Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[Perram]

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

Oh, I think he's using the top 100 list, which is the ones that are selling the best over the past 24 hours. Its only a 1 day snapshot, but it does represent sales data.

 

[Matt James]

Well, if I have 50 products from line [A] and 10 from line . Line [A] will likely take up the top spots, right?

 

[renau1g]

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

but you haven't been answering the question from Morrus and Matt. They were asking why WOTC should change their policy to accommodate 3PP's. As in, why would it be better for them to have 3PP's? Would it improve their bottom line? I'm guessing they have pretty decent data that none of us have, during their 3e/OGL days to tell us that.

 

[Perram]

Well, if I have 50 products from line [A] and 10 from line . Line [A] will likely take up the top spots, right?

No no, of course not!

I see what you're saying, and if it was pure number vs. number here I would agree. I would have suggested that we needed to look at what ranks they placed, get more data, etc...

But it isn't that Product A has 50 and Product B has 10...

Product B has 0.

If 4e products aren't even placing in the top 100 at all. Product A, in this measurement, wins by default against Product B.

 

[Morrus]

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

But these stats do not answer the question.

They show that Pathfinder 3PP products may well sell well, and that 4E 3PP products may not sell so well (although, again, my own anecdotal data disputes that strongly).

But that's only why it's in your interest, not why it's in WotC's interest. Why is it to their benefit that your product sells well?

Their current goal appears to be to gain DDI subscribers.

My point is (which I have stated many, many times) is $$$. Pathfinder sells better than 4E.

WotC has a LOT of DDI subscribers, and they make a LOT of money from it. They're deliberately moving towards digital content because they believe that that's the most profitable model for them. How does you selling more of your product help them do this?

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.

I'm not trying to convince you of this. I don't want you to produce 4E products. I want you and everyone else to continue producing Pathfinder products and leave me my 4E 3PP market share, which is currently absolutely lovely.

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.

Yeah, but they don't want a 3PP market. So anything after the word "if" is redundant. If they did, probably they would do something like that. They don't, though.

Thus the Open Letter is pointless. They see no reason to try to enhance the 4E 3PP market.

 

[Falstaff]

It's interesting to watch game designers debate about the games they design for and which is outselling the other. I'm sure their investment isn't creating bias for any of them.

 

[Matt James]

It's interesting to watch game designers debate about the games they design for and which is outselling the other. I'm sure their investment isn't creating bias for any of them.

I have design credits with each, including 3PP like Kobold Quarterly/Open Design

 

[enrious]

Dale,

Understand, I'm a Pathfinder player, not 4e. My sympathies are on the side of the PFRPG 3PP folks.

And yet, Matt's question sits there awaiting an answer.

(If I may try to summarize it, please correct me if I'm wrong in it Matt)

Why should Wizards care what 3pp companies are doing, either in terms of content or especially in terms of sales? How does having well-selling products using their game system positively affect them? Do they recieve a single dollar by doing so? Please show your work.


Look, I'm a fan of 3pp. I've been around since the beginnings of d20 and RPGNow could attest to my love of 3pp. And y'know, I'm happy to still support them today.

But from Wizards' point of view, if they see no value in supporting 3pp, why should they? The goodness of their heart? That'd be the only reason I can see, given that evidently they see no financial motivation. And you know, I can respect that.

Sure, Paizo seems to have a differing approach and more power to them for doing so. Ideally they don't loose any money for it. But as much as I like Paizo, I'd have to wonder if they would were they to be convinced it was costing them money in the long run.

And if they were and acted like Wizards, I wouldn't blame them in the least. You can't pay a mortgage with the goodness of your heart.

It's been stated before and despite all of their...goofs, Wizards isn't a stupid company. If they believed that supporting 3pp gave them a net benefit, they'd do so.

They evidently don't, so it's up to the 4e 3pp to decide for themselves if supporting 4e is beneifical to that 3pp, it's not Wizards' job to do that.

Hey, I agree, it'd be nice if Wizards' did more to support them, but I completely understand why they don't.

Likewise, I completely understand why Paizo does.

Apples and Oranges, IMO.

 

[dmccoy1693]

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

Ummm... Read my post.

They are the 100 Top Selling Small Press Products. If it can demonstrated that 4E can consistently beat Fate, Icons, Pathfinder, and Savage Worlds in the top 100, you would have a valid argument. Your argument is not valid because there are are ZERO products in the top 100 on DriveThru Small Press list today and from my long term observations this is typically the case. 4E products do not consistently make it to the #1 slot on that list. Pathfinder products do, Icons products do, Fate products do, Savage Worlds products do.

 

[Frylock]

SLAPP Legislation

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?

The so-called "American rule" dictates that everyone pay their own court costs, win or lose. Attorneys fees and costs are exclusively the right of a judge to award as punishment for improper behavior, an example of which being the filing a frivolous lawsuit. There has been SLAPP legislation passed by various states that was intended to curb frivolous lawsuits, but like everything else in the law, has simply opened the door to new forms of litigation. Litigation sucks, which is why I don't do it anymore, and why you should ask someone else who would have a more knowledgeable answer to your question.