Conjecture and Prognostication concerning "The Rouse"

[Hadrian the Builder]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/7021-sean-reynolds-let-go-2.html#post103325

NDAs and non-competes, particularly that extend beyond being let go or leaving a company, are fairly standard stuff and do indeed happen at WotC.


As has been pointed out above, the knowledge of a new edition being readied can kill the current edition. That's also fairly well understood.

I'm not challenging the existence of these agreements (NDA's and non-competes). I'm well aware of them, professionally (not a lawyer). Your response is a little condescending. At least, that's how I read it.

I know that Umbran is correct in his statement that non-compete causes have to be very narrowly defined if they are to be enforceable (generally), because they restrict trade.

At the very least, I doubt that the Rouse has one that is so limiting that it affects where he can work. Consideriing that he's in marketing...it would be difficult for them to define a condition that makes him a competitor to the business. Even if he started his own company, they'd have to limit it geographically and/or temporally.

As to the killing the current edition with knowledge of 5E. You are stating that as fact. And I am challenging that assertion.

 

[Mark]

(. . .) non-compete causes have to be very narrowly defined if they are to be enforceable (generally), because they restrict trade.

It could be as "narrowly defined" as restricting activity in the tabletop gaming field or even more narrowly as restricting activity in the tabletop RPG field. We'll probably find out soon enough if such things exist.

As to the killing the current edition with knowledge of 5E. You are stating that as fact. And I am challenging that assertion.

I am stating it as precedented by the drop off in sales of 3E books when 3.5E was announced and the drop off in sales of 3.5E books when 4E was announced.


What vexes is me is the idea that such possibilities as I post might be possible are met as impossibilities by some. That's all that conjecture is and, again, we'll find things out in due course. Make your own predictions. There's no need to debate mine when clearly they are possible, no matter how probable someone else might find them, or wish them, to be.

 

[ggroy]

I am stating it as precedented by the drop off in sales of 3E books when 3.5E was announced and the drop off in sales of 3.5E books when 4E was announced.

The earliest announcement of 3.5E I can find is from mid-December 2002.

Core Rulebook Updates - General Gaming Discussion - Open Table - The Game Mechanics - Message Board - Yuku

Several local FLGS owners mentioned to me that the d20 3PP market literally fell off a cliff in 2003, while the market for WotC splatbooks books was still ok. They had a glut of 3PP inventory that wouldn't move at all, until a lot of was eventually placed into the bargain bins.

After the fallout, these FLGS owners mentioned that they stopped ordering any new d20 3PP stuff unless it was stuff from a company with a good track record (ie. Green Ronin, Necromancer, etc ...) or was special ordered.

Once burned, twice shy.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

It could be as "narrowly defined" as restricting activity in the tabletop gaming field or even more narrowly as restricting activity in the tabletop RPG field. We'll probably find out soon enough if such things exist.

What vexes is me is the idea that such possibilities as I post might be possible are met as impossibilities by some. That's all that conjecture is and, again, we'll find things out in due course. Make your own predictions. There's no need to debate mine when clearly they are possible, no matter how probable someone else might find them, or wish them, to be.

I have one last thing to note on the idea of a non-compete for the Rouse, then I'll drop it. The Rouse is in marketing, so a non-compete clause (as has been suggested here) has to reasonably protect WotC's business interest. It seems to me that a non-compete clause would only be enforceable on the designers and the developers, who actually have the skills and experience to create a competitor.

Finally, I don't think that any of your suggestions are unreasonable. I'm just enjoying and participating in the inevitable speculation that comes every time there's a staff change at WotC.

Out of all the conjecture on the board so far, I like the Penny Arcade idea the best.

 

[El Mahdi]

I wonder if he'll wear the puffy shirt to any job interviews?

 

[Mark]

(. . .) in marketing, so a non-compete clause (as has been suggested here) has to reasonably protect WotC's business interest.

A Brand Manager would know if a new edition exists, design details that would be used as part of the marketing and the schedule for the roll out.

 

[evilref]

While your conjecture is certainly based upon unsupported grounds, do you seriously believe it to be true (and thus it would be conjecture) or is this simply tinfoil hattery and rumourmongering as it appears to be?

 

[Mark]

While your conjecture is certainly based upon unsupported grounds, do you seriously believe it to be true (and thus it would be conjecture) or is this simply tinfoil hattery and rumourmongering as it appears to be?

As to whether someone in a position to know sensitive IP would possibly have an NDA in place that extends beyond their tenure and potentially be asked to sign a non-compete upon leaving, possibly being offered a larger severance package as compensation? As said above, this is fairly standard corporate stuff. Someone would have to have never worked in a corporate environment to consider the notion of such measures as "tinfoil hattery" or "rumourmongering."

 

[evilref]

As to whether someone in a position to know sensitive IP would possibly have an NDA in place that extends beyond their tenure and potentially be asked to sign a non-compete upon leaving, possibly being offered a larger severance package as compensation? As said above, this is fairly standard corporate stuff. Someone would have to have never worked in a corporate environment to consider the notion of such measures as "tinfoil hattery (. . .) rumourmongering."

I've signed an NDA for every job I've had...

Given what I replied to, it's fairly obvious that my question was in regard to your unsported assertions of a 5th edition. The reason for asking is that while conjecture (which you claim this to be) can be totally unsupported, it's also believed by those asserting it. If you don't earnestly believe it then this is nothing but rumourmongering and tinfoil hattery...

 

[Mark]

Given what I replied to, it's fairly obvious that my question was in regard to your unsported assertions of a 5th edition.

Not obvious.

(. . .), it's also believed by those asserting it.

I don't doubt that a 5th edition will eventually be released. Given that Scott Rouse himself stated in no uncertain terms on these boards that there will be no 4.5, then one only has to gauge the sustainability of the "3 core books a year" model to have an opinion on how soon a 5E might be announced and rolled out. I personally don't believe that most people will buy five sets of core books for a game, certainly not enough for the model to engender a supportable rate of return on the R&D and marketing investment.

Even if they bump up the DDI subscription fees to offset flagging sales of later core books, and of course even lower sales of supplements, the ever diminishing rate of returns is going to force a new edition. The question is only one of how far the model will sustain itself. Some people I talk to do not believe it can go through three cycles (three sets of core books, three years). Some say four. I have to wonder if five is possible. In any event, it is only a question of when, not if. So, since we have seen a number of people mention that work had begun on 4E more than two years before it was rolled out, then one also has to suspect that 5E is either in its concept stages or somewhere along in its design process.

Tinhattery? Sure, if that makes more sense to you. Rumormongering? I'm not sure who you think is being harmed by having a discussion of the business side of WotC through conjecture based on precedence. If the conversation makes you uncomfortable for some reason you can certainly ignore it.