Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[DaveMage]

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.

Jack - I'm not saying WotC should be expected to share numbers - I understand why they do not. I'm just saying that it causes the problem. I don't have an answer on how to solve it.

 

[DaveMage]

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."

It's the fact that it wasn't said more simply which makes it "Dilbertian" (is that a new word?). I'm not (in this case) commenting on its accuracy.

 

[DaveMage]

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.

Charles was commenting on the cynical nature of people and the "suits" issue and I was following that tangent. Probably could have forked it - sorry.

 

[DaveMage]

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.

I can appreciate that, but you have one advantage over most of the rest of us in that you worked there, so you have an understanding that we lack with regard to the internal workings and corporate culture of the company.\



Edit - and yes, I realize I need to learn how to use the multiquote button.

 

[Jack99]

Jack - I'm not saying WotC should be expected to share numbers - I understand why they do not. I'm just saying that it causes the problem. I don't have an answer on how to solve it.

Yeah I know. It was more of a rhetorical tangent. I should probably have forked it.

Edit - and yes, I realize I need to learn how to use the multiquote button.

Press the multi-quote button on the posts you wish to quote, and then finish by pressing New Reply et voila!

 

[tomBitonti]

I think you're making my point for me, but from the other side. It's the people who assume a "cadre of suits" are mandating the decisions of the hardworking custodians of D&D (Brand and R&D) which is dismissive. Such assumptions relegate the people who work hard and make hard decisions to the status of hapless minion.

I wholly agree. The referent "suits" is pejorative, and must be avoided in civil and reasoned discussion.

If I may put this back onto the track that I find most interesting: First, I do believe that many people, when viewing the GSL, are astonished, and, after working through their initial reaction, come to wonder how the GSL came about. Second, to provide a partial answer to my own question, I am willing to accept that the GSL arose in part as an inevitable consequence of fundamental features of 4E and its productization. However, while that sense of consequence is useful for further analysis, one's wonderment is not diminished, but is transformed into a new question: What reasoning went into the choice of features for 4E, and how it has been turned into a product. In addition, if the GSL is in part an inevitable consequence, that leaves features of the GSL which are free choices. For example, allowance for change and for termination, and the prohibition of product lines that support different versions of the product. The question in regards to these features remains: What thinking went into the selection of these choices? And: Who came up with these ideas?

Further, this allows a new question to be asked: When the features of 4E (and its productization) were selected, what thought was put into the consequences, such as to the GSL. I can think of at least one other consequence which I find worthy of note. That is, the decision to maintain a strong online presence, including a database, character, monster, and encounter builders (not all there, but the obvious extension of current work), and power cards as a product, all lead to a suppression of similar efforts by the fan community. Now, while copyright provides a mechanism for that suppression, the fan community seems to be served with many fewer products than might otherwise be available. I find at least arguable the notion that allowing fan created utilities, or even allowing for for profit items, and to use them as a farm for best-of-breed ideas, might be a better model to follow. In the case of for profit items, I do not see how WotC should not have a strong competitive advantage in this area.

Thx!

TomB

 

[carmachu]

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

Becuase part of the problem is scale. What would be successful for Paizo would be a failure for a WOTC product.

If Pathfinder come August, sells say 20K units, its a success. If the MM for 4e sold that many, or even double that, its a failure.

Pathfinder adventure paths was doing well already. If it steady increased since the announcement to release date, it made something doing well to even better.

It would be nice to see some numbers though. But your talking different scales.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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.

I can see why you might think so, but I think you're overlooking something important. Wizards has (sadly) established a reputation for deception with regard to 4E and its business practices, beginning with the whole "it's not even on our radar" fake-out just months before announcing its imminent arrival, whereas Paizo has an almost unbelievable reputation for being open and up-front with its customers.

So it's hardly surprising that when Paizo says something about its sales numbers, people tend to believe them, but when Wizards makes a public statement, it is doubted.

 

[malraux]

I can see why you might think so, but I think you're overlooking something important. Wizards has (sadly) established a reputation for deception with regard to 4E and its business practices, beginning with the whole "it's not even on our radar" fake-out just months before announcing its imminent arrival,

False. The fans have a habit of taking misquotes out of context, but the in context original quotes have all shown to be very fair and accurate.

 

[Maggan]

beginning with the whole "it's not even on our radar" fake-out just months before announcing its imminent arrival

First I've heard of such a thing. A source or a quote to elucidate me perhaps?

/M