Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[billd91]

So from where I'm sitting, the mere fact that you equate "waiting on Legal" with "Scott can't actually be responsible" reveals what looks like a cynical predisposition.

I think this cynicism is so widespread that people don't even recognize it. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's a long-time pet peeve of mine.

What I see is talk about two different sorts of responsibility.
Scott is responsible for policy and fallout because it's his job to be responsible for it with the people who want to use the license and brand for their own 3rd party products. He's the go-to guy for questions and communication.

But is he the person who makes the decisions on the nature and tenor of the policy? Is he the author of the terms in the GSL compared to previous licensing? That's another form of responsibility in this case. It may not be official job description but all ideas come from somebody (or some collective of somebodies). And Scott may not have been that somebody and may only have limited influence over them. In other words, he's official responsible to the company and the customers, but he may not be responsible for the content.

 

[Jack99]

There is also the disconnect that fans have with regard to the secretly-kept numbers (sales figures, revenue expectations, etc.) and sometimes deceptive/insulting (or what is perceived to be deceptive/insulting) market-speak originating from people at WotC which puts up a barrier as well.

Oddly enough, we never see people ranting against Paizo, Goodman Games or Green Ronin regarding this matter. Last I checked, neither of those companies reveal anything about their sales. Why the constant double standards. I mean, we all know that WotC is not allowed, because they are are part of Hasbro. But how about the others? Shouldn't fans of other companies have the same disconnect? Or maybe that is just it. Fans do not have these disconnects. People who do not like WotC think of it as secretly-kept figures and insults, while the fans realize that marketing and non-public sales figures are just a part of any modern multi-million dollar company.

 

[billd91]

Oddly enough, we never see people ranting against Paizo, Goodman Games or Green Ronin regarding this matter. Last I checked, neither of those companies reveal anything about their sales. Why the constant double standards. I mean, we all know that WotC is not allowed, because they are are part of Hasbro. But how about the others? Shouldn't fans of other companies have the same disconnect? Or maybe that is just it. Fans do not have these disconnects. People who do not like WotC think of it as secretly-kept figures and insults, while the fans realize that marketing and non-public sales figures are just a part of any modern multi-million dollar company.

Perhaps because there is very little commentary in general about Paizo, Goodman Games, or Green Ronin sales.

By contrast, there's a lot of commentary about WotC 4e sales (both positive and negative) and virtually none of it backed up by any real data other than a comment about early sales exceeding expectation. Naturally, people want to try to win this debate and want data with which to do it.

 

[helium3]

They were complete powercards based upon the PHB. It had a rather neat functionality: You could "build" a deck of power cards by selecting just the ones you needed. The site would then generate a document that would allow you to print out the power cards you had specifically selected.

I am neither approving or condemning, but as far as design, layout, and function, it was a pretty neat site.

So you copied the flavor text directly?

 

[xechnao]

<snip>

So what do you expect people to do when they want to complain or comment on decisions that they suspect come out of levels of WotC structure aside from R&D?

What does complaining about the OGL and GSL has to do whith this? How can you say that R&D has a different view regarding the current licensing policy of the company they work for than the "business" department? And where do you put Scott Rouse in this?

If people want to complaint they must complaint to Scott. What I have seen is "thank you Scott you are great and go fight the suits". This fails to make any sense to me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Charles - did you read the press release that came out after the latest round of layoffs? The quote from the WotC CEO was about as Dilbertian as it gets.

To wit (from here):

Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in. “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said. “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms. The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”

I realize those are big words (and I'm not saying that to be condescending, it could certainly be written more simply) but every word in that statement has real meaning.

It's not masquerading behind big words. It's good business, being occluded by big words.

"We want to focus on Magic Online and D&D Insider, and the best way to do that was to outsource that development. It will also position us better in the future to bring an online experience to other brands."

 

[xechnao]

Re: Cynical thoughts/suits

I can understand why people get angry and blame "suits" rather than *people* in instances such as when WotC lays off staff that folks here admire. It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).

So while there are certainly *people* behind decisions like the OGL/GSL, there are also (the same?) people behind the decision to make the layoffs.

Layoffs are sad for the economic suffering they cause on people. I not only understand the outrage but I also support it. But what the hell does this have to do with the licensing policy? Why try to involve the one with the other? Licensing policy is a business plan that mostly has to do with the hobby -I expect hobby people to have a bigger say than lawyers for example. Layoffs are something that has to do with capital accounting.

 

[Jack99]

Perhaps because there is very little commentary in general about Paizo, Goodman Games, or Green Ronin sales.

By contrast, there's a lot of commentary about WotC 4e sales (both positive and negative) and virtually none of it backed up by any real data other than a comment about early sales exceeding expectation. Naturally, people want to try to win this debate and want data with which to do it.

That's odd. I can't seem to read a thread without hearing about the supposedly huge increase in sales Paizo has had since 4e was announced/launched. Yet, the only evidence is comments from Paizo people (Mona mostly) saying that their sales have increased. No one seems to questions them. Now, do not get me wrong. If Mona says Paizo sales have increased, I do belive him. I just think a lot of people (not pointing my finger at DaveMage nor you) apply double standards to this debate.

And regarding the many comments about 4e sales. Well, they usually start by a negative, meaning that someone claims (usually based on how his left foot hurt last morning) that 4e has tanked and Hasbro will soon be selling the D&D brand. Then yes, some of us point out that there is some information out there that say otherwise. I believe that I have yet to see a thread started (or a discussion for that matter) with the positive angle, that 4e sells enormously well. Then again, I am getting old, and there are so many threads here, I might either be forgetting one, or have missed one.

Cheers

 

[Scribble]

Charles, I kind of agree with you, but I'm not sure I agree with your string so to speak...

I'm not sure the cynicism stems from the attribution of the acts to a nameless entity known as "The Suits."I think that yeah, it tends to crop up when things are looked at from the side of cynicism, but I don't know if it creates it. (Maybe that's not what you're saying?) I think maybe like Maggan says, it does help facilitate it. It's easier to attribute negative motives to nameles groups. (Ala the Illuminati.)

Personaly I agree with you about cynicsm though. It's just not my style to be a cynic.

I look at a situation like the GSl and my thoughts are generaly along the lines of: "Well, someone at Wizards (Scott?) thought the GSL was a good way to allow 3pp to produce material in support of D&D that wil also help boost the sales of D&D."

I've seen others, however, with a much more cynical view. "The GSL was designed to undermine the OGL and get rid of competition." Saying "The Suits" disliked the OGL seems like a way of supporting this claim.

I'm not going to tell people the non cynical way of viewing things is the "right" way, but I am confused about the cynical view... It just seems like a whole lot more effort and work would have to go into creating something that actively tries to undermine other people's work... As opposed to just creating soemthing you hope will help sell your own.

In my experience the majority of people in this world don't want to put more effort into soemthing then is really needed...

 

[CharlesRyan]

It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).

There's nobody on Earth who has more justification for cynicism in this regard than me. If I can look beyond it, so can anyone else on these boards.