Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[czak]

I know your points and I am rejecting them. Your point is is that, I as a small publisher should beg and plead Wizards to let me work on their game, or I should go the less polite option and ignore the license ... because D&D is just that worth it.

I am saying, I don't have to. I have an inviting environment over here that (according to several publishers that quit creating 3rd party 4E material and now produce 3rd party Pathfinder material, according to DriveThruRPG's numbers, according another source that I privately shared with Morris) sells in greater numbers.

Seriously, I can't state it any more clearly. Wizards has to change, not me. As it stands now, I'm not interested in working on 4E in any capacity and I am really stumped why any company would really want to.

I think you and he are really talking at cross purposes. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's asking why should WOTC care that 3PPs are chosing Paizo over them. What is the benefit to WOTC's bottom line of having you or anyone else publishing.


I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Dancy's networking theory was correct.

 

[Matt James]

I know your points and I am rejecting them. Your point is is that, I as a small publisher should beg and plead Wizards to let me work on their game, or I should go the less polite option and ignore the license ... because D&D is just that worth it.

If you can find where I ever stated that, I'll gladly eat my words. You should go back, reread what has been said, and try to comprehend the topic. I do think, however, that this comment shows your remarkable bias against WotC. Im starting to get the picture now.

Rob, thanks for stopping by and clearing that up. I knew your knowledge of IP law would prove valuable--as always.

 

[czak]

Matt James asked me to contribute to this thread. I’m not sure my legal expertise is entirely on point, so I’ll save most of my views for a future article on loremaster.org, where I have a series of articles called Protection from Chaos. However, considering how badly some of you are going off topic, I feel comfortable addressing a side issue that was raised earlier.

Just a quick question - do you folks down south have cost shifting for unsuccessful or frivolous legal actions or do both parties pay their own costs regardless of the merits of a case? My understanding is that the OGL was partially introduced to reduce anxiety around getting SLAPPed with a lawsuit. Are the issues so clear cut now that it is not a worry?

 

[Morrus]

I think you and he are really talking at cross purposes. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's asking why should WOTC care that 3PPs are chosing Paizo over them. What is the benefit to WOTC's bottom line of having you or anyone else publishing.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Dancy's networking theory was correct.

That's an excellent summary. It would appear that at present, the current management of WotC does not believe that the networking theory is correct - or, at the very least, disagrees with the extent of any such benefit.

 

[dmccoy1693]

But you keep saying that. "WotC has to change". Why? Why does it have to change? Why do you keep maintaining that it does have to?

That's Matt's point, the one to which you are not replying. You keep making a statement, and people are asking you to qualify it.

I have been answering it. However, my answers have been ignored.

DriveThruRPG's Top 100 Small Press contains as of time of posting:

Icons titles: 13
Pathfinder titles: 13 (one of which is from my company, in the interest of full disclosure)
Savage World's titles: 11
Fate titles: 5

D&D 4E titles: 0

From my oversations, I would consider this an average day.

... 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.

Here's a prime example of what I am saying from a different publisher in the same thread that had published 4E and jumped ship to Pathfinder.

I will illustrate why Alluria Publishing has stopped producing new 4E material and now focuses on Pathfinder.

For us, it has little to do with support by WotC and a lot more to do with "nobody is buying it."

...

We have sold about 40 4th Ed Fey Folios.
We have sold about 250 Pathfinder Fey Folios, and it has been out for a shorter time.

...

Our other 4E products have faired far worse.

Our Pathfinder titles, however, has been universally promising.

My point is (which I have stated many, many times) is $$$. Pathfinder sells better than 4E. Even with a small piece of a very large pie. Trying to convince me my total area of pie (regardless of the total pie size) will be bigger if I jump to 4E isn't going to happen. Every indicator tells me my total sales will go down, my profits will go down, work involved to get 4E customers to give a 3rd party a chance will go up and I'm going to have no help from the licenser to make a profit.

What reason can anyone give me to sign up for more work for less money?

What I am saying is if Wizards wants a 3rd party market (which, my Morris' own words, they don't), they would have to do something to sweeten the deal (like examples stated in the Open Letter). I consider the examples stated in the Open Letter minimums for me to begin to consider the GSL.

 

[Perram]

That's an excellent summary. It would appear that at present, the current management of WotC does not believe that the networking theory is correct - or, at the very least, disagrees with the extent of any such benefit.

I guess this really is the core of the disagreements here.

Its my opinion that WotC would benifit more if 3pp picked up the areas that 1) they don't seem interested in producing and 2) players want.

And that IF they want more 3pp support, they would need to make the area easier to get into.

But... I don't think they want it.

 

[Matt James]

So, if I go over to RPGnow and upload 50 4e documents/products, that is a metric for the success of the brand?

 

[Matt James]

I guess this really is the core of the disagreements here.

Its my opinion that WotC would benifit more if 3pp picked up the areas that 1) they don't seem interested in producing and 2) players want.

And that IF they want more 3pp support, they would need to make the area easier to get into.

But... I don't think they want it.

This.

I completely agree with you.

Edit: That being said, you do not need the GSL to produce content for 4e (as somewhat explained by Rob).

 

[Perram]

So, if I go over to RPGnow and upload 50 4e documents/products, that is a metric for the success of the brand?

If they started obviously outselling the other products, then... yup! It would be a metric of the brand.

Edit: /A/ metric, of course, and mostly for how well 4e products would do, etc...

 

[Matt James]

If they started obviously outselling the other products, then... yup! It would be a metric of the brand.

He was merely using the data of how many products were up. No sales data. Also, from one source in the entire industry. That was more of my point