D&D 5E Are you ready for a new edition of D&D?

[ShinHakkaider]

Sure it's awesome for consumer, but not so much for the business who is losing money.


How exactly does WotC win with an OGL?

How is the business losing money on a product that they've basically abandoned and have no intention of supporting again?

Which ties into the second thing, what exactly have they lost by allowing the OGL and Pathfinder to exist? This statement implies that without Pathfinder then 4E would have been a greater success.

 

[Mistwell]

Considering the OGL was terrible for WotC in the long run, I doubt we're going to see it again.

Rumor is, it's coming back.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Absolutely, plenty if people didn't like 4e.

But tons of people prefer to playing living supported games that have an active community.

So when a new edition hits, they switch.

But with 3e, they could keep on playing it.

Okay I see. The implication that there's a group of people who place playing a supported new game over a game that they may actually like and enjoy playing. Youre totally right about this and I didnt take this into account.

 

[Wulfgar76]

How is the business losing money on a product that they've basically abandoned and have no intention of supporting again?

Is Magic losing money if someone else started producing copies of the Black Lotus?
Does JK Rowling lose money if someone writes Harry Potter 10?

They have the rights to sell, or not sell, the product they spent money developing. In America you can't profit off of someone else's intellectual property unless they let you – which WotC did, for free, with the OGL.

Which ties into the second thing, what exactly have they lost by allowing the OGL and Pathfinder to exist? This statement implies that without Pathfinder then 4E would have been a greater success.

4e is irrelevant to the discussion. Just because Ford customers don't like the new Mustang doesn't mean Kia can begin mass-producing the classic Mustang.

Profiting off the intellectual property of another = losing money

 

[Mistwell]

How is the business losing money on a product that they've basically abandoned and have no intention of supporting again?

Which ties into the second thing, what exactly have they lost by allowing the OGL and Pathfinder to exist? This statement implies that without Pathfinder then 4E would have been a greater success.

Let's say, of any given 100 D&D players, 50 of them like to play a "currently actively supported version of the game", and that support is more important than what is actually in the game. The other 50 choose based on game content, even if the content is not actively supported.

Now these 50 people who prioritize current support can either a) choose between two actively supported versions of the game, or b) choose only one actively supported version of the game.

For set "a", they now go to their second item on their hierarchy of things they value, which is likely "what is actually in the game".

For set "b", they are likely to choose the only actively supported version.

This is why the OGL was harmful.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Is Magic losing money if someone else started producing copies of the Black Lotus?
Does JK Rowling lose money if someone writes Harry Potter 10?

They have the rights to sell, or not sell, the product they spent money developing. In America you can't profit off of someone else's intellectual property unless they let you – which WotC did, for free, with the OGL.



4e is irrelevant to the discussion. Just because Ford customers don't like the new Mustang doesn't mean Kia can begin mass-producing the classic Mustang.

Profiting off the intellectual property of another = losing money

Gotcha.

One last question. What was the original intent of the OGL?

 

[Jester David]

Let's say, of any given 100 D&D players, 50 of them like to play a "currently actively supported version of the game", and that support is more important than what is actually in the game. The other 50 choose based on game content, even if the content is not actively supported.

Now these 50 people who prioritize current support can either a) choose between two actively supported versions of the game, or b) choose only one actively supported version of the game.

For set "a", they now go to their second item on their hierarchy of things they value, which is likely "what is actually in the game".

For set "b", they are likely to choose the only actively supported version.

This is why the OGL was harmful.

So long as the new edition is well recieved it's not a problem.
It's only bad if they release an edition not everyone enjoys. It means they cannot coast and rely on people to just follow along because they have no option. They have to be better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So you want a new edition – but Next ain't it.
I think you may be waiting a long time.

True, depending on how long we're talking about. 4e only lasted somewhere around five tumultuous years with a lot of revisions and a sub-edition buried in there. How long will 5e last if it falls short of expectations?

3e is good enough that a version of it is the #1 rpg now, even six years after it was "done". It's good enough that some unknown mass of people are still playing it without a thought of PF. At some point, someone (perhaps Paizo) is going to realize that 3e and the OGL had some good ideas, stop trashing it, and start working on making it better. There are just too many good reasons to do it for business concerns to keep getting in the way forever.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, it was great for gamers but a huuuuge mistake for WotC business.

I don't think you get networks.

Funny thing, Ryan Dancey actually had a bit of a prediction on what would happen if WotC went away from the OGL. He predicted that some other company would pick up 3e and run with it, WotC would be forced to go in a direction that would be criticized by many as "not D&D," and would hurt for it, sales-wise.

If you think WotC was hurting for sales under the 4e banner, one credible explanation for that is that they rejected the OGL. Indeed, it's the GSL that pushed Paizo into making Pathfinder in the first place...so they wouldn't even be competing with themselves if they didn't go in a different direction.

Say what you will about 4e, but the main reason (or one of them at worst) it didn't do well is that for the first time ever D&D had to compete with an actively supported version of its self. On top of the heap of thousands of older 3e books.

If the OGL is so clearly a horrible business idea, why might it be that the most popular tabletop RPG on the market today is fully OGL (to a degree even 3e WotC didn't embrace)? How is that even possible, if OGL is so horrible for the bottom line?

For set "a", they now go to their second item on their hierarchy of things they value, which is likely "what is actually in the game".

For set "b", they are likely to choose the only actively supported version.

This is why the OGL was harmful.

I mean, maybe, but what you just described is essentially free market competition. You're saying that's harmful?

Just so my cards are on the table, I'm a fan of OGL. For a lot of reasons. Smart business among them. PF isn't the game for me, I'd much rather drink 4e's kool-aid, but I think what they're doing with the OGL -- while simultaneously selling like hotcakes -- at least casts doubt on the largely evidence-free anecdotal idea that the OGL is horrible for business.

Rumor is, it's coming back.

Credible rumors? Or are you poking the bear with a stick here?

 

[Arduin's]

I never knew much about the OGL, but it seemed to be a suicidal idea from an economics perspective. Essentially like handing over all your R&D over to your competitors and green-lighting them to make money off your products. How much money has Pathfinder made off WotC's investment in 3rd edition?

In what universe is this a good thing for a business to do?

Example: Mongoose OGL'ed its engine for Traveller. It hasn't hurt the sales of that game. AND, 3rd party material supporting the game has increased. So, to answer your question. THIS universe.

(also see Microsoft's strategy as espoused by Balmer's "Developers" video.)