D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[timASW]

By most accounts of which I am aware, D&D had more of the market through use of the OGL than they had since the days when they were the first and one of the few RPGs on the market at all. They only gave away that advantage again by turning their back on the business model that got them there and re-instituting the isolationist policies that saw that market slip away in the 90s. Now they are trying a new approach to bringing everyone back into the fold. Whether that will work as well as the OGL business model remains to be seen. The OGL model remains a very strong one without them being on board. Now they will be competing with their own business model. Now they are going all in against a strong hand that they know they do not hold. We will see what happens.

depends on how you look at market share.

Were there more RPG books out there? Sure. But did that put money in WoTC"s pocket or in the pockets of game store owners and 3rd party publishers?

I know there were lots of times I bought 3rd party books INSTEAD of WoTC books. Primarily because I thought they looked more interesting. But for whatever reason I went to the store to buy a new gaming book, browsed around and decided to pay someone other then WoTC. That doesnt help them.

Is it anecdotal? Sure. But bet most people here can think of lots of times they did the exact same thing.

 

[Mark CMG]

depends on how you look at market share.

They stuck with the OGL model for about eight years and that was without having the mags under their own wing and no DDI. After less than 2 years they were turning toward Essentials and then announcing 5E in less than 3 1/2 years from 4E's release while having the mags under their own wing and having the benefit of DDI, yet PF routinely outsells them now and companies like GR and others producing highly successful OGL-modeled RPGs. That's how WotC looks at the market. I look at the market share the same way WotC looks at it, but I tend to discuss it somewhat differently.

 

[Yora]

However, you have the other effect that third party books keep people being interested in the game at all and not just getting bored by it after two or three years and never looking at any books for the game again.

Or you might have people who think, I would play the game, but I really wish it had a book dealing with X, otherwise I simply play a different game that does have X.

In theory, good third party publications keep people interested in the game and new official books, even at times when there are no new official books released that are of interest to them.
If that worked out to result in a net-profit for WotC in the long run is the real question, but there isn't any data on that at all. I don't think even at WotC they have any crude estimates for that.

Though personally, I think it did help. I never cared for the Complete series or Eberron, but I was aware that they existed and also tried to keep up to date with any new announcements because there were such things like Iron Heroes and Midnight that made me care for d20 games. Also Star Wars Saga, which was published by WotC, but for the purpose of this effect would fall under d20-derivatives.

 

[Balesir]

I 100% agree that the OGL was one of the smartest moves WotC made. It turned D&D around from a failing dog to a cash cow that dominated the market again (in combination with the new edition, a classic 'dog-reviving' tactic) and put D&D back at the centre of roleplaying.

If the OGL had been maintained into the 4e era, not only might there have been 3PP support for 4e, but the intention to "keep previous editions available in e-format" would have been far more profitable (since 3PPs could take over the support and expansion of 4e at no cost to WotC).

The (ancient beyond imagining) idea that, by cutting off the old edition hard, you will get all the punters to segue meekly over to the new hotness is now clearly and demonstrably completely incorrect.

 

[TwoSix]

You both seem to think that as long as the company breaks even or makes a miniscule profit Hasbro will keep it open for ever.

Thats delusional IMO. Hasbro isnt looking for a "break even" or a "tiny cherry". Their looking for a healthy and respectable profit margin and if they dont get it consistantly then sooner or later they will absolutely shelve the product

No, I don't think it will be open "forever", because that would be silly. One day, probably within the next one or two decades, but possibly sooner, there won't be a published D&D.

But that doesn't mean that the people working there NOW won't focus on what will keep them working NOW. And if they can sell the idea that $X amount of work now will sell $1.2X amount of product, they can keep their jobs for a while. And that's what most people who work DO, try and keep their jobs, because being unemployed kind of sucks.

Most people don't have the bandwidth to focus on the long-term big picture, because that isn't their job to do so. Even mighty corporation Hasbro has no real incentive to shutter a department that only earns a small profit, as long as it isn't losing major money and, importantly, helps to maintain the value of the IP.

 

[Jupp]

.... importantly, helps to maintain the value of the IP.

That's a very important factor that a lot of people do not take into account. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Yora]

If the OGL had been maintained into the 4e era, not only might there have been 3PP support for 4e, but the intention to "keep previous editions available in e-format" would have been far more profitable (since 3PPs could take over the support and expansion of 4e at no cost to WotC).

I even suspect that with a 4th Edition SRD, there might never have been a pathfinder. I don't think Paizos prime motivation was their love for the 3rd Edition rules, but plain economic neccessity. From what I understand, a major part of their income was from third party d20 material and their contract with WotC for the magazines. With that falling away, a new source needed to be found, and 4th Edition had taken itself out of the competition.
If producing adventure paths and supplements for 4th edition had been an option, I'm not sure they would have come up with pathfinder in the first place.
And all the other smaller companies who were also in the same position of needing a game for which to make supplements had the choice of switching to pathfinder or to... well, certainly not 4th edition, because that wasn't allowed.

And imagine how 4th edition might have turned out if customers didn't have the option to look at the new rules once and think "you know what? I think I focus entirely on Pathfinder and no longer care for WotCs products".
The problem with 4th Edition was never an issue of rules, but of the image. Had people invested some real effort in making 4th Edition work for them, they might even have come to like it eventually and would have provided valuable feedback for Wizards to add what many people felt was missing. Like 3rd party publisher, for example.

 

[hamstertamer]

I even suspect that with a 4th Edition SRD, there might never have been a pathfinder. I don't think Paizos prime motivation was their love for the 3rd Edition rules, but plain economic neccessity. From what I understand, a major part of their income was from third party d20 material and their contract with WotC for the magazines. With that falling away, a new source needed to be found, and 4th Edition had taken itself out of the competition.
If producing adventure paths and supplements for 4th edition had been an option, I'm not sure they would have come up with pathfinder in the first place.
And all the other smaller companies who were also in the same position of needing a game for which to make supplements had the choice of switching to pathfinder or to... well, certainly not 4th edition, because that wasn't allowed.

And imagine how 4th edition might have turned out if customers didn't have the option to look at the new rules once and think "you know what? I think I focus entirely on Pathfinder and no longer care for WotCs products".
The problem with 4th Edition was never an issue of rules, but of the image. Had people invested some real effort in making 4th Edition work for them, they might even have come to like it eventually and would have provided valuable feedback for Wizards to add what many people felt was missing. Like 3rd party publisher, for example.

That's not true they even consulted with Monte Cook on Pathfinder. The people at Pazio, in general, were against 4th edition.

 

[Mark CMG]

That's not true they even consulted with Monte Cook on Pathfinder. The people at Pazio, in general, were against 4th edition.

Yeah, that's not quite true. They were in favor of an OGL 4E and backed off support of a GSL 4E. They didn't want their future in the hands of an outside company.

 

[Yora]

They were against switching to 4th edition becaus doing so would also enforce a number of very restrictive rules on them, that were pretty much prohibitiv for most third party companies.
Not denying that they were very clear on not working on 4th edition early on, but I think the business aspects probably played a much bigger role than the rules of the game.

If there had been an option to decide between 3rd edition and 4th edition for the same conditions of the OGL, I am not saying they would have picked 4th edition for sure.
But they would have had a choice and even the option to just do a few experimental attempts before completely admitting to either system, or even just support both to some degree. But WotC did not offer that choice so it was clear for them that whatever they do, they would not be working with 4th edition. They may still have said "nah, this game sucks" or their 3rd edition material might have vastly outsold the 4th edition stuff because people actually did not want to play with those rules. But with no OGL and SRD, WotC forced that descision with the result we have now.