You know what would end all of the arguing and fighting?

At the risk of sounding cynical, the typical academic journal publisher's business model depends on an extensive network of semi-captive professionals paid by someone else who do most of the heavy lifting of submitting their work and engaging in peer review and scrutiny. Essentially, since many of those professionals are funded by public money (their salary in public universities or grants) and must publish or perish somewhere (thus semi-captive), these publishing houses serve as great engines for turning public money into private profit (for the publishing house).

I don't think an RPG could run on that model very well. At least, I hope not.

I wasn't saying that that the academic model was the same thing, just an analogy. I've had similar experience outside academics.

My overall point: There are thousands of companies, including game companies, that sell and support multiple products. If Wizards can support a fiction branch and the DDI and D&D and their boardgames and their figures, etc., they could surely allocate the staff to maintain two editions.
Will they do it? Doubtful in the extreme. But IMHO it would make more sense than doubling down on DDN (though I hope for all our sakes they "win" that gamble).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Why doesn't Microsoft support Windows 3.1?

Why doesn't Sony make games for the PS2?

Why doesn't Ford still produce the Model T?

Because, quite simply: producing that much content would cost far more than it brings in.
 

Why doesn't Microsoft support Windows 3.1?

Why doesn't Sony make games for the PS2?

Why doesn't Ford still produce the Model T?

Because, quite simply: producing that much content would cost far more than it brings in.

Oh you mean how its fairly simple to run the things on the new windows now? it's still supported.

Oh you mean how ps2 games are releasing on ps3 with updated graphics? They are still being supported. And acknowledged.

And the model T? They are still being made for movies and such as far as I can tell... atleast refurbished. Not sure in any way how a car can relate to a gaming system , but eh.

It's also good to note that these things are kept up via backwards compatibility(or remastring) and other things that D&D next ISNT doing, although they are letting their old content out in electronic format again. Good for them , im happy they are doing this.
This post would make more sense if D&Dnext were simply a better version of all the systems that could be used with all our books. That it is not.
 

Why doesn't Microsoft support Windows 3.1?

Why doesn't Sony make games for the PS2?

Why doesn't Ford still produce the Model T?

Because, quite simply: producing that much content would cost far more than it brings in.

It wouldn't cost Wizards hardly anything to make their back catalogue available on pdf. It's already written, and most of it was already available on drive thru before they pulled it.
 


Why doesn't Microsoft support Windows 3.1?

Why doesn't Sony make games for the PS2?

Why doesn't Ford still produce the Model T?

Because, quite simply: producing that much content would cost far more than it brings in.

If the percentage of folks playing the PS2 versus PS3 were the same as the percentage of folks playing Pathfinder versus 4E, they would.

And the examples you quote are technology, quite a different issue. Some here have tried to argue that rules-heavy systems represent an "advance" in role-playing, but rules-light systems are still being released and widely enjoyed.

4e versus 3e versus 2e is really more akin to Ford rolling out three separate models and supporting them, which they do all the time. Or EA Games supporting three different titles, which they also do.
 

Why doesn't Microsoft support Windows 3.1?

Why doesn't Sony make games for the PS2?

Why doesn't Ford still produce the Model T?

Because, quite simply: producing that much content would cost far more than it brings in.

There is no content to produce. The content is already there.

But, there are still Model Ts that are driven. There are still folks that crank up a PS 2, or for that matter an Atari 2600. And... that antique computer in the closet can still do word processing even if it runs Windows 3.1 as long the hard drive did not get fried and all components still work.

That said, a quick question on 1e and 2e. Both are still workable systems but didn't Kenzer take 2e and solve the few issues folks had with it (THAC0 and weapon speed being eliminated)?
 

Its been a downhill walk ever since WOTC was bought by Hasbro. As long as they are owned by a "megacorp", they will never be able to regain the status they once had, or do what they really need and want to do for the game. Paizo has become the wonderkid successor to pre Hasbro Wizards. You can bitch about the rules all you want, but they are firing on all cylinders. Smart business people in charge of their own destiny doing what they love to do and racking up a sizeable fiercely loyal fanbase.
 

Oh you mean how ps2 games are releasing on ps3 with updated graphics? They are still being supported. And acknowledged.

No, he doesn't mean that. What you describe is the equivalent of re-tooling old campaign settings and adventures for 4th edition (as with 4e Dark Sun), not the equivalent of producing all new content for older editions. Producing all new, exclusive, first-party products for 2nd edition AD&D would rather be the equivalent of Sony producing all new, exclusive, first-party content for the PS1.

And the model T? They are still being made for movies and such as far as I can tell... atleast refurbished. Not sure in any way how a car can relate to a gaming system , but eh.

Yes, and Wizards is already coming out with special editions of the 1st and 3rd edition core rulebooks, which is the closest possible equivalent of your Model T example.

Oh you mean how its fairly simple to run the things on the new windows now? it's still supported.

It's also good to note that these things are kept up via backwards compatibility(or remastring) and other things that D&D next ISNT doing, although they are letting their old content out in electronic format again. Good for them , im happy they are doing this.
This post would make more sense if D&Dnext were simply a better version of all the systems that could be used with all our books. That it is not.

It is not possible to create an RPG system which is backwards-compatible with every edition that came before it. It cannot be done. It is a relatively simple matter to make your gaming console one generation backwards compatible, while any RPG that is even fully 3rd and 4th edition-compatible would be cripplingly unwieldy and bloated and confused.

4e versus 3e versus 2e is really more akin to Ford rolling out three separate models and supporting them, which they do all the time. Or EA Games supporting three different titles, which they also do.

Wizards' position is nothing like that of a car company or video game company. In the automobile industry, you must support multiple models (a 2-door truck, a 4-door truck, an economy 4-door, a luxury 4-door, a minivan, etc.) in order to gain any significant market share, and you must have market share because you need massive economies of scale to survive. Every new model you produce, up to a point, gets you (or ensures that you keep) more market share, because people want all different kinds of cars.

2nd edition AD&D represents virtually no market share. It represents a few scattered groups who are pretty happy with what they've got already. If Wizards produced all new content print content for 2nd edition, it would net them virtually no new players at all. A very few people would buy perhaps the first adventure or two, mostly out of curiosity. They would lose money on the product, period.

The video game situation is even less parallel. A serious video gamer might play through 3 or 4 big titles in a month. A serious RPGer probably takes two years to experience one RPG system.



We have got to admit to ourselves that Wizards cannot produce all new, playtested, print materials for TSR-era editions. No amount of un-parallel parallels is going to change the fact that any such product would unquestionably cost far more than it would bring in.

I guarantee you Wizards took a good, hard, objective look at their options, involving lots of real financial analysis, before they settled on trying to unite the fanbase with a new edition. No business model besides "one system which is played by 70% of all RPG players" can sustain the size of their company and still give them the return on investment they were used to from the 3rd edition era.

Yes, other companies succeed by selling and supporting multiple systems. They do that by having much smaller staffs producing far fewer books for each system, such that fans of a given system are likely to buy a good portion of the books that come out for it. You only produce the 4 or 5 most lucrative possible splatbooks for each system. And even if a given splatbook only sells a few thousand or even a few hundred copies, and most of the people who bought it are just RPG junkies who buy all kinds of books that they'll never actually use, well, you only had two designers, a handful of playtesters, and some freelance artists contributing to that splatbook, so you still made money on it.

If 5th edition fails to win everyone back (which I agree seems likely), Wizards may very well have to begin doing something like that. But it is unquestionably a less lucrative, less stable, less desirable situation for them than one in which they control most of the market with one system. Wizards knows it, we know it. It's just silly to try and convince ourselves otherwise.
 

When corebooks make up most of your profit for an edition even when the supplements are well-designed, a business strategy of forced obsolescence makes a lot of sense...

-O
 

Remove ads

Top