What Would Google Do? - the Wizards of the Coast Edition

tylerthehobo · Apr 14, 2009

Say, have any of you read Jeff Jarvis' new book, "What Would Google Do?" It posits that Google's approach to information and technology has changed the way a lot of companies do business, and shows some opportunities for companies that haven't to be "googley" and embrace openness and progressive behavior. Over on my blog, I've spitballed a little bit about this, to see some ways that WotC is being very progressive (e.g. using the Dragon website for the barbarian playtest) but also some ways they could be more progressive (e.g. maybe they should have let Paizo, who clearly dominated the magazine and specialty publishing niche, keep Dragon and Dungeon going).

Have any of you read the book? Do any of you have any thoughts? Specifically, considering how many of us use enworld.org instead of wizards.com as our online gaming hub, what do you think of new ways that things like Facebook can be leveraged for gamer "networking" for lack of a better term?

MichaelSomething · Apr 15, 2009

Wouldn't that mean that the OGL of 3rd Edition be the most "Google" like thing WOTC done?

Some actions that WOTC has done in the age of 4th Edition appear to be less Googlily.

Remus Lupin · Apr 15, 2009

Yeah, I think that the WotC of the 2000-2003 era represents the company at it's most google-like, "don't be evil"-ish (though it should be noted that even google doesn't follow this doctrine without fail!).

Since then, and particularly since the advent of 4th edition, I've gotten far less of a "googly" feel from WotC, and Star Wars is pretty much the only product I still even consider buying from them. Not only because of the ethical issues, but also because it just doesn't appeal to me any more.

Corinth · Apr 15, 2009

Haven't read the book, but I will now that I am aware of it.

ruemere · Apr 17, 2009

tylerthehobo said:
[...]using the Dragon website for the barbarian playtest
[...] what do you think of new ways that things like Facebook can be leveraged for gamer "networking" for lack of a better term?

Ad. 1. Term "playtest" assumes that there is a feedback from the users, which may or may not influence design process. Given production cycle time of a print product (3 months for printers at least), it was more of a preview than actual playtest.

Ad. 2. RPG is about words and imagination, hence the popularity of no-nonsense sites like ENWorld. Facebook-alikes add overhead of visual and personal content.

Regards,
Ruemere

tylerthehobo · Apr 18, 2009

True - I hadn't even thought of that - how much feedback cycle would there have been from the playtest?

Yeah, I think the OGL in 3rd edition was more progressive.

And yes, not saying Google is pure as the driven snow, as much as that their approach I think could really help WotC (especially w/ the PDF fiasco...)

Piratecat · Apr 19, 2009

Sliding this to the General forum.

Jack99 · Apr 19, 2009

ruemere said:
Ad. 1. Term "playtest" assumes that there is a feedback from the users, which may or may not influence design process. Given production cycle time of a print product (3 months for printers at least), it was more of a preview than actual playtest.

Several things were changed based on player feedback, most notably the AC issue and the understand of rage strike. So yeah, it did indeed work as a playtest.

WalterKovacs · Apr 20, 2009

Also, Artificer playtest came out in July of 2008, which is about a year ahead of time of the Eberon Player's Handbook. In the case of the Barbarian it was cutting it a bit close with it only being 4 or 5 months away. The other playtest articles (as opposed to previews like the bard and the other PHBII things) have been given a longer lead time. For example, the two new PHBIII playtests are coming out in this month and the next, giving it a nice long lead time.

Umbran · Apr 20, 2009

tylerthehobo said:
but also some ways they could be more progressive (e.g. maybe they should have let Paizo, who clearly dominated the magazine and specialty publishing niche, keep Dragon and Dungeon going).

In a technology/information sense, moving the content online is the progressive move. Leaving it in print in the hands of another publisher may be nice, but it isn't "progress".

Specifically, considering how many of us use enworld.org instead of wizards.com as our online gaming hub, what do you think of new ways that things like Facebook can be leveraged for gamer "networking" for lack of a better term?

You might want to clarify what you mean by that term. While there's a lot of information and idea exchange, the amount of what I'd call "networking" going on here is small.