Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[Morrus]

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.

Yes, but so? That's not the point. The point is "Why should WotC care?" if the answer is "Because then I, the 3PP, can sell more stuff" then that's irrelevant to WotC.

The Open Letter is an essay asking WotC to make it easier for 3PPs to sell 4E products. It asks for a list of things. It does not make a case why making it easier for 3PPs to sell stuff is in WotC's interests - it's literally just a begging letter.

 

[Matt James]

Your argument is not valid because there are are ZERO products in the top 100 on DriveThru Small Press list today...

If this is the basis for your entire thesis; okay. I can say that I now fully understand your position and the logic you use to present it. It's flawed, unbelievably, but I get it.

Edit: Please read Morrus' post above mine.

 

[Morrus]

If this is the basis for your entire thesis; okay. I can say that I now fully understand your position and the logic you use to present it. It's flawed, unbelievably, but I get it.

I have to agree. RPGNow is not the game industry. It barely even factors in my overall sales (a small percentage), and has factored less and less year on year for about five years now. I would not use RPGNow/DTRPG sales charts for the basis of any business decision because that chart, vague as it is, does not remotely reflect actual sales figures anywhere except on DTRPG.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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

Uh... No.

First, it's a Top 100. So 50 products can't take up all the spots. (50 < 100)

Second, assuming that (a) the customers for each line buy the same average number of products and (b) sales are spread evenly across all the available titles, product line A would need 5 times as many customers as line B in the scenario you're positing.

 

[hutchback]

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.

Have you considered any of the other conclusions that can be arrived at by this anecdote? For instance:

1. That the majority of players of 4E don't find that there are gaps in WotC's published materials that need to be filled.

2. That the majority of the content 3PPs are producing fail to fill any perceived gaps in WotC's material.

Just some food for thought. It seems that the bulk of the arguments for WotC supporting 3PPs are based on the premise that the products themselves are desirable, that there is a market for them, and finally that it is only the absence of support by WotC that causes the lack of sales.

 

[Morrus]

Have you considered any of the other conclusions that can be arrived at by this anecdote? For instance:

1. That the majority of players of 4E don't find that there are gaps in WotC's published materials that need to be filled.

2. That the majority of the content 3PPs are producing fail to fill any perceived gaps in WotC's material.

Or, indeed:

3. That the majority of 4E 3PP products aren't very good.

4. That the majority of 4E 3PP products are nor marketed well online.

(These are alternative possible explanations, of course - not claims.)

Just some food for thought. It seems that the bulk of the arguments for WotC supporting 3PPs is based on the premise that the products themselves are desirable, that there is a market for them, and finally that it is only the absence of support by WotC that causes the lack of sales.

Yup, that does appear to be the argument; what's lacking is demonstrable motivation and benefit for WotC to accede to these requests.

 

[xechnao]

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?

I see what you did there

 

[DangerAbe]

The only reason for WotC to change is so that they can be "cooler"
Right now, no one thinks Wizards is cool.

I say this as someone who plays 4e - a lot. I run one game and play in two. I buy many WotC's books.

I buy stuff from them but I don't think they're cool.

I have players who refuse to buy new books now because they disagree politically with WotC.
I see people on the forums and know people personally who have a strange insane hatred for WotC because of WotC's business policies.
Most of these people don't work in the RPG industry and aren't directly
harmed by WotC's policy choices.

People act like WotC kills baby seals or pollutes the environment. I see people respond to WotC with worse ire than Walmart, the BP oil spill, or McDonalds.

I had trouble getting a group together for my current 4e game because people in my area see Paizo as cooler. They want to support the cool company. The good indy company, not the bad corporate company. All corporations are evil...?...or something.

I don't remember people acting this way before 4e.

In fact, if I felt all things were equal, I'd buy Pathfinder over 4e.

I'd rather support a company that supports 3pp and helps the little guy.
I'd buy from the "good guy."
Who wouldn't?

I play 4e because I actually like the design of the system better. I like having 1st level characters that can do stuff and not die easily. I like clearly written rules for magical effects. I like a simplified skill system. I LOVE the 4 defenses.

But if Paizo did to 4e what they've done with 3.5.

Paizo would get my money. Because they are cooler.

And that is the only reason for Wizards to change.
Networking.

 

[pawsplay]

Morrus, it doesn't surprise me that the 4e version of WotBS is outselling 3:1, because last time I checked, most polls suggested the active readership of this site was about that level. Further, ENWorlders are unusually amenable to purchasing PDFs. I should add that is not an accident, either; EN Publishing early on gathered a community of PDF buyers to this site, and as 4e was launching, ENWorld chose to pitch in with 4e, even if that meant, incidentally, alienating a few 3e fans. While ENWorld remains a friendly place to gamers of all stripes, the business end definitely caters to 4e.

I asked both my local FLGSs, and in both cases, the person I asked laughed heartily before saying that Pathfinder was definitely outselling 4e. My suspicion is that without Hasbro's access to toy stores and mainstream bookstores, 4e would already be buried.

As a writer, not only do I find 4e unappealing, but the nature of the GSL is hostile to third parties tweaking the rule set. Further the restrictions on use of terms makes it difficult to do world-building.

As a publisher, the GSL look like a walk off the cliff.

 

[Morrus]

EN Publishing early on gathered a community of PDF buyers to this site, and as 4e was launching, ENWorld chose to pitch in with 4e, even if that meant, incidentally, alienating a few 3e fans. While ENWorld remains a friendly place to gamers of all stripes, the business end definitely caters to 4e.

Well, yes. If I spent $30,000 developing a Pathfinder adventure path and attempted to compete with Paizo's core market, I'd lose $30,000 and the site would close. It would be utterly stupid of me to try to develop adventure paths for a system that is saturated with them rather than a system which has an obvious gap for them. If I spend the same developing a 4E adventure path, I sell product by the bucketload. It's a clear no-brainer.

I asked both my local FLGSs, and in both cases, the person I asked laughed heartily before saying that Pathfinder was definitely outselling 4e. My suspicion is that without Hasbro's access to toy stores and mainstream bookstores, 4e would already be buried.

FLGS owners are not industry consultants. Half of them can't even run a store properly, let alone make any type of accurate industry analysis. Even those who are competent do not have access to any data but what they themselves are selling. Anecdotes are not data, and making business decisions based on the opinion of one's FLGS owner is... well, it's not something I would do, let's say.

What about DDI, for example? Do people not realise that this is a core market for WotC? That it is clearly immensely profitable? That it is the direction WotC wants to move in? That their future involves you subscribing to their services rather than buying their products? And, despite complaints about the new CB etc., indications are that they are succeeding at this.

As a writer, not only do I find 4e unappealing, but the nature of the GSL is hostile to third parties tweaking the rule set. Further the restrictions on use of terms makes it difficult to do world-building.

As a publisher, the GSL look like a walk off the cliff.

That's fine by me! You write your Pathfinder products, I'll happily tell people about them. But I'll write 4E products and enjoy a large market share because I'm happy with the GSL as it is. Everyone's happy!