Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[dmccoy1693]

But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point. What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms why you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.

Truthfully, I don't have to. Wizards is not the industry leader anymore and D&D isn't the market leader. My company supports the market leader (Pathfinder) which is held by the industry leader (Paizo). The license holder's customers are interested in 3rd party products without me having to convince people that 3rd party products are good. I only have to focus on convincing people that MY 3rd party products are good. And the license holder promotes me on their own website and their newsletter.

The question really is, "What can Wizards offer me to make me switch?" If that answer involves something like Dark Sun (now that Wizards is done publishing for it for ... who knows how long, even if I had to pay for that license and had approval terms), yea I'd be interested. Until then, 4E is not an attractive license.

 

[Perram]

But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point. What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms why you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.

I'll give a 'why' it would be good:

Even WotC can't publish everything 4e every fan would want for their product, ESPECIALLY now that they have dialed back their release schedule. 3pp can step up to fill the gaps that people feel are in the system, or cater to unique niche ideas.

You're own products are an example of this, you're publishing a quality product that fills a need that 4e has.

I'm more likely to play a system that I feel I can get material to support my games, especially material I like. To play a system, I need to spend money on the system, and in the case of 4e... probably even subscribe to DDI.

 

[Matt James]

Jon,

By the very topic of this debate, you do need to illustrate your point in convincing terms, else everything you are saying means nothing to the topic, and you are here to merely troll.

 

[DaveMage]

I'm not sure why DEM is even bothering.

WotC didn't do anything to support 3PP in the later times of 3.x either. The last open content released (IIRC) was Unearthed Arcana in 2004. Was there anything from 2005-2008? I don't think so.

The only mentions of 3.x 3PPs during that time were in Dragon magazine (which, of course, was published by Paizo).

And who has time at Wizards to support 3PPs? Show me someone who has the time to spend on 3PPs at Wizards and I'll show you the next person in line for a severance package.

 

[Morrus]

Truthfully, I don't have to. Wizards is not the industry leader anymore and D&D isn't the market leader.

:shrug: That's what the thread's about.

And don't believe everything you read on the internet. Paizo selling more copies of their core rulebook in one quarter than WotC sold of a supplement does not "the market leader" make. Unless you have solid long-term figures for both companies, this is not useful data.

The question really is, "What can Wizards offer me to make me switch?"

That might be your question, but it's not the question. The question (at least in this thread) is "Why should WotC do something to make it easier for third-party-publishers?" because that is the response to the initial "Open Letter".

I can imagine how that conversation would go:

Open Letter: WotC you should make it easier for 3PPs!
WotC: Why?
Response: I don't have to answer that because I don't think you're the market leader.
WotC: Shrug. Move along. That was a waste of time.

 

[xechnao]

Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence...

But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point. What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms why you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.

It is not sensible to ask for the sort of data you are asking for.
OGL, GSL or no license at all is mostly a matter of business sense and policy. It is rather a strategic matter for the brand.

If Wotc wanted to have stronger third party support, it would probably market its intention by posing questions about this matter.

I think it is clear that in the current phase they do not want or rather trust a separate market of third party products attached to their brand.

Matt James is right. This is a letter towards Dias Ex Machina's fans; not towards Wotc.

 

[Morrus]

I'm more likely to play a system that I feel I can get material to support my games, especially material I like. To play a system, I need to spend money on the system, and in the case of 4e... probably even subscribe to DDI.

Unfortunately, that's merely an anecdote. What you'd need to demonstrate is a significant (in WotC terms - so tens of thousands) number of people who verifiably currently do not purchase WotC's products who verifiably would do so if that action were taken.

WotC's position is that this action would not make a noticeable difference to their bottom line. I'm afraid that simply stating "Well I think it would" isn't enough; that's not data.

 

[Morrus]

It is not sensible to ask for the sort of data you are asking for.

Of course not. I know that nobody has it. And without it, all these claims have no basis in reality; they are no more than anecdotes and personal opinions. That's my point.

Matt James is right. This is a letter towards Dias Ex Machina's fans; not towards Wotc.

Yup. Without a demonstrable benefit to WotC it's no more than a list for gifts from Santa Claus.

 

[xechnao]

Unfortunately, that's merely an anecdote. What you'd need to demonstrate is a significant (in WotC terms - so tens of thousands) number of people who verifiably currently do not purchase WotC's products who verifiably would do so if that action were taken.

WotC's position is that this action would not make a noticeable difference to their bottom line. I'm afraid that simply stating "Well I think it would" isn't enough; that's not data.

Again, what you are asking for here Morrus is not something that a market analyst could sort out.

If there were a dozen of competitive brands and some of them used an open license while others did not, all this within a somewhat stable pie market, then in this case an analyst could easily figure this out.

But in the current state of affairs? It just does not make any sense to try to think about it.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Jon,

By the very topic of this debate, you do need to illustrate your point in convincing terms, else everything you are saying means nothing to the topic, and you are here to merely troll.

Play nice.

My point is is that Wizards is acting like they hold all the cards, like 50% of all RPG sales are D&D (not D&D and 3rd party companies, but D&D). That's not true anymore. If they want 3rd party companies to fill out their market for them, they need to attract them. The responsibility is theirs, not mine.

Its a 3rd party's market right now, not the licenser's market. 5 years ago, it was a licenser's market. They could do this kind of stuff and people would sign on because the license was that valuable. Times have changed. Paizo's license is more valuable. Hell, the Fate, Savage Worlds and Icons licenses are more valuable. If they want 3rd party companies to support them, they need to earn it.

That might sound like "entitlement" to you, but it is Basic Capitalism 101. The iPad right now holds all the cards for being first and for being from apple. An android tablet has to offer something pretty sweet (like USB ports, higher res cameras, ability to transfer files from your computer to the tablet with ease, etc) to grab market share. House A is in a better neighborhood with a better school district than House B. House B has to offer a pretty sweet deal if it wants to be sold. I'm essentially the "buyer" of a license. Right now, Wizards needs to convince me that their license has any value. From where I stand, it doesn't.