There are also niggling details about how handle the Paizo/Necro partnership under the atmosphere of the terrible GSL that need to be worked out. I don't think any publisher could have anticipated an open-ended contract that could be changed at any time by WotC that might force you to pulp all of your products, and there are several additional ugly surprises in that contract as well.--Erik
So, Erik - what do you think is the more important factor in terms of companies signing on to GSL instead of doing what Kenzer is doing:
1. Fear of suit; or
2. Market strength of being able to use the trademarks.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There is absolutely no way WotC could be considered a monopoly under U.S. law, not even under the most stringent tests used back in the hayday when the anti-trust statutes were actually enforced. They don't have any way of keeping out competitors who create their own rpgs, they don't have any real pricing power because products in their market are not fungible, and, to top it off, in the eyes of every non-gamer in the world, there's no real harm even if there is a monopoly in tabletop rpgs. I can't even fashion an intelligible legal argument about that topic "your honor, because no other rpg is on the market, there is less fun than there would otherwise be. This loss of fun is the cost of monopoly action, and something must be done about it!"
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For those that haven't seen them, check out the character sheets by Shado -- they're spectacular!Yeah, check out the dorkus-maximus "I am dominated" sign one of the players has by their character sheet. Should they have labled this game 4E 4Kids?
How is having an easy to use reference for the rules a bad thing?
Seems to me the barriers to entry into the market are pretty low, however.
|
|
There is absolutely no way WotC could be considered a monopoly under U.S. law, not even under the most stringent tests used back in the hayday when the anti-trust statutes were actually enforced. They don't have any way of keeping out competitors who create their own rpgs, they don't have any real pricing power because products in their market are not fungible, and, to top it off, in the eyes of every non-gamer in the world, there's no real harm even if there is a monopoly in tabletop rpgs. I can't even fashion an intelligible legal argument about that topic "your honor, because no other rpg is on the market, there is less fun than there would otherwise be. This loss of fun is the cost of monopoly action, and something must be done about it!"
Totally off-topic :)
It almost happened in pro wrestling a few years back, but Vince dodged the bullet(err, chair).
|
There is absolutely no way WotC could be considered a monopoly under U.S. law, not even under the most stringent tests used back in the hayday when the anti-trust statutes were actually enforced. They don't have any way of keeping out competitors who create their own rpgs, they don't have any real pricing power because products in their market are not fungible, and, to top it off, in the eyes of every non-gamer in the world, there's no real harm even if there is a monopoly in tabletop rpgs. I can't even fashion an intelligible legal argument about that topic "your honor, because no other rpg is on the market, there is less fun than there would otherwise be. This loss of fun is the cost of monopoly action, and something must be done about it!"
Totally off-topic :)
It almost happened in pro wrestling a few years back, but Vince dodged the bullet(err, chair).
Something similar happened to Nintendo. The evidence was inadmissible, though, having been stolen.
Fungible.
That really shouldn't be a word :/
Yeah, check out the dorkus-maximus "I am dominated" sign one of the players has by their character sheet...
How is having an easy to use reference for the rules a bad thing?
Don't listen to Sebastion -- he's been dominated.
And he uses funny words.
Fungible. That really shouldn't be a word :/
"able to be made into a fungus?"
Works for me :P
Did Scotty ever give out the formula for that?
Edit: Maybe if it were something like translucent allumnium, it could provide cover.
Actually I think it was transparent aluminum. Translucent would suggest that it glowed even if only slightly like a ghost might. Transparent aluminum was used like glass only much stronger. Ok I didn't have to point that out but I guess it is the Trekie coming out in me. :)
TheErn
Did Scotty ever give out the formula for that?
Edit: Maybe if it were something like translucent allumnium, it could provide cover.
Actually I think it was transparent aluminum. Translucent would suggest that it glowed even if only slightly like a ghost might. Transparent aluminum was used like glass only much stronger. Ok I didn't have to point that out but I guess it is the Trekie coming out in me. :)
TheErn
Translucent means partially transparent, you are able to see through it but the image is obscured. It has nothing to do with giving off a glow, the word you are thinking of is luminosity which is the trait of an object to give off light.
Sorry, that was the verbal precision nerd comming out in me. =)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I've said before, and I continue to believe, WotC is trying to kill the competition. The GSL seems to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to conceal that agenda.
My two cents.
I think you might be right, but I have a slightly different take on it.
I propose that 3.5 did not generate the clear revenues that Hasbro wanted. When it didn't, the Hasbro corporate types began looking at ways to make more money from the D&D brand or give it enough of a bump to look healthy enough to sell off at a profit or at least at a lesser loss. Thus they pushed for 4th edition. New editions, especially radically different editions generally result in a bump in sales, which is what they want. The GSL is an effort to depress 3rd party companies's stock in 4e and get them thinking that the only way to make any money is be WotC, and oh by the way, Hasbro's entertaining offers for the purchase of the brand...
It's a long shot, but I think it fits a certain view of the facts thus far. And let me be clear, I don't think the designers are a part of the plan or may even know about it yet. I think they're just being used for what they are: creative people making games.
Does this sound at all plausible?
James
I don't get it, "Clark Lives"... his most recent post on the Wizards Forum is from June 27th, almost a month old.
Oops, didn't notice that detail. But still, this a week after the last post I saw of his (either from his own forums or ENWorld).
|
For those that haven't seen them, check out the character sheets by Shado -- they're spectacular!Yeah, check out the dorkus-maximus "I am dominated" sign one of the players has by their character sheet. Should they have labled this game 4E 4Kids?
Knock it off pax - this forum is not for crap like this.
|
|
It could be argued that their muscle keeps out products from retail outlets (and, certainly, TSR did this in the day).. but.. we're such a small product niche that, who the hell would really care?
No. Not really. Retailers have free choice when it comes to the products that they stock. WotC muscle has nothing to do with it.
|
|
Seems to me the barriers to entry into the market are pretty low, however.Well, for PDF publishing certainly, and it's not too hard to get with Diamond for some game stores that aren't totally dedicated to Warhammer and WotC.
But if you want into, say, Barnes and Noble... you're likely screwed. :S
Sure because their buyers don't buy crap and they don't take risks on small time publishers. That is true for everything they stock and not just games.
Again - WotC has nothing to do with the fact that smaller publishers do not get their product on book store shelves.
|
Seems to me the barriers to entry into the market are pretty low, however.Well, for PDF publishing certainly, and it's not too hard to get with Diamond for some game stores that aren't totally dedicated to Warhammer and WotC.
But if you want into, say, Barnes and Noble... you're likely screwed. :S
Sure because their buyers don't buy crap and they don't take risks on small time publishers. That is true for everything they stock and not just games.
Again - WotC has nothing to do with the fact that smaller publishers do not get their product on book store shelves.
I worked for BN.com when it was a startup in the 90's, and I must say that your statement is inaccurate. BN bought quite a load of crap, as you called it. In fact they did, and still do, quite a bit of business with small and obscure publishers. the problem for smalltime print RPG publishers is that they are disorganized and end up duplicating their efforts.
What would really help 3PP is to set up an organization to act as a distributor for all members, sort of how small press publishers often affiliate with a larger house for the use of their distribution channels.
EDIT: this is sort of what Sword & Sorcery did in the early 3.0 days
I could well be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, Hasbro is relatively hands off with WotC as regards D&D so I don't see 4E as coming from...
Mostly, from my understanding that might be the situation involved. Hasbro is hands off in regards to WotC. But, apparently it did come down to them telling WotC to "make Dungeons and Dragons profitable". When you compare the amount of money it makes to what Pokemon and Magic the Gathering make, it just doesn't add up, and of course it doesn't, it's not collectable (not in the same sense anyway).
Anyway, I imagine jobs were threatened and management was pushed to "make D&D profitable" from Hasbro. So this is what they came up with, it is probably not the best business decision by any means but maybe they got it in their heads that their competition with products such as True20 and others that were inspired by there IP were hurting their sales, and they resorted to this.
Thing is, the belief that games such as True20 and Pathfinder will (and have) hurt their sales is not entirely untrue. For example, my roommate is a huge True20 fan. She used to collect almost all of the WotC stuff, since she decided True20 was all she needed for any setting she wanted to run or play in she has barely purchased any further Dungeons and Dragons books.
WotC is coming off (justifiably) as the bad guys here, which it's obvious to see the reasons why. But having worked in or been around business environments most of my life I think that on some levels, they just got desperate and made the wrong decisions.
I like 4e, but I will probably only be financially supporting the companies that do not use the GSL as I think they need to rethink that, and realize that they need to deliver on their own products and provide more as a company, rather than just trying to stiff the competition.
My point is there are two sides to every story, and no one does bad things just to do bad things, despite what our d20 Modern and Shadowrun games might have taught us.
|
|
Sure because their buyers don't buy crap and they don't take risks on small time publishers. That is true for everything they stock and not just games.And there it is. Anything not WotC is crap? Are you honestly saying that on the damn PAIZO board?
And Barnes and Noble and Borders take risks on small publishers all the time. It's just that they don't do it with games, which is a niche within a niche within a niche in their store.
Did you even notice the part about risk? Oh, you did but you waived it away by saying - but they do it all the time.
Big box stores simply do not serve up the "long tail" they cannot afford to do so without a darn good reason.
Everything in this industry that isn't WotC, White Wolf, or GW is in a very long tail.
...I think it's fair to bury that rumor in the ground and pee on the grave.
--Erik
Wow. Remind me not to get on your bad side.
I hate it when my grave gets wee-weed on.
Wow. Remind me not to get on your bad side.
I hate it when my grave gets wee-weed on.
Yeah, it kills off all the pretty flowers. :(
Meh. Companies have been found to be "monopolies" (for purposes of anti-trust law) with market share in the 55% range. Not saying WotC is one, but you don't have to own ALL of a market to be one :)
Uh, what? Does WotC own nearly all game companies? No. They are not monopolists.
They've been found to be monopolies, but they weren't actually monopolies. Don't forget the political side of the equation.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem for smalltime print RPG publishers is that they are disorganized and end up duplicating their efforts.
What would really help 3PP is to set up an organization to act as a distributor for all members, sort of how small press publishers often affiliate with a larger house for the use of their distribution channels.
(Laugh)
Congratulations, Underling. You've just invented GAMA.
--Chris
|
|
Firstly 4e represents a significant financial outlay. It also, almost certainly, led to a decline in sales over a period of up to a year. In business, you can accept a short term decline for long term growth (3.X had seen overall decline, 4e long-term sales might not be what they were at the height of 3.X but are almost certainly more than the tail end of 3.x - the 3 core books alone represent a significant financial injection for the company). What's more a significant injection in a year of economic downturn.
Absolutely. We plan by the year and execute by the quarter. Launching a new edition provides a spike in YoY sales. Launching other products lines makes certain that the company produces a constant flow of revenue across multiple products. I can't hazard where 4.0 fits in that mix, but it's online initiative is clearly an attempt to stabilize the revenue stream in a more stable, higher margin product. It also seems that 4.0 is operating mroe and more off the GW model in tha the ruels set is really a mechanism to drive high margin sales of subsequent products. We are paying $15.00 to $21.00 a box for $5.00 worth of plastic, when we buy D&D minis.
I could well be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, Hasbro is relatively hands off with WotC as regards D&D so I don't see 4E as coming from them at all.
Yes, but relatively hands off still means your revenue targets are ultimately set by the company and your expense requests pass through a process of centralized moderation. The margin demanded from you limits your business decisions and forces you to focus on different products. I know what corporate wants me to focus on each year as they establish my targets with me and we discuss strategic options. Hands off does not mean free reign.
|
|
There is absolutely no way WotC could be considered a monopoly under U.S. law, not even under the most stringent tests used back in the hayday when the anti-trust statutes were actually enforced. They don't have any way of keeping out competitors who create their own rpgs, they don't have any real pricing power because products in their market are not fungible, and, to top it off, in the eyes of every non-gamer in the world, there's no real harm even if there is a monopoly in tabletop rpgs. I can't even fashion an intelligible legal argument about that topic "your honor, because no other rpg is on the market, there is less fun than there would otherwise be. This loss of fun is the cost of monopoly action, and something must be done about it!"
Wasn't there a class action civil case against a video game company because some people weren't able to take part in the pre-release thingie, if so it seems to me you can take that to court using that exact argument :)
Dance Dance Counter Revolution!
Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?
There is absolutely no way WotC could be considered a monopoly under U.S. law, not even under the most stringent tests used back in the hayday when the anti-trust statutes were actually enforced. They don't have any way of keeping out competitors who create their own rpgs, they don't have any real pricing power because products in their market are not fungible, and, to top it off, in the eyes of every non-gamer in the world, there's no real harm even if there is a monopoly in tabletop rpgs. I can't even fashion an intelligible legal argument about that topic "your honor, because no other rpg is on the market, there is less fun than there would otherwise be. This loss of fun is the cost of monopoly action, and something must be done about it!"
Yes, but the real question is do they play Monopoly?
Case closed! I rest my Argument!
There is absolutely no way WotC could be considered a monopoly under U.S. law, not even under the most stringent tests used back in the hayday when the anti-trust statutes were actually enforced. They don't have any way of keeping out competitors who create their own rpgs, they don't have any real pricing power because products in their market are not fungible, and, to top it off, in the eyes of every non-gamer in the world, there's no real harm even if there is a monopoly in tabletop rpgs. I can't even fashion an intelligible legal argument about that topic "your honor, because no other rpg is on the market, there is less fun than there would otherwise be. This loss of fun is the cost of monopoly action, and something must be done about it!"
Yes, but the real question is do they play Monopoly?
Case closed! I rest my Argument!
They don't need to. Hasbro owns that brand.
|
|
The problem for smalltime print RPG publishers is that they are disorganized and end up duplicating their efforts.
What would really help 3PP is to set up an organization to act as a distributor for all members, sort of how small press publishers often affiliate with a larger house for the use of their distribution channels.
(Laugh)
Congratulations, Underling. You've just invented GAMA.
--Chris
Thanks! I thought it was a good idea :)
Seriously, Chris, unless I have a complete misconception of what GAMA does, that's not really what i was talking about. Large publishers who distribute for small presses, handle the printing of the books, the retail chain buyers, public relations, direct sales, and customer service for the small press. This is done in exchange for a share of the profits (it make the big publisher look better by having a wider selection of works & authors). As far as I can see, 3PP in the RPG market arrange their own printings, distribute on their own (including pitching stores like B&N), and advertise and market their own works.
What I was suggesting was an umbrella publisher like White Wolf's Sword & Sorcery imprint that distributed about a half dozen different 3pp back in the 3.0 days (Necro, Malhavic, etc...) The much larger volume that WHite wolf could bring to the store allowed the small 3pp to piggyback their stuff into the mix.
Anyway, I could be dead wrong about this. Maybe its all done already. But, from reading conversations here and elsewhere it doesn't seem to be done on a large scale in the RPG business.
|
|
Anyway, I could be dead wrong about this. Maybe its all done already. But, from reading conversations here and elsewhere it doesn't seem to be done on a large scale in the RPG business.
Mongoose does exactly this through its Flaming Cobra imprint.
However, you have to remember that you're talking about publishers giving up a piece of a very small percentage they get from the sales of a book.
Firstly, at best a publisher is looking at 40% of the book's cover price (note I said at best). Out of that they might well be paying a fulfilment house and/or warehouse. Then the shipping, advertising, printing costs...and we're not even at the art or freelancer costs.
There's a reason why the adage of 'the best way to make a million dollars in rpg publishing is to start with two million' is regarded as a truism. Yes, some companies make a lot of money, but the number that do, and the number that just make pocket change are worlds apart.
You're right, of course, about the thin profit margins and the disadvantages of "tithing" to another company for these services. That's why I think something like this would work best as an umbrella publisher. One that is jointly owned and operated by all of their constituent members. The idea is simply to improve the ability to place product in toy stores/book stores by making the product line larger (though combining offerings from many sources). It would be about market penetration and advertising.
Obviously, if this were as simple as I posited, it would likely already be in existence. Perhaps publishers are readier to accept the ease of direct sales online instead of pushing for bookstores/toystore shelf space, with all the attendant difficulties.
So, Erik - what do you think is the more important factor in terms of companies signing on to GSL instead of doing what Kenzer is doing:
1. Fear of suit; or
2. Market strength of being able to use the trademarks.
I doubt anybody's using GSL because it lets them use D&D trademarks more freely than Kenzer is. It would seem to all be because they're afraid of lawsuits if they use the trademarks as freely as Kenzer does.
Why do I say that? Let's look at the Kingdoms of Kalamar advertising material:
The line of text at the bottom of the image of the cover of Kingdoms of Kalamar is a clearly stated "for use with Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons®".
The free preview PDF then includes the following statements:
"The standard races described in the D&D Player's Handbook are present on Tellene, although they often have different names."
"We even encourage you to choose a hobgoblin (see the D&D Monster Manual glossary) or a half-hobgoblin (in this book) as a player character!"
"Many of the classes described in the D&D Player's Handbook have significant new opportunities in the Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting."
"Trample (standard; at will): A highland dancer can trample like a standard warhorse (see the D&D Monster Manual), with an attack of: +7 vs. Reflex and 1d6+3 damage, knocking the target prone."
Seems to me the barriers to entry into the market are pretty low, however.Well, for PDF publishing certainly..
LaTeX for example.
Big box stores simply do not serve up the "long tail" they cannot afford to do so without a darn good reason.
Everything in this industry that isn't WotC, White Wolf, or GW is in a very long tail.
But even some 1pp stuff is little more than a dingle-berry on a very funky tail. Case in point Complete Psionic or Monster Manual IV.
I doubt anybody's using GSL because it lets them use D&D trademarks more freely than Kenzer is. It would seem to all be because they're afraid of lawsuits if they use the trademarks as freely as Kenzer does.Why do I say that? Let's look at the Kingdoms of Kalamar advertising material:
The line of text at the bottom of the image of the cover of Kingdoms of Kalamar is a clearly stated "for use with Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons®".
The free preview PDF then includes the following statements:
"The standard races described in the D&D Player's Handbook are present on Tellene, although they often have different names."
"We even encourage you to choose a hobgoblin (see the D&D Monster Manual glossary) or a half-hobgoblin (in this book) as a player character!"
"Many of the classes described in the D&D Player's Handbook have significant new opportunities in the Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting."
"Trample (standard; at will): A highland dancer can trample like a standard warhorse (see the D&D Monster Manual), with an attack of: +7 vs. Reflex and 1d6+3 damage, knocking the target prone."
Joseph Goodman of Goodman Games has said that one of the major reasons he plans on using the GSL is because of the trademark. I get the impression, from his interview on the Ogre Cave, that he sees the ability to place the trademark on his products as being worth all the issues of dealing with the GSL alone simply because he believes a lot more D&D players will buy his products with that trade mark on it.
The advantage for Goodman re: 4e is that they are coming out with product when there are very, very few published adventures available for the system.
He will probably do quite well (maybe like the original Freeport series did for GR).
It still saddens me that I won't be purchasing any of them, though....
Frustrating... understandable, but frustrating.
For the click impaired:
Hi everyone.
Sorry I have been so quiet. Things are very up in the air right now. And no one is more aggravated with that than me. It has been about a year now that we havent put out a product. The market for 3.5 is all but dried up. Maybe Pathfinder's release will help, but that is still some time off. I intend to support Pathfinder when it is finalized. I trust and respect the people at Paizo. They are gamers and brilliant designers. They love D&D and have its best interests at heart. Luckily, when Wizards first took over D&D, they put a visionary gentleman named Ryan Dancey at the helm and he was able to convince the powers that be to release D&D 3E as an Open Game, thus essentially assuring that the game we all love could exist in that iteration forever. 3E and the d20 movement was a great time for gaming. A true renaissance, in my view.
Now we have the GSL. Right now, in my view, the GSL needs some major reworking or clarification to be usable. The bottom line, in my view, is that the GSL is a total unmitigated failure. And that is a shame. I have been one of the biggest vocal proponents of Wizards and I love Scott and Linae. I still do, big time. I am hopefull that we can find a way to change or clarify some of the issues with the license so that we can use it and create 4E products. You know that philsophically I believe in supporting the current version of D&D.
Trust me that I am working hard to try to resolve the GSL issues so that we can go forward. I'm optimistic that some changes can be made. Will they be enough to make the GSL usable? I sure hope so.
Please dont take this post as bashing Wizards. I am not doing that. I support Wizards. And if there is one thing that is clear from this process it is that, while I would have done it differently, they have always been great about listening to our comments and revising things based on our comments. That is a credit to them, for sure. And Scott and Linae continue to be amazing and, in my view, working hard to make the license usable.
So what will Necro do? I'll try to break things down by relevant topic:
So are you doing 4E? Well, right now I dont see 4E products in the immediate future from Necro without some changes or clarifications to the license. My hope is that I will be able to get what I need so that we can do 4E products. But as of today we have not adopted the GSL, we have not sent in our card accepting the license. And, unless there are changes or significant clarification, we won't be adopting it.
Necro and Paizo? I still very much want to work with them and they very much want to work with me. The problem is the GSL. Necro will definately be supporting Pathfinder when it comes out. If the GSL issues are resolved, Necro and Paizo will be bringing you some amazing products that we already have lined up and in the hopper. Seriously, there are several awesome products literally ready to go just awaiting the fixing of the issues with the GSL.
Tegel Manor? Right now, in my view, in addition to the problems the GSL has in general, it has specific additonal problems for a product like Tegel. I see the risk to Judges Guild, which wants to continue to make OGL versions of JG content and distribute our old Necro/JG products as well, as being too great to jeopardize permenantly, which the GSL does. But, you may say, Judges Guild doesnt have to adopt the GSL! That is true, but the GSL has some problematic provisions that make that partnership very difficult and uncertain.
What about that free adventure, Winter's Tomb? Can't you just do a free adventure? Its not happening. There is no way to "just do a free adventure" without adopting the GSL, which we have not yet done and wont do in its current incarnation.
So now will you release all that stuff for 3E? Doubtful. The market for 3E is not there. I expect Pathfinder to revive it, but that isnt going to be a full, public supportable system for some time. 3E remains viable for many publishers. But our plan is to up the production value on our products, which means they cost alot more to make, which means our margins are so small, that the current 3E market makes those products not feasible for lots of reasons I wont get into. I know there are many fans who say they will buy that stuff and would love to have it. Well, in a perfect world, we'd love to deliver it. But this isnt a perfect world and fan demand isnt the only factor--there are distributors and retailers and others who are not so excited about generic 3E now that 4E is out.
So bottom line it for me--what are you going to do? We are working with Wizards to clarify and/or change the license. If that works, we will release 4E material. If there are no changes, I dont see us adopting the GSL (absent some significant official clarification of terms of the GSL). We will support Pathfinder. But we will not just release OGL content from this point forward until Pathfinder is viable and we can support it.
How likely do you think it is that there will be changes? I am very hopeful that some significant changes or clarifications can be accomplished with the GSL.
I hope this helps answer some questions. Sorry for the delay. I havent had anything concrete to report. Heck, I still dont. But I figured I owed everyone an update.
Necro isnt going anywhere. We are trying to work to be able to get a usable GSL or other arrangment with Wizards to bring you the awesome 4E content we have planned. If that wont work, you will see us fully supporting Pathfinder. Our time off before we start cranking out new products may just be a bit longer than planned
Clark
