Why doesn't WotC license older editions?

[rogueattorney]

TSR ran the D&D and AD&D lines side by side from 1977 to 1993. TSR didn't go under until 1997, after they had consolidated the lines. I suspect TSR's problems had more to do with producing too many hyper-specialized products (all the source books for all the campaign worlds) instead of focusing on general use products (core rules, the Basic set)

"Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense. Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out. Quite to the contrary, there's usually a synergistic relationship between sales of new CDs and a performer's back catalog. Same is true of author's books, movie sequels, television shows, and toy lines.

The truth is, companies don't stop producing an older product until the return they get on producing it no longer makes it worthwhile. I would presume WotC is operating under that kind of reasoning when they do not produce new support for the older versions of the game.

Thus WotC doesn't see the profitability in supporting the older game beyond licensing out the .pdf's.

As for D&D being D&D... Maybe WotC should test that theory by slapping "D&D" on a Monopoly box, call it 5th edition, and see if it sells...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense.

No, actually it exists.

Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out. Quite to the contrary, there's usually a synergistic relationship between sales of new CDs and a performer's back catalog. Same is true of author's books, movie sequels, television shows, and toy lines.

That synergy- though extant- is short-lived in all but the top recording artists. Most of the time, an artists' back catalog is only fully available- if ever- in the few months surrounding a hot release, and the lesser titles get phased out quickly. Within a year of even the hottest album, most of an artist's back catalog is effectively non-existent.

Even the greats go through periods of non-publication. Typically, even the bulk of albums by bands like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin are only produced for a part of the year and released in pulses (this manipulation of supply helps keep prices stable). Exceptions exist, of course- albums like "Thriller" or "Dark Side of the Moon," for example.

The same goes for writers. Take a popular writer with a huge back catalog like Asimov or Niven: most of their back catalog is out of print most of the time.

 

[Nymrohd]

"Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense. Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out. Quite to the contrary, there's usually a synergistic relationship between sales of new CDs and a performer's back catalog. Same is true of author's books, movie sequels, television shows, and toy lines.

This would stand if any of your examples actually dealt with a product that has a limited consumer base, or if any of the products mentioned above actually formed competing lines (maybe toys do).

 

[Reynard]

I just wish they had put out 30 year anniversary editions of the AD&D books. That would have been all kinds of awesome.

 

[Umbran]

"Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense. Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out.

Ah, but you see, CDs are dirt cheap to burn, even in small quantities. Doing them in small batches when they seem needed does not cut into the profit margin much.

On the other hand, for books, small print runs have notably smaller profit margins. A book publisher is far better served by having large print runs of a small number of books, rather than many smaller print runs of a large number of books.

This is where they can start competing with themselves, and lose out - if they can consolidate most (if not all) of their market on a small number of books, they win. If they split that market on a larger number of books, they make less per book.

 

[Echohawk]

TSR ran the D&D and AD&D lines side by side from 1977 to 1993.

This isn't quite correct. TSR also published The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game in 1994 and even after WotC took over, the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Game in 1999. Both of those were distinctly D&D products rather than AD&D products. The 1999 set even says "After you've mastered the adventurers in this game, you'll be ready to try the AD&D game." Although to be fair, the 1999 set seems to use a hybrid set of rules that is somewhere between the original D&D rules and the AD&D rules, so it is definitely an outlier in the D&D family of products.

 

[Korgoth]

It might have been the peak of popularity--I've heard otherwise, regarding total numbers of gamers, but we won't get into "dueling anecdotes" --but was it the peak of profitability? I would argue that it was not. TSR was woefully mismanaged, and people from WotC and TSR both have said in so many words that part of what drove TSR into the ground--not all of it, by any means, but a large part of it--was them trying to market too many variant lines to the gaming audience. Campaign settings are usually trotted forth as the primary culprit, but the existence of multiple simultaneous "branches" of D&D was certainly involved.

Emphasis added. I respect your disagreement, but I call outright shenanigans on your "certainly". The existence of multiple simultaneous branches of D&D (basically, two) was certainly not "certainly involved". It was, at best, arguably involved. I disagree that it was involved at all.

 

[Knightfall]

First, I think it's awesome that WotC sells PDFs of some of the old stuff. I wish some of the scans were better, and I wish that more were available (e.g. where are the 1981 Basic & Expert books?), but I'm grateful they are legally available at all.

Second, I'd love to see some of the older books in print -- even on a print-on-demand basis.

It is good that WotC offers PDF versions of older books. They don't have to do that, which is why I try not to villify them when voicing my displeasure for 4e. It's true, I don't like 4e or the DDI model but that simply means that I'm no longer D&D's target audience. I can live with that.

As for your second point, it would be an interesting experiment for WotC to make certain older books available on Lulu.com or another web site that allows for POD books. I'm certain that there would be MANY older edition books that people would be willing to buy through a POD model.

However, I don't think it would be feasible. The PDF scans that WotC provides on RPGNow aren't of high quality. I don't think those scanned products would "print well," which means that WotC would have to devote time, money, and staff to laying out the older books to print "properly" as POD books.

And as mentioned on another thread, WotC doesn't have a complete library of all D&D products ever produced.

Now, perhaps older edition D&D fans could work in conjunction with WotC to help re-layout those older D&D products for a POD model that could work but it would have to be done so that WotC doesn't have to tap its own internal resources too much while being ensured a reasonable profit from the POD book sales.

Personally, I think it would be highly profitable for WotC to do so but the fans would have to be willing to help and be willing to pay a premium for a POD OD&D/1e/2e/3e book through a site such as Lulu.com.

If it's going to cost WotC time and money then it isn't going to happen.

So the question becomes, are there D&D fans out there willing to help WotC re-layout older edition books without being paid for it?

(Fans would get a credit in the revised book, however.)

 

[CharlesRyan]

So, setting aside issues of brand strategy and competing with onesself, here's a little insight into licensing:

On a hassle scale of 1 to 10 (1 = low hassle; 10 = highest reasonable level of hassle) for the license granter, here are a few examples of licenses:

• Licensing T-shirts for your cool IP: 1
• Action figures: 4
• A movie: 9
• A roleplaying game (if you're an IP company like, say, Paramount, who cares about how your characters and continuity are portrayed but don't know or care about game content): 13
• A roleplaying game (if you're a game company that actually cares about the game content): 17

The first item on the list will earn the licensor (typically) around 10% of the licensee's sales.

The last item on the list will earn the licensor (typically) around 10% of the licensee's sales.

[As an aside, this is why so many licensed RPGs come out months or years late. The licensor grants the license expecting a hassle factor of 2 or 3, and is then handed a manuscript with a hassle factor of 13. Surprise! Instead of taking the contractual 2 weeks to approve it, they spend two months just figuring out how to approve it.]

The licensing fees generated by any RPG (or setting) that isn't the current edition of D&D just can't come close to the revenue needed to justify the effort of handling its approvals. So unless there's a strong strategic imperative, the licensor can spend its time in more productive ways.

 

[xechnao]

An interesting insight Mr Ryan. Thanks