buzz said:
But hasn't Goodman created a fairly recognizable brand with DCC, though? The d20 logo is only a small part of DCC's trade dress. Given the rep they've built, would removing that little logo really hurt them?
I am sure it wouldn't. The point I was illustrating was that, clearly, Goodman doesn't consider the d20 logo to be the poison that conventional wisdom says it is.
I suppose Joseph could explain why he still uses the d20 logo. He must have his reasons, he's a canny and very successful d20 publisher.
But for consumers who are aware of the d20/OGL concept, will the removal of the logo really prevent them from buying product?
No, but I don't think most consumers understand the distinction between d20 and OGL.
I think "most" consumers know what the d20 logo means (it means "compatible with their official books"); some subset of this group can discern between publisher brands (Green Ronin, Goodman, Necromancer, Paizo), and some smaller subset still knows the difference between an OGL product and a product bearing the d20 logo.
The real issue is what happens with consumers who are not aware of the whole d20/OGL thing, assuming they are out there.
Good assumption. I'm assuming that would be "most consumers."
EnWorld is a bad sample. We're all super elite gamers, here, with an IQ 40 or 50 points above the average gamer, and stunning good looks to boot.
I have to wonder, though, if Role Aids could sell to AD&D players in the '80s by being sneaky, why can't current publishers sell to 4e players with license-approved compatibility language?
They could. But I am sure most publishers would prefer to play nice with WOTC, and vice versa, as opposed to sticking a finger in their eye. (No particular finger specified.)
