Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[enrious]

I’m still pondering what to take away from this thread. Some of the thoughts & questions that are running through my head:

1. Does anyone else find it ironic that just a few weeks after Mearls starts a “big tent of D&D” series of articles, we’ve got people actually using the argument of “Why should WotC care about 3PPs?” as a counterpoint to the Open Letter?

<snip>

6. While I still maintain that 4e is selling well and DDI is making WotC buckets of money, given the cancellation of miniatures, reduction in publishing schedule, Mearls’ new articles, and the inability for a week to go by without a “What if WotC did this” or “D&D should be that”, etc., something is not meeting expectations. There’s a saying that’s considered near-gospel in business, “perception is reality”. Well-run businesses know that it’s easier to keep an existing customer than it is to find a new customer. WotC seems to understand that they’ve got a perception problem. If a stronger 3PP base helps either customer perception or drive additional 4e sales (or even both!), how is this bad?

7. If the D&D brand is so valuable, if D&D is the 800 lb. gorilla of the industry, and if WotC has talent and budgets that other RPG companies can only dream of having, why can’t they make adventures that are considered the best in the market? If they can't why don't they want 3PPs to do so?

Here's the thing. And I select this post to use an example.

Let's imagine. Let's imagine that every single person in this thread, from Morrus to me all agreed that WotC needs to improve their 3pp support.

How much impact would that have on WotC?

Given that WotC has already decided that 3pp support is not in their best interests, none.

Let me say that again, none.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, no one posting here is part of WotC's management team, thus, none.

Hey look, I think they're wrong. I think a partnership would be a good thing, but they don't. In terms of how they run their company, they win.

It's that simple. Anything else is forum-gratification.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

However, this is all a tangent to the original topic, which is the Open Letter and the GSL, and the benefit - or lack of - to WotC to make it easier for 3PPs. It's getting hard to keep track of the conversation, to be honest - too many tangents flying around now.

Yes, and I will navigate around the appendage measuring, as I attempted to do in the letter as well. As mentioned, the reasons why I don't write for Paizo are not rooted in hatred for the company or a revulsion towards their rules. When DEM endorsed 4E--and became one of the first to sign onto the GSL (GSL came out Friday, letter was in the mail Monday)--not only did we not know how popular Pathfinder would be, at that point it didn't exist at all. We were done the first draft of Foundations before the beta test was made available. The decision had been made. We have kept with it for the same reasons as many others: the rules are good, the market is open, competition is light, and its the system my personal group endorses.

Here's the irony, because of my lack of knowledge regarding Paizo, I wasn't even aware that they were doing exactly what I was suggesting WOTC do. That proves (or at least weighs evidence) the business model is valid. Beyond the alarmist and reactionary views being posted, I still enjoy 4E and will continue my often-mentioned obligations, Amethyst Evolution, Amethyst Factions, and Ultramodern4--all of which are due for release this year. If these fail to make an impact, then I'll address this situation again.

 

[Umbran]

Those dates for the core rules of each game seem off. (Are we discussing 4e which came out in June 08 and PF which came out in August 09?)

Yes. And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ? So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...

Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second? Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?

Really, someone wants to argue that, without accompanied sales data to prove the point?

Does anyone want us to take such an argument seriously?

 

[Perram]

Yes. And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ? So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...

Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second? Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?

Really, someone wants to argue that, without accompanied sales data to prove the point?

Does anyone want us to take such an argument seriously?

We're working with all the data we can get. Yeah, it might not be the best data in the world, but it certainly better than working with none.

People saying that Pathfinder spells the doom for WotC is a bit much at this point... but its certainly no better than ignoring every single anecdote, data point, release schedule, announcement, and discounting it piece by piece without considering that there might be something behind it all.

If anyone has better data, or heck any data regardless of who it shows doing well, I'm interested!

 

[Mark CMG]

Yes. And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ? So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...

Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second? Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?

Really, someone wants to argue that, without accompanied sales data to prove the point?

Does anyone want us to take such an argument seriously?

Again, there really isn't any data (none complete and reliable), there is only evidence from individuals which is comprised in part of annecdotal and testimonial accounts, and this discussion (regarding the open letter) is focused on what is happening now in terms of support material from 3pps for two rulesets, one that came out in June 08 and the other August 09. Dragging this thread further off topic with your many side questions seems pointless since, as anyone who follows these boards knows, those questions have been hashed and rehashed countless times in threads you often eventually close. Here's a question, why would a moderator of these boards even try to take a thread in that direction? I seem to recall you jumping into any number of threads to point out the lack of data for either side of such arguments and now when someone is saying the same thing you hop in and dispute it? That sort of behavior seems counter to some of your previous positions.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, it might not be the best data in the world, but it certainly better than working with none.

I see little evidence that this is true in general, or in this case specifically.

Dragging this thread further off topic with your many side questions seems pointless since, as anyone who follows these boards knows, those questions have been hashed and rehashed countless times in threads you often eventually close.

It may seem pointless, but it isn't. The issues are linked. The major reason to compare PF now with D&D now is because there's a perception that PF sold as well or better than D&D before - that these two games are comparable in sales, and thus in market and expected longevity in general.

If the two games are generally comparable in sales, then it makes sense to compare their business practices and policies. If we are not sure if they are comparable, then we cannot (or at least should not) make a strong claim that the practices of one will apply well to the other.

 

[Mark CMG]

It may seem pointless, but it isn't. The issues are linked. The major reason to compare PF now with D&D now is because there's a perception that PF sold as well or better than D&D before - that these two games are comparable in sales, and thus in market and expected longevity in general.

If the two games are generally comparable in sales, then it makes sense to compare their business practices and policies. If we are not sure if they are comparable, then we cannot (or at least should not) make a strong claim that the practices of one will apply well to the other.

If you don't feel you can discuss it, ignore the thread (advice generally given to those in your position) and stifling the discussion of others based your tenuous link seems counter to the nature of messageboards. But, you've expressed your position (and it has been countered), so perhaps you can move on and allow others to continue the discussion regarding the open letter and the points expressed by the author of it?

 

[BryonD]

Yes. And isn't the data we are talking about from 2010 ? So, when 4e was 2 years old, and PF only one...

Don't we expect the first year's sales to be bigger than the second? Does anyone want to argue that comparing a second year of one game to the first of another is somehow reasonable?

Really, someone wants to argue that, without accompanied sales data to prove the point?

Does anyone want us to take such an argument seriously?

Your point strongly implies that if someone had walked up to you on 12/31/2009 and asked whether PF or 4E would be the number one seller for 2010 would be you would have answered: "Duh! Pathfinder is newer, of course it will sell more."

In the history of D&D it has always* been the #1 seller regardless of how old it was. Other new games had their first year every year. It never mattered.

We expect the first year's sales of a product to beat the second year's of that same product (or brand). But comparing one game to another is a completely different matter. What game do you think sold better than 3E during 3E's fourth year? I'm sure there were plenty of games on their first and second year. If comparing the 2nd year of D&D is unfair against the 1st year of something else, then comparing the fourth year should be terrible against the fourth year of anything else.

And that ignores the PF baggage of being a recycled game.

I'm happy to accept for sake of argument that 4E was #1. The fact that there is an argument to make assumptions for the sake of really makes the point itself.


* - yeah, there is the one WOD data point, I accept that and don't think it changes the point.

 

[pawsplay]

Thanks for the business advice. Everyone, ZEITGEIST and SANTIAGO are cancelled!

That's not at all what I said. I congratulated you on your position, and as long as the horse will run, you might as well ride it. However, your situation is unusual, if not unique.

 

[pawsplay]

No, no matter how many anecdotes you compile, it's not data. It's just a collection of anecdotes.

First of all, do you have any formal training in research? I do.

Rigor and control in obtaining data is crucial. Anecdotes have neither, no matter how many of them you compile. Methodology is everything; without proper methodology, all of your data is suspect. An experiment is not an anecdote; it's a strictly controlled set of measurements and conditions.

You're mixing and confusing a lot of terms in this paragraph. Why can't an anecdote have rigor? Do you think anthropologists realy on rigorless anecdotes? What about field tests of pharmaceuticals?

For example, I can find two hundred parents who would tell me their kids became autistic after the MMR vaccine. I can also find two hundred people who would swear that homeopathic remedies cured their cancer. In both cases, it would be two hundred anecdotes.

The problem in this situation would be failing to identify anecdotes in which those cures were not successful.

Neither would ever be data in any scientific sense of the term - just starting points for potential controlled experiments.

-O

Performing a controlled experiment in most of the examples you give is completely impossible. For instance, it's not feasible to randomly select 1000 people between two groups, give half of them cancer, and then treat the cancer and the non-cancer groups with a randomly selected treatment, either placebo or the experimental treatment.

In the real world, you have to deal with people who already have cancer, and who agree to be part of an experiment. You compare the experimental treatment to some sort of control, usually the "industry-standard" or "gold standard" alternative, maybe both. You can't give cancer treatments to people who are well, so your only comparison is whether the new treatment is significantly better than what you were doing before. Which will not tell you directly, whether the new treatment works at all, or even if what you were doing before was better than no treatment at all.

Similarly, we can't run two controlled experiments, one in which WotC opens up the OGL to 4e material, and one in which they don't.

That doesn't mean there is no data.

A quick overview of qualitative research:

Qualitative research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.