particularly among young people of the current generation, by including some elements on the game that are familiar to them.
If it's sucessful on this difficult (but not impossible) goal, then it will at least want to keep these sucessful elements for the next edition - probably, the same elements that turned off the old veterans.
If it fails, then D&D is dead. Hasbro won't have any interest on keeping alive a hobby that is unable to attract new players and can only please old fans (aka "ever-shrinking market"). The D&D rulesets and settings may be maintained by die-hard, nostalgic fans as an open game similar to OSRIC, but Dungeons & Dragons as we know it, the powerful brand which influenced generations and all sorts of media, would be pretty much dead.
Blackdragon |
DMcCoy1693 wrote:Planning... HA! This doesn't require planning. All it requires is a lack of forethought of how letting everyone and their brother use the name D&D.Well, as Jason mentioned, the logo will be different from the official logo, and it will be put in a context like "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons", rather than "This is Dungeons & Dragons". I doubt it will be like Kingdoms of Kalamar, which can really be (easily) mistaken with an "official" product. Just like a bad game which is "Compatible with Nintendo Wii", doesn't devalue the "Nintendo Wii" brand at all.
True, but I've bought D20 stuff that I really had to look to find the company's name. Brand association is a powerful thing. Plus there is the assumption that everyone knows what a GSL is. Lets face it, if most of us weren't online here or on Enworld would we even have a clue what's going on?
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
Lets face it, if most of us weren't online here or on Enworld would we even have a clue what's going on?
Exactly. People assumed that the d20 logo meant that that product was up to Wizards standards. *Succeeds save against making cracks at their standards* People were confused with that. Now imagine people confused by that seeing a book with a logo on the cover 2/3's the width of the book that says, "Dungeons and Dragons Compatable". Sorry but the average casual gamer isn't going to have a clue what the difference is.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
Now imagine people confused by that seeing a book with a logo on the cover 2/3's the width of the book that says, "Dungeons and Dragons Compatable".
I'm pretty sure that Wizards has confirmed that there will specific requirements for size and placement of the logo, which, as they said in their recent GSL press release, will be "a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game" (emphasis mine). I have no doubt that those requirements will be specifically designed to minimize confusion with Wizards' own products.
Fatespinner RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 |
Now imagine people confused by that seeing a book with a logo on the cover 2/3's the width of the book that says, "Dungeons and Dragons Compatable". Sorry but the average casual gamer isn't going to have a clue what the difference is.
We should start seeing labels on books that look like today's software requirements labels:
Operating System: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Ed.
IQ: 120 or higher
Reading level: 10th grade or equivalent
4th Edition-compatible battlemat and minis recommended
Krome |
I am not so sure I agree with the OP's line of reasoning here.
Remember under the 3.x OGL there was a d20 license as well. Everyone published under the d20 license at first and yes there was some horrible material published. After a while most publishers realized it was better to go with the OGL license instead, often due to a more lenient license and better control over content.
Now that 4E is coming out WizCO has combined the two licenses into one. Everything OGL will also, in effect be d20 branded as well. With the rash of poor quality publishers that came out under 3.x this seems counter intuitive. But it is not.
First, under the rush of 3.x, you have to remember there were no third party publishers at all before. This was entirely new ground. Over time the poor quality publishers have gone out of business. While some individuals may not like some materials by a given publisher, the ones in print now seem to have great followings. So, there is very little chance 4E will see a mad rush of poor quality third party material.
Second, under the proposed combining of licenses, WizCo actually gains more control over third party publishers. If they feel quality is substantially lacking or that a product is hurting their brand name, they will be able to exert pressure and even can order production to cease.
What will determine if 5E uses an OGL is more dependent upon how third party publishers compete with WizCo. If 3PPs hurt WizCo's pocket book, then 5E is unlikely to have an OGL. If 3PPs do little to impact WizCo then they are likely to continue with an OGL. As I understand it so far, 3PPs have made almost no real inroad at all into market share. Unless Paizo's PFRPG is a huge success and really makes a dent in the industry things will likely continue as is.
Here's hoping Paizo makes a big dent!