Pramas on the OGL

[hossrex]

That is a failure of their development staff, not them getting screwed by the OGL.

I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money.

Your entire point boils down to "The OGL is better for *GAMERS* because it puts more content on the shelves". I agree 100% with this. You're however trying to manipulate facts to pretend your statement is actually "The OGL is better for *WotC* because it puts more content on the shelves".

No.

The very fact that you say "That is a failure of their development staff"... which is why they've lost money... is *PROOF* (in itself) that the OGL has cost Wizards of the Coast money.

Who cares *WHY* its cost them money? Who cares that maybe if they'd had better content it wouldn't have cost them money.

It *HAS* cost them money.

You're all constantly repeating "how great the OGL has been"... when what you mean is "how great the OGL has been for gamers, and third parties". It really has been "so-so" for WotC.

*EVIDENCED* by their further consideration regarding its resurrection.

Unless... and I say this in nearly every post, and everyone ignores it because its pretty freaking iron clad... unless you think you know more about whats better for Wizards of the Coast then Wizards of the Coast does.

I'm not saying any of you're wrong.

I'm just saying that Wizards of the Coast pays many people many (MANY) dollars to determine whats "best" for Wizards of the Coast.

Here you are giving that "service" away for free.

Perhaps... you're not as knowledgeable as you purport, else you'd probably be making some of those many (MANY) dollars.

Right?

Side A: DnD players on a well known, but still fairly insignificant hobby website say something.

Side B: Market experts, who've gone to school and had first hand experience with trends, markets and practices say a different thing.

You have the option to go with either.

Would a whole lot of you take option A?

If so... it would fully explain how one former trading card company, properly run, could so utterly dominate this market away from (QUOTE)sensible(UNQUOTE) people.

It never occurs to half of you that you could possibly be wrong about something, does it?

 

[Lizard]

I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money.

So far, I've seen no one from WOTC say that. Links?

I have seen many former WOTC employees who are still game industry professionals say the exact opposite, that the OGL was good for WOTC in many ways, from keeping people in the hobby longer to helping D&D 3x explode in the early 2000s.

 

[Wicht]

I'm just saying that Wizards of the Coast pays many people many (MANY) dollars to determine whats "best" for Wizards of the Coast.

I would be interested in seeing your facts backed up somehow.

Erik Mona, over at the paizo boards had a good laugh at others who were suggesting that there was a lot of high paid individuals involved in the WotC community. Follow the link for the quotes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd like to include me in that group, but since I never worked for Wizards I dont know how my opinion is viewed.

<Narrows eyes and purses lips.>

Like... this.

 

[Voadam]

I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money.

Your entire point boils down to "The OGL is better for *GAMERS* because it puts more content on the shelves". I agree 100% with this. You're however trying to manipulate facts to pretend your statement is actually "The OGL is better for *WotC* because it puts more content on the shelves".

Its real easy to deny.

Here is his original statement

If you plan to buy 5 books in a year and the only game you play is D&D and none of the D&D books that come out that year interest you, they don't get your money. Maybe you play RIFTS too and pick up 5 books for them anyway. If WotC doesn't get my money in a given period of time, it's either b/c my money was busy paying for necessities or else they just didn't develop anything I felt was worth my hard-earned-in-a-crappy-economy-$. That is a failure of their development staff, not them getting screwed by the OGL.

This describes me fairly well. I buy a number of RPG books fairly regularly. I currently only play D&D and buy things for my D&D game.

I buy things based on my interest in them and on getting good deals.

I used to get a bunch of GURPS, Ars Magica, White Wolf, Palladium, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Roleaids, Rolemaster, and other stuff that interested me and adapt them to D&D. WotC was not in a monopoly position before the OGL, I had plenty of non-D&D options that could suit my desire for stuff to get for my D&D games. TSR/WotC was already competing against these products for my dollars when I wanted to reward myself by getting an rpg book.

With the OGL I have lots of choices of things produced by other companies that are directly compatible with the rules of the game I play. This has led to a change in my purchasing habits as I find myself buying more d20 and less nond20 rpg material. With the OGL WotC has partially transferred my purchasing habits from nonD&D RPG books to d20 stuff.

For WotC to have gotten more money from me, for the OGL to have cost WotC some of my money, is to assume that in the absence of the OGL I would have spent the money I spent on OGL products on WotC products.

The OGL has pushed more of my RPG buying to products that are directly D&D compatible, not cut into money I had set aside for D&D-related purchases.

 

[SSquirrel]

I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money.

The very fact that you say "That is a failure of their development staff"... which is why they've lost money... is *PROOF* (in itself) that the OGL has cost Wizards of the Coast money.

No. If they produced books that didn't suit someone's needs, they would not buy the book and instead spend the money elsewhere. Bad books are bad books. Why would I buy a crappy book when I could instead spend my money on anything else? Poor development and/or making books that don't fit the niche of your interest are the most common reasons money isn't spent on WotC products. That isnt' money lost by the OGL.

Who cares *WHY* its cost them money? Who cares that maybe if they'd had better content it wouldn't have cost them money.

It *HAS* cost them money.

B/c that was my entire point? It isnt' the OGL costing them money here.

It never occurs to half of you that you could possibly be wrong about something, does it?

What a friendly thing to say to people you're chatting with *rolls eyes* These are my opinions, based on the evidence we have been able to see over the last 8 years.

 

[catsclaw]

In other words, the only direct quotes we have are over two years old. It's a sly bit of work, making it seem as if Cook had weighed in on recent events, but he hasn't. His opinion might be the same. It might not.

Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that Monte Cook has changed his opinion in the last two years? If not, why would you assume he has? Based on his predictions of what would be going on in two years, it sounds like he had a very accurate idea of where the market would be.

 

[Oldtimer]

I never said it wasn't a failure of their development staff, however you *CAN NOT* deny that without the OGL, WotC would have made more money.

Of course I can.

It *HAS* cost them money.

You have no proof for that. In fact there are lots of proof that they've benefited from it. And using capitals and asterisks won't make your statements into arguments.

It never occurs to half of you that you could possibly be wrong about something, does it?

You know, that works both ways...

 

[Lizard]

You have no proof for that. In fact there are lots of proof that they've benefited from it. And using capitals and asterisks won't make your statements into arguments.

You can not reason some one out of what he was never reasoned into.

Let it go...

 

[Seanchai]

Heck, this site wouldn't exist if not for people clamoring for news about the new 3rd edition.

Exactly.

I was there.

I was there, too. As a playtester. As the moderator of the official DND-L mailing list. On about 20 other mailing lists. On RPGnet.

And you're wrong.

There were certainly detractors. But it was NOTHING like this now.

I'm not sure why you think it's particularly bad this time around.

Perhaps it has to do with what trancejeremy said. When 3e rolled out, this place was new. It was 3e that created it. Membership has grown over the years and so it's not surprising that there's more negativity here about the new edition - there are more people.

Seanchai