Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[hutchback]

I know I don't matter to Wizards. They owe me nothing. I know that. Doesn't mean my company and many other companies just like mine can't provide them a valuable service.

And if someone would just give an example of what this "valuable service" is and how they feel it would help WotC profit either directly or indirectly, this discussion would be at a close.

 

[enrious]

Maybe I am naive, but I like to think they are helpful because they genuinely love the game industry.

I'd like to think that too and happen to do so.

But, what if they felt it was negatively impacting them? What if they felt that they'd lose money for the effort?

Would they still be so supportive?

Rhetorical question; it's a situation that I doubt even Paizo could answer (unless it's happening) because there are so many variables.

But I think the point could be made that even Paizo would have a threshold (even if that threshold was substantial).

Wizards too has a threshold. It just seems that theirs is far sooner than Paizo's threshold, even if both are positive numbers.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

The only reason for WotC to change is so that they can be "cooler" <snip>

A more appropriate word for "cooler" in the business world is "goodwill" which is actually, on occasion, accounted for as an asset by market analysts and actuaries.

You're not showing causation, though. I do not believe that 4E's sales are affected by the existence or lack of a license, nor by the quality of it.

Morrus, I know I'm not SHOWING causation here, but do you believe that Necromancer games's 4e sales were not affected by the existence or lack of a license or the quality of it?

Second question for you Morrus...the sales of 4e WotBS that you are mentioning...is that basically the same as community supporter money? I mean, if I become a community supporter, would I be listed as a patron of WotBS? I ask because I have often waffled back and forth about becoming a supporter if only for solely 3e stuffs, gaming philosopy articles, etc. I would likely never use 4e WotBS, and if it were not included in the subscription at all, it would not in any way influence my decision to be a subscriber. If, however, you're using the numbers of people who have gone out and bought JUST the adventure path, then I'd say GOOD FOR YOU GUYS as you seem to be perhaps the only 3pp for 4e that is truly thriving. (I mean the accolades quite sincerely btw, I wouldn't want that to seem sarcastic in the slightest.)


Now my answer to the crux of the point(s). It seems two lines of discussion have emerged:

1. Is it better for 3pps to support pathfinder or 4e? I'd say the answer to that overall has become fairly clear, apart from perhaps ENworld (I honestly think that's not true for other 3pps, including, sadly, Open Design, the only company besides WotC that I've bought 4e material from).

2. (The real question). Is it a good idea for WotC to support 3pps? I can't say I have enough info to provide more than anecdotal evidence and some "perspective driven" logic. WotC HAD me as a customer for 4e when I thought there would be robust 3pp support. I hate WotC adventures by and large (though the do put out some gems on occasion). I find their settings fairly generic/boring personally (apart from more extreme settings like Ravenloft and Dark Sun). So, for me to switch, I needed to have good adventure and setting support for 4e. So far, it is few and far between. I own the 4e adventures from Open Design, and I already own WotBS in 3e, so I don't feel the need to purchase it again (though reviews certainly suggest that it, as well, would be a great purchase should our group convert to 4e.)

So, here are three possible benefits to WotC to give 3pps support:

1. Goodwill. Many people don't like WotC right now, and PAIZO has a ton of goodwill. Sure, lots of people don't decide on what to buy based on goodwill, but some DO. Heck, there's not really that much I want from ENworld at the moment, but I keep almost purchasing a membership based solely upon goodwill. (To Morrus, the main barrier is actually the monthly sub of $3...I'd more happily pay an annual fee of $36.)

2. Draw in people that want to play other worlds. If the producers of, say Oathbound, or Arcanis, or Iron Kingdoms thought that they could make money in 4e, they just might draw in some sales for themselves and more importantly draw in customers to switch to this newfangled 4e thingy.

3. Market perceptions. There has been (and will likely continue to be) debate about if PAIZO is getting to be as big of a market force as WotC. We've all seen the government carefully use the word "recession" and never "depression" because people's market perceptions affect spending. Further, "market leader" can mean much more than "total sales" in terms of volume or profit. Market leader can mean total assets (which includes goodwill and partnership). Market leader can mean that they are actually leading others; that are others following them. We are beginning to see WotC as no longer the market leader in that sense.

Market leader can also mean "power to control the market". I posit that, as things are now, should WotC change to 5e in two years that they will have very very few 3pps moving with them. This will likely affect the number of freelancers interested in learning the system as well as affect goodwill and customer interest in 3pp IP as "not synergistic" with their system. On the other hand, should, in two years, PAIZO release Second Edition Pathfinder, I would imagine quite a few of the PATHFINDER OGL companies will follow.


I'll end the post there, with the admission that these are economic concepts set in sound economic and actuarial modelling (not of this market, but generally). They are not data, but they might be something for people at WotC to think a bit more deeply about (with their own data that they do have).

 

[Frylock]

Maybe I am naive, but I like to think they are helpful because they genuinely love the game industry.

They have acknowledged (publically and more than once) their thankfulness for the OGL and their desire to continue to promote the concept of open gaming. Like I said, their support of 3pp goes far beyond what the OGL requires, and those publishers who work with them are very appreciative of the fact.

You're almost certainly naive, but I can't prove it, although the terms of the 3.5 license back up my view, not yours. We'll probably never know what Paizo would do if they created their own gaming system because Paizo probably never will during out lifetimes. Until they do, Paizo is still standing on the shoulders of what WotC created (bound by the license), and it's just unfair to compare their position to WotC's.

You just don't seem to appreciate the work that goes into producing the original product v. some add-on. WotC spends a ton of money and effort creating game systems, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. WotC says, "No problem. Go ahead and use our stuff without having to pay us a royalty that's standard elsewhere in print media. All we ask is that the integrity of the game is maintained, so please abide by the terms of this free license here." The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"

WTF? Really people. Grow up.

Here's a more tangible example. I write a book on the Mafia. I spend 6 months researching the Mafia, maybe even hanging out with some mobsters. Besides the risk of hanging out with mobsters, it's a huge investment of my time and money. I then do something creative writing a book about a fictitious mobster's rise and fall. Then you come around and say, "It'll help your visibility if I make copies of your book and sell them myself royalty-free." Assuming I'm dumb enough to fall for this, don't you think I should demand you not change the text (i.e., maintain integrity)? Do you think I should spend my own money to market your web shop?

In any other area, this seems ridiculous, but people expect WotC to do exactly that.

 

[pawsplay]

You're not showing causation, though. I do not believe that 4E's sales are affected by the existence or lack of a license, nor by the quality of it.

I believe that any trends are affected to a minuscule degree by the GSL, and that any prime movements in these trends are due to the products WotC is putting out themselves.

Whether we like it or not, the main compaint we see levelled at 4E is not about the GSL, it's that people don't like the game itself. 99% of people who play RPGs have never heard of the GSL; they had not heard of the OGL, either. 3PPs simply aren't a factor in this, in my opinion.

But the market does not consist of a big pile of people, a certain percentage of whom will simply buy your product if it appeals to them. The product has to get to them. I can think of numerous ways the GSL is relevant. For one, it is a known issue to hardcore hobbyists, who are disproportionately GMs, who disproportinately determine the playing landscape in their neighborhoods. For another, all the people who are not producing 4e product are not contributing to the cornucopia that will attract players to 4e. Conversely, if those people choose to produce for 3e instead, players will be drawn to 3e.

4e is 4e, but the people who might be willing to give it a go is a nonzero number. And further, in the long run, it would be ideal to keep 3pp and other major hobbyists on the happy side when it comes time to update the product line again.

Have you seen the movie Hero? A ruler has made the decision that, whatever the cost in blood, in the long-run, China will be more peaceful if united. Another character cautions him not to fail, else the blood will only have brought pain. The current state of 4e is a pretty good demonstration of what happens when you try to annihilate opposition, and fail. Whatever the personal feelings of the D&D team toward gamers, D&D in general, and 3pps, the business decision was made to destroy the third party industry as it was. But it was an overreach.

 

[enrious]

You just don't seem to appreciate the work that goes into producing the original product v. some add-on. WotC spends a ton of money and effort creating game systems, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. WotC says, "No problem. Go ahead and use our stuff without having to pay us a royalty that's standard elsewhere in print media. All we ask is that the integrity of the game is maintained, so please abide by the terms of this free license here." The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"

Wait.

Earlier it was argued and pointed out that people are publishing without abiding by that license.

Sure, I don't think they're asking for anything in return, but where's the "standard elsewhere in print media" if Kenzer et al aren't paying a penny for licensing nor are they abiding by the GSL?

If that's true, how much did Wizards create for other's to shoulder-stand in the first place?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

To Matt James and/or Frylock:

Could one (or both) of you please cut and paste, from the article where the writer either "demonizes" or calls WotC the equivalent of "Jackholes"?

<snip> The author expects WotC to do all of this and demonizes them in the same breath. <snip>

<snip> The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"

WTF? Really people. Grow up. <snip>

Because, I gotta say, when I read it, it was more like he was asking for some help, and specifically stating that they were under no obligation to give it.


If you can find it and quote it, then great, but if not, please stop characterizing him as a "whiner" who is in some way saying anything negative about WotC.

(EDIT: added relevant quotes.)


Further EDIT:

<snip> Furthermore, I can't help but feel the open letter is more about whining than anything else. <snip>

Can you clarify where he is whining? I personally see a difference between whining and asking for help (even if the person being asked for help has no obligation to provide it).

 

[Frylock]

Market Destruction?

Whatever the personal feelings of the D&D team toward gamers, D&D in general, and 3pps, the business decision was made to destroy the third party industry as it was. But it was an overreach.

How can you say the 3PP market was destroyed (or was even attacked)? The GSL's existence runs contrary to that claim. All they did was pull back on it (from what they had in 3.5), which was probably a smart decision.

As for the online CB, though, it's clear that there is no longer any support for 3PPs. However, when the online CB, people we're whining that it didn't have an import/export function. When I (not a WotC insider!) suggested that it would probably be out with the very first update, people laughed at me saying it would take at least 6 months, if they'd ever do so. After the first update, I heard no apologies for the rants.

Don't assume that the online CB won't ever support 3PPs. If WotC has expressly said it wouldn't, fine; I missed that announcement. Until I read it, I'm not going to assume it.

 

[pawsplay]

FLGS owners are not industry consultants. Half of them can't even run a store properly, let alone make any type of accurate industry analysis. Even those who are competent do not have access to any data but what they themselves are selling. Anecdotes are not data, and making business decisions based on the opinion of one's FLGS owner is... well, it's not something I would do, let's say.

"The plural of anecdotes is data." I have heard the opposite statement misquotation you have paraphrased, but it is a misquotation and not accurate. Absolutely, data is created by taking multiple anecdotes, compiling them, and looking for compelling relationships. Clearly, the data used in anthropology involves lots of anecdotes. And truly, repeating an experiment is an anecdote. If anecdotes are not data, it is impossible to demonstrate the mixing baking soda with vinegar yields fizz.

I am really starting to wonder what you would regard as persuasive.
- Apparently, numerous accounts by FLGS, which more often than not indicate Pathfinder is winning, are not persuasive
- Sales rankings on various neutral web sites are not persuasive
- The D&D team revamping their product line, going on a
PR offensive, and writing hippie love blog posts about everyone playing D&D are not persuasive

I ask you, do these things together not suggest some kind of possible relationship to you? Without arguing about causality, can you not infer that 4e is not dominating Pathfinder, and may be surpassed by it?

What about DDI, for example? Do people not realise that this is a core market for WotC? That it is clearly immensely profitable? That it is the direction WotC wants to move in? That their future involves you subscribing to their services rather than buying their products? And, despite complaints about the new CB etc., indications are that they are succeeding at this.

I'm sure it's working out for them in many respects, especially having a constant revenue stream, but I think what they are doing is heading for the rocks. If they succeed in bringing creativity in-house, as a subscription, closing out other channels, there will be a fan revolt (if one is not already underway). Meanwhile, the segment that is content to remain relatively dependent is probably a more mainstream group in terms of commercial behavior. Who is going to DM for those people when the really creative types head for warmer climes? You will be left with a stubborn few 4e hackers, people who prefer the 4e engine enough to deal with its annoying in-laws, and those few are also your recruiting pool for design.

That's fine by me! You write your Pathfinder products, I'll happily tell people about them. But I'll write 4E products and enjoy a large market share because I'm happy with the GSL as it is. Everyone's happy!

Clearly, not EVERYONE is happy. You know what makes me unhappy? Having to treat my PDFs of old TSR products as gingerly as the real things, lest I lose them in a computer crash. And this, I am told, has to do with piracy, which in term has to do with why the 4e books are not available as downloads but are available via the DI. Even though 4e has only a peripheral relationship to my gaming, WotC's actions have had a significant effect on my enjoyment of things I have already paid for. They have a significant effect on a community I value.

Clearly, Chris Dias is not happy. And that is someone who apparently has tried to "play ball." Fat lot of appreciation people have gotten for that. Others, too, including some pro-WotC stalwarts.

I'm glad you're enjoying your AP business at present. I just hope you understand that while you are enjoying your happy little farm, things are going on that could significantly (scratch that, WILL significantly) change the landscape in ways no one can foresee clearly. At some point, the AP market will become more saturated, and it's tough for me to imagine what the follow-up act to that would be. It may be that you're saying you're happy to ride the wave, and in five years, when the well dries up, you're closing down shop. Which is fine, if that's how you see it.

In my opinion, you're choosing not to see things that you don't want to see. I mean that sincerely, and not in any way to question the depth of your thinking on this, which has obviously been considerable in positioning yourself to do what you want do do. And you know your business better than anybody. But sincerely... the times they are a-changin'.

 

[Frylock]

False Arguments

To Matt James and/or Frylock:

Could one (or both) of you please cut and paste, from the article where the writer either "demonizes" or calls WotC the equivalent of "Jackholes"?

This is what I said (and you quoted!).

The industry's response? "Pay for our advertising, jackholes!"

Making false arguments puts you outside the scope of fair and honest debate. The "jackhole" comment *clearly* was not a quote or paraphrase of that particular letter but rather my observations of the industry as a whole. Quoting everyone I've every heard speak or write on the subject would be space-prohibitive, and you know that. Thus, I summarized.

As for the whining accusation, I'm not sure exactly what I said before, but I will gladly make that claim now. I'm not going to copy the entire letter here. It's all a lot of whining directed at a company that will never read it.