Search results

That may well be. It doesn't mean "guaranteed-sellers" are guaranteed to make bags of cash, though. LotFP also isn't putting as much money back into product (and other resources) as often or as much. Because, ultimately, even if other companies are paying less to writers, what are they doing...

LotFP also has much lower overhead because they aren't a company with a physical address, etc., and don't have as many product lines to support. Licensed products =/= big profit. Their greatest value is usually one of exposure and more opportunities to follow. Cost associated with licensing...

Gotcha. I'm talking a purely royalties-based payment, not a flat payment + royalties. EDIT: but to my initial point, the amount paid in the initial amount would still need to be sufficient to make up for the uncertainty of the return on royalties. Sounds like it works for LotFp, but won't for...

Royalties are an entirely different beast, though. You're not setting a rate that is negotiated (well, beyond the royalty rate itself.) Your "rate" is determined by the product's success, which has nothing to do with the a "fair rate." Adventures almost never earn a lot compared to a system's...

Do you own Superior Synergy: Fantasy for the Pathfinder RPG? If not, check out this sample to get an idea of what’s missing from your game. You can pick it up at 50% off! http://www.misfit-studios.com/a-look-inside-superior-synergy-for-the-pathfinder-rpg/

I've provided a preview of the drow from the upcoming Mutants & Monsters: Elves release. Come have a look so you know what to expect. Feel free to leave a comment below the preview to tell us what you think. http://www.misfit-studios.com/mutants-monsters-elves-preview/

And considering I just got some bad news, I'm entirely bowing out of the rest of this thread.

For a licensing fee. The companies that found the most success under the OGL got to do so without paying WotC a dime. Maybe you have to be a small press publisher to understand just how important a difference that makes, though. You're certain of that, eh? Because people thought nothing big...

I'm saying they are denying the hypothetical next Paizo the ability to get a boost towards success off of the DnD brand. Do you think, for example, Paizo would have succeeded to overtake DnD in market shares if they had released OGL magazines instead of had the strength of the Dragon and...

I can't figure out what your point is here because you've essentially just reworded and restated my own point.

Keep in mind that the "no 3pp brands on covers" was supposed to be in effect from the beginning. The fact that it wasn't is an oversight on the operations side of DMsGuide, not on the part of WotC's intentions re: brand control.

And this is EXACTLY the sort of perception I'm talking about. When someone sees brands they recognize, they association previously realized quality with the new product they're seeing. The brand has meaning to them. This is known as brand loyalty, and is important when it comes to customers...

"Huge" is underselling it. "THE" factor, is more like it. Independent DnD magazines don't exactly do well, which is what Paizo would have been doing if they were operating under the DnD brand. When the d20 STL was still around, and there were groups where publishers got together with WotC...

Not just in a store. And a logo is key to advertising and communicating quality, as well as for recognition. Here's the thing about a logo: it travels with the visuals. So, when someone likes a product on OBS, and they share it socially, that brand travels to whatever social media platform it...

Except 4e compatible product was already coming out at that point. They simply weren't branded with what would later become the official logos, license, etc. But it was there in the market. I wonder why people don't seem to remember those "unofficially compatible," unbranded 4e 3pp products...

First off, what you call "quibbles" I call "the actual legal documents that determined how products using WotC's IP at the time were REQUIRED to be published." Those "quibbles" actually sunk a few publishers when they got them wrong. And Dragon and Dungeon magazines, you say? Those wouldn't...

Because its' not the OGL that is the risk. The OGL isn't the brand. It's the license. Don't forget that there was the OGL and the d20 STL. The OGL is a perpetual license, but the d20 STL was WotC's brand control that was revoked. People can publish under the OGL still, but NO ONE can use the...

Possible conversations at WotC: "We need to cut down on legal costs related to DnD. What can we do? Hey, let's prevent 3pp from putting their logos on their covers! That way we don't spend time and money policing them! Great idea. Solved!" versus "We lost a lot of money with the OGL because...

I disagree with your theory for one simple reason: The logo on the cover is incidental to the copyright problems that arise from WotC's various licenses. Anyone remember one publisher or product that got into trouble because of how it used the logo on an OGL product, for instance? Me neither...

Because my company's BRAND is important to its BRANDING. Your brain is a complex thing. It recognizes images like a logo faster than it understands text while scanning through product listings. It will identify and focus on a recognized logo faster than it can make sense of words. So, if you're...