Why doesn't WotC license older editions?

[El Mahdi]

I guess I can see this from both sides a bit now. If a company purely looks at this from the angle of what is best for making money, then it could be viewed as competing with themself. If however, a company has the philosophy that goodwill with it's fanbase is good in the long run, they may not see it as self-competition (maybe they should remember that eventually, they will want to make another edition, and some alienated fans may never come back even for that - of course that may be completely incosequential to their bottom line).

I definitely understand that most businesses would see this as not cost-effective. I'm pretty sure that even if Scott wanted to do exactly this, he has neither the time or personel to accomplish it, and almost assuredly no approval from higher up.

As a fan and customer, I find this disapointing.

 

[haakon1]

Eventually, most people switch. Maybe it is because they cannot find new players to play with and the old players drop off.

For what it's worth, I never ran 2nd Edition (played it for a few months), and stopped buying D&D materials at all from 1991-1999, while I played other games or AD&D instead. My friends did likewise. That's a lot of money TSR missed out on, with what in retrospect was a pretty minor edition change.

It's a small hobby, and losing ~45% of the fan base to the edition change (as the polls here have shown and as seems consistent with the lack of D&D interest I see at my 3 FLGS's), even if that % decreases over time (as I suspect it will), has to be bad for business after the initial core books profits pop.

And it's really sad for WotC that the recession came along just when 4e should have been in a huge growth spurt . . . that probably slows down the move to the new edition, just because people don't want to spend money on anything now.

 

[haakon1]

As a fan and customer, I find this disapointing.

I don't find it disappointing. Hasbro/WotC do what they think is best for them, and their opinion on what that is their own to have.

However, I'd be super psyched if they did something like letting Paizo publish the 3.5e core books and use the Greyhawk setting, or just keeping the core books in print themselves. For reasons point out, that may or may not be in their economic best interest. Even they might not know until they try it.

As for goodwill, kudos to WotC for putting so much old stuff on the PDF market. I like my books physical, but it's nice to know I can pick up "Border Watch" on PDF or get the original booklets on PDF if I'm ever curious.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't find it disappointing. Hasbro/WotC do what they think is best for them, and their opinion on what that is their own to have.

However, I'd be super psyched if they did something like letting Paizo publish the 3.5e core books and use the Greyhawk setting, or just keeping the core books in print themselves. For reasons point out, that may or may not be in their economic best interest. Even they might not know until they try it.

As for goodwill, kudos to WotC for putting so much old stuff on the PDF market. I like my books physical, but it's nice to know I can pick up "Border Watch" on PDF or get the original booklets on PDF if I'm ever curious.

Man, I'd be super psyched over that also. However, I am disapointed that they haven't or don't. Not that I feel any ill will towards WoTC for not doing it, but I'm disapointed anyways.

But yeah, I'm glad they leave those old pdf's out there also. Maybe that's another reason why they don't feel a need to license said product lines.

 

[Mistwell]

For what it's worth, I never ran 2nd Edition (played it for a few months), and stopped buying D&D materials at all from 1991-1999, while I played other games or AD&D instead. My friends did likewise. That's a lot of money TSR missed out on, with what in retrospect was a pretty minor edition change.

It's a small hobby, and losing ~45% of the fan base to the edition change (as the polls here have shown and as seems consistent with the lack of D&D interest I see at my 3 FLGS's), even if that % decreases over time (as I suspect it will), has to be bad for business after the initial core books profits pop.

And it's really sad for WotC that the recession came along just when 4e should have been in a huge growth spurt . . . that probably slows down the move to the new edition, just because people don't want to spend money on anything now.

We do not have any good reason to think they lost ~45% of the fanbase. You citing internet polls here and your instincts from your own game store is...well...about as inaccurate as me asking a random person on the street what they think your salary is. I'll get an answer, and the answer will have very little basis in reality.

I wish this meme would stop being promulgated here. In no other aspect of society would any of us take an internet poll seriously (which always attracts the disgruntled more than the content, because the answers come from people who had to affirmatively take the poll seeking to voice an opinion, and content people tend to not want to seek something out to voice their opinion as often), or think our own store down the block checked a handful of times is representative of the entire nation or worldwide sales.

Why people take it seriously here I do not know. I know it's because "it's the best evidence we have", but that is not true.

We have the amazon listings (which ended ranking it better than 3.5 did) and we have at least one statement from a WOTC employee saying sales were extremely strong and they were forced into a second and third printing much earlier than expected.

And while that is far from perfect data, it is at least more credible data, as opposed to an internet poll here or attendance a handful of times at your game store.

In other words, we have no clue at all how well the game is doing relative to prior games, and the best actual data we have shows it did well at least during the initial release. Beyond that, it's just personal opinion, which tends to strongly correlate to how well you like the game.

 

[haakon1]

We have the amazon listings (which ended ranking it better than 3.5 did) and we have at least one statement from a WOTC employee saying sales were extremely strong and they were forced into a second and third printing much earlier than expected.

About Amazon: I'm talking what market share of D&D players are buying/playing 4e. I don't see how Amazon can answer that.

About WotC: Their layoffs don't seem well aligned with the idea of extremely strong sales.

And while that is far from perfect data, it is at least more credible data, as opposed to an internet poll here or attendance a handful of times at your game store.

About 10 polls here, all with the same answers, and my observations are not just from "my FLGS", it's 6 different FLGS' in 2 countries. Here are my FLGS field study observations:

Suburban Seattle data:
- 1 FLGS on the fence, fully supportive of Pathfinder and 4e. Carrying the full line of Pathfinder (including Pathfinder Beta, which is a variant on 3e rules sold under OGL) and full line of 4e. Many tables of games, but no one's ever playing D&D of any flavor when I come in.
- 1 FLGS neutral and uninterested in edition wars. Carries AD&D onwards, including Pathfinder adventures but not Beta. More 3e than 4e books, still, but the owner says I should try 4e (he's the guy who said all editions are compatible). Hosted games here are CCG games, but the only time I ever saw D&D played here was on official game days (they only have one table, usually in use for CCG's).
- 1 FLGS strongly 4e, with all 3e material is on 40-75% closeout sales, but does have Pathfinder adventures. Several tables of gaming going on here, none of it D&D. This is the place (Genesis Games & Gizmo's) that sold the books at the Seattle Game Day intro for 4e that the authors were at all, so it's a pretty major shop.

Singapore data:
- 1 FLGS carrying all 4e. I'm told this place is the center of the gaming community in the country.
- 1 FLGS with most 3e, most 4e, and a little Pathfinder
- 1 FLGS dumping its 3e books for 50% off, no 4e

What percentage adoption is that commercial reality showing? It's pretty consistent in the Southwest and Northeast Pacific: the biggest deal places in both countries are strongly in favor of 4e, but the little guys are hedging their bets -- or dropping all D&D, in the case of one store. So are the EnWorld 45% 3e/55% 4e split, or the general idea that 4e is leaving a lot of people behind, all that far-fetched? I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.

it's just personal opinion, which tends to strongly correlate to how well you like the game.

That's true.

 

[Aus_Snow]

'Eventually, most people switch'? Ah, yet another insupportable claim.

That's true.

Oh, and how.

 

[Kzach]

One thing that confuses me about this thread is that I was under the impression there was a certain resentment towards WotC for not publishing or licensing older editions. The vitriol expressed by certain parties had some validation under that assumption.

But if there is an active fan population that aren't interested in WotC publishing or licensing older material and people are happy playing with what materials they have available, then what reason is there for the hate?

 

[tenkar]

One thing that confuses me about this thread is that I was under the impression there was a certain resentment towards WotC for not publishing or licensing older editions. The vitriol expressed by certain parties had some validation under that assumption.

But if there is an active fan population that aren't interested in WotC publishing or licensing older material and people are happy playing with what materials they have available, then what reason is there for the hate?

The OGL allows publishers to create books for all earlier editions of D&D. So why should WotC waste limited resources publishing for discontinued lines when there are small publishers that can fill that niche using the OGL?

There is no need to license anything... the OGL is the license. I think the majority of the gamers that have stuck with older editions recognize this.

As for the hate, there is always hate for "The Man" or "The CORP".

 

[M.L. Martin]

About WotC: Their layoffs don't seem well aligned with the idea of extremely strong sales.

Judging from history, WotC's layoffs have little or nothing to do with D&D sales. They were laying off people semi-regularly in the early 3E years, after all, which seem to have been a peak for the game. And in the days before they bought TSR, they were somewhat infamous for regular layoffs, IIRC.
I think it's more a corporate culture thing, really, especially noting that the layoffs tended to pick up again after the TSR logo was replaced with the WotC logo.

I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.

Could we settle for 'suspicious of online reactions'? I suspect they haven't gotten nearly the conversion of the hardcore fanbase that they would have liked, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the larger success of the game--it's possible that they've made up for it with the creation of new fans.

And FWIW, I'm really rather indifferent to the two Great Powers in the D&D Edition War--both 4E and 3E have enough elements that rub me the wrong way that I'm not truly satisfied with either, although there are certainly a lot of things I like about both. Give me a D&D: Saga Edition or something that combines the 'plug and play' of 4E, the flexibility and breadth of 3E, and the spirit of 2E, and I'm there.