Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[dmccoy1693]

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.

Thank you for putting it in terms I get. Apparently I have been missing the forest for the trees. My bad.

Much of the disagreement in my opinion comes down to this:

Wizards isn't a stupid company.

I'm not convinced of that. Infact the more I watch them, the more I am growing convinced that Wizards is having serious corporate culture issues that is preventing them performing at their top level. I'd say much of this began in the waning days of 3E but it wasn't really until the announcement of dropping the magazines and the announcement of 4E that many of us were finally woken up to it. As a result the production schedule for 4E has been cut back dramatically over the years. When 4E was first launched there were 13 products scheduled for the first 3 months of its life. 2011 has 6 scheduled for it. That's a decrease of 89% in WotC's production schedule. Inarguable fact.

A decrease in 89% of a production schedule is a sign of a dead brand. Not in trouble, not having serious issues. Dead. Did the demand dry up? Yes and no. The 4E market is smaller than the 3E market of 4 years ago was. No doubt. But did 9 out of 10 gamers leave D&D, no. Not by a long shot. Many (if not most) are DDI subscribers. (Atleast I hope so.)

Print is still apart of their strategy or else they would have stopped print and gone fully to DDI. They are going that way and it is obvious that they intend to do so. I also agree fully with Dancey in that he said 4E is the last version that will be in printed form. But there are still customers that use print products. Those customers are not being serviced by WotC, atleast not nearly as much as before.

That is where 3rd party products come in. What can a 3rd party product do for a company? Fill in the (now large) gaps in their production schedule with material that they no longer provide. They keep the bring alive when the parent company is more or less have written it off. (Even if the parent company doesn't want to admit it.)

A game system's life is only that of how well it sells, not how many actually play it (unfortunately). Pathfinder had 1 quarter that tied 4E in game stores, but it was still considered ahead since it does not account for Borders/Barns and Nobles/Amazon sales. Borders is now in Bankruptcy (meaning Wizards now has to give back all the money they previously received from Borders when Borders ships back their books), B&N isn't looking to good, and Amazon is reporting much, much higher sales from their ebooks than they are from their print books. Print is in trouble. No one doubts that. Smaller print books are what today is called for. But since Wizards is so top heavy, smaller print runs keeps a company afloat better.

I know it is counter intuitive, but it really does work out. If your last 3 books sold 1000 copies, reducing your print run to 1000 copies makes a greater profit than if you left it at 3000. Printing at 3000 just means that 2000 goto waste. So printing less means greater profits. But if 1000 copies doesn't make Wizards the profit they need, then they should leave niche to a 3rd party publisher. Niche's like adventures.

Conventional wisdom is that adventures never sold well. (Paizo proved that wrong. Ignore that for a second.) So Wizards shouldn't produce them. But systems (and settings) without support material like adventures and supplements sell terribly. They have an adventure planned for free RPG day (I'm assuming its for the Neverwinter Campaign Setting). But once the campaign setting book comes out, there are not going to be any more material for it (unless its on DDI, I have not clue). Why not license Neverwinter off to a 3rd party? The continued support would drive sales of the campaign setting and Wizards would get a share of every licensed book sold. Pretty sweet deal for them with minimal investment. And where is the best place to license such a valuable to: your current 3rd party publishers.

Treated like this, 3rd party publishers are your own version of American Idol (or the RPG Superstar). "If you do good enough and make us happy enough, you can get the Dark Sun license." That kind of deal. How many publishers would be working hard to produce 4E support material for that chance? I'd seriously consider it. That's more or less what my company is doing with Kingmaker, but I don't have an exclusive license for it. Any other company could do exactly what I am doing. So far, none have, lucky me. But if I had an exclusive license to work on one of Wizards' settings after WotC was done with it, I'd go for it. Why? That license has value. Sales are pretty much guaranteed as long as you treat the customers with respect and give them exactly what they want. That is more or less what Orcus was trying to argue to Scott Rouse back in the 3E->4E transition period.

So why should WotC care about 3rd party companies, because of the very reason the OGL was created: because they can fill the gaps that are not profitable enough for WotC to fill. Currently that gap is looking more and more to be the print market. The GSL stops 3rd party companies from doing some of the less desirable things of 3E. That's fine. The days of 3E are not coming back. So Wizards need not fear a return of the BoEF and should stop treating 3rd party publishers like they are going to the moment WotC let up on them and instead treat them like partners in their continued success.

If used properly, a 3PP can be a valuable asset. But it appears to me that the corporate culture is so ingrained there that they will continue to view them as adversaries instead of partners.

 

[Balesir]

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.

Well, Pathfinder has just recently released in 'final' form, while 4E seems to be undergoing certain, um, growing pains, so it's hardly surprising if Pathfinder's sales right now are higher - a no-brainer, almost.

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.

This is where the complaints in the 'Open Letter' seem to me somewhat germane. Because WotC seem not only to be treating 3rd parties in a restrictive and controlling manner, but their customers, too. In the short term, because they have, frankly, a far better game structure than anything based on 3.5 will ever be, they may get away with this. But you can't fool all the people all the time, and I think it will turn sour, eventually, for them.

The key issue with the character builder, for example, is not just that it has flaws - it is that it is worse, in structure, scope and capabilities, than can be created relatively easily by a third party. The only reason that a far better character builder has not been (legally) offered is because WotC can block it. That is, long term, not at all a healthy market situation. Some customers are fine with being directed and manipulated by their suppliers - but most will eventually get terminally fed up with it eventually, and then the backlash will hurt.

 

[enrious]

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.

Again, speaking from a Pathfinder customer and not a 4e one (aside from the core 3 I bought at launch), I feel inclined to point out that not only is the subscriber model one that is a core of Wizards, but I'd also argue that the subscriber model is one of Paizo's core markets as well.

Sure, you can argue the pros and cons of the actual content of what the subscriptions give you, but the core model is virtually the same, in terms of that aspect of their business.

And it seems to be working for both. And good for both; if it means that both stay in business and therefore both sets of customers win.

However, to keep on topic here, I fail to see how a given model that is working for one (or at least, appears to be working) automatically would benefit the other, either in degree or kind.

So yes, I'm behind Paizo, from the standpoint of their game system, from the materials they produce, the methods they produce them (open playtest), and just as much for their 3pp support. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, they are the good guys.

However, that doesn't make Wizards the bad guys for not doing the same things. They are doing things they way they believe will be successful for them. They are providing products that people enjoy enough to buy and subscribe for. You know what, that doesn't sound like bad guys to me. Sure, I'm not their customer and I doubt I ever will be again. But they aren't the goatee'd version of Paizo, IMO.

No one has yet made the case that good = 3pp support. Nor has anyone made the case that evil = poor or nonexistant 3pp support.

In fact, I don't think anyone's made the case that in terms of Wizards, this is anything more than a private matter between a 3pp company or possibly 3pp publishers and Wizards. I personally don't think you could defend the idea that a more generous GPL would be in the interest of 3pp and I'd laud it, but I've yet to see anything that even remotely suggests that it would for Wizards. And a net gain is the only kind of gain that counts. Heck, even breaking even would, if it demonstrably fostered the good will of the buying community. I don't see any cases that have been put forth for that either.

 

[Herschel]

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).

A core rulebook in a single quarter vs. a supplement does not "the industry leader" make. It shows simply a biased side of the argument that you clearly belong to and a lack of objectively being able to view and put forth pertinent information.

WotC maybe doesn't care about 3rd party support, and maybe why should they. The "open letter" is simply one party's rant about not getting catered to. WotC doesn't "wine & dine" their 3pps as some would like. It's a business decision. They make their decisions, as does Paizo. They take similar-yet-different approaches to the market and for whatever reasons, informed yet speculative reasons that none of us are privy to but can guess at part of them. If one suits you better than the other, then that's the one you go with, end of story. The other doesn't "owe" anyone to do it the other way.

 

[Herschel]

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

Wait, so WotC doesn't cater to small press publishers, doesn't seek them actively (as far as we know) and doesn't "support" them as alternative sources for their material the way the ones listed do, and that's proof of an "industry leader"? It's an industry segment, but when one doesn't focus on that segment then yeah, they're not going to have large numbers there.

 

[RangerWickett]

I will agree that Wizard doesn't have the greatest public image in the online venues where I hang. People adore Paizo as the cool kids, and view WotC as stodgy and lame.

So from a PR point of view, I think it'd be easy and cheap for them to recruit an author to write a monthly article (maybe part of Dragon, since actual issue size isn't an issue anymore) talking about new third-party products. Explain that certain things are too weird and niche for them to put in a book meant for gamers as a whole, but that they want to let people know about some other cool products out there.

Maybe have the occasional Q&A with 3pp folks. Just a thousand words a month, plus some graphics of cover images.

I wonder if maybe Hasbro has set policy that you're not supposed to use Hasbro websites to promote products from other companies. But I figure if they're allowed to do this, it would earn them some good-will and make them 'cooler,' as a previous poster mentioned.


Plus they really need to let people add their own content to the Character Builder. It's something a lot of gamers could use, that would as a fringe benefit would make it easier for 3pp.

 

[enrious]

Much of the disagreement in my opinion comes down to this:

Wizards is not a stupid company.

I hear you.

But let's say that statement is wrong and for the sake of discussion Wizards is the most incompetent company on the face of the planet.

I do quibble with some of what you said (Borders, for example is selling off their inventories at substantial discount to customers instead of sending product back - that'd require shipping fees) but on the whole, I'd be happy to concede it.

Again, let's say that Wizards is the worst-run company in the history of the universe. Right now She-who-shall-not-be-named has returned and is running things again.

Ok.

What's it to you?

Sure, let's say they fail tomorrow, in an epic dogs-living-with-cats-in-sin state, it's gone. Done. Over.

Will Paizo still have Pathfinder? Will some other company jump on the opportunity created to try to fill the void?

Will 3pp such as yourself still have the OGL and d20SRD to express into print journeys that your mind can imagine?

Will you no longer be able to take others along on that journey?

You could argue that it would reduce your available revenue streams and I get it. I also get that in case, those streams wouldn't exist if not for Wizards. If they don't for you now, then no matter what happens to Wizards, you're unaffected.

But ok, let's say that you will be. Why should any of that matter to Wizards?


Look, as a gamer and fan of D&D, I am saddened by what Wizards has done and am embiggened by Paizo.

But as a consumer, I know my place.

Stephen Crane said it best.

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!"
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
“A sense of obligation.”

 

[TerraDave]

And slowly we spiral into the key issues.

While I didn't have a ton of sympathy for the letter..

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.

As the halfling noted above, WotC could be wrong. The have been wrong about other things in recent years.

3E, and the 3E PHB, were really, really successfull. Former insiders agree on this, industry watchers agree on this. Some data has been presented on it. They coincided with the OGL. The OGL did not hurt them, at least much. Maybe the OGL helped. 3E plus d20 dominated the market like no game has in a long, long time. Again, I think this is "data", don't think its going out on a limb.

Now, I think that the decision to drop the OGL was rationalized by the d20 glut, but was really driven by people in R&D pissed off about other designers "stealing" from them. But I just think this, and base it on little dribs and drabs that have come out.

I do know that 4E has not even come close to dominating the market like 3E. And its main competition is other kinds of D&D. Again, basically data. Not saying which sells more, but the market share situation, at least roughly, is pretty clear.

I think that if WotC had handed Green Ronin and Paizo an OGL type arangment early on, the market would be different today. Maybe there would need to be a mechanism to move certain 3rd party content into DDI...but I think that this would have helped WotC, reduced the market divisions, and they would make more money.

But thats just what I think.

 

[enrious]

Plus they really need to let people add their own content to the Character Builder. It's something a lot of gamers could use, that would as a fringe benefit would make it easier for 3pp.

As a player, I agree wholeheartedly - it'd benefit the players and incidently, 3pp.

But if I'm Wizards and considering this, my customers are the only ones I'd worry about, again unless I believe 3pp are good for me.

 

[Frylock]

Manipulation?

The only reason that a far better character builder has not been (legally) offered is because WotC can block it. That is, long term, not at all a healthy market situation. Some customers are fine with being directed and manipulated by their suppliers - but most will eventually get terminally fed up with it eventually, and then the backlash will hurt.

In any other industry, this wouldn't be seen as "manipulation," but rather "business." Figuratively speaking, you're saying that allowing third parties to create Burger King franchises is good for the Burger King brand. That's true; it is. Improved visibility is always a good thing. But what would you say if the franchisees said they shouldn't have to pay Burger King the franchise fee? That would be an arrogant request, don't you think? If Burger King didn't charge the franchise fee, they'd get free advertising, but so would the franchisee. The reality, though, is that "Burger King, Inc." are the ones with the market power because they're the ones that worked hard to create a marketable product. They absolutely should charge a franchise fee, and market forces allow for that. That's good business, not "manipulation."

Well, what are 3PPs asking of WotC? They're asking to be (analogously speaking) franchisees without a franchise fee (e.g., granting royalties, paying for the license), and then arrogantly insisting that WotC plug them at WotC's expense. So, a Burger King franchisee who's done *nothing* to create the brand jumps on the bandwagon, refuses to pay a franchise fee of any sort, and demands that "Burger King, Inc." pay money to promote the franchisee. Or are you actually suggesting that 3PP's would gladly pay for access to the CB or the ability to use SRD content? I doubt it. They already act with an arrogant sense of entitlement, so introducing a new fee wouldn't go over well. "Manipulation" would be replaced with "milking us for all we're worth."

As I said, in any other industry, what's been proposed by the open letter is arrogant. Either make your own place in the world or accept that someone else will always have the right to pull the strings. WotC doesn't owe you anything, and if your products are actually good, they should be able to stand on their own without relying on SRD content.

All of this falls on deaf ears of course, because, at their heart, these anti-WotC arguments are "damn the man" and/or anti-business arguments. There's been nothing on this thread to convince me otherwise.

EDIT: BTW, my points about the GSL from the earlier post apply to the Character Builder as well. There's nothing stopping you from creating a 3PP CB. You can easily do so without using copyrighted material. Of course, doing that level of work isn't what people want, or it would have been done already. People want to be able to do a tiny bit of work, building on the work of WotC, and make a ton of money off of it. This is true in both the print and online media. There's a lot more that goes into creating a game then creating a sourcebook for that game, and some of you can't seem to appreciate that.