D20 to OGL Checklist?

[Voadam]

Presumably the publishers did judge there to be some advantage - otherwise they wouldn't have done it. The advantage to them (and to consumers) was intended to be communicative. Whether or not that anticipated advantage actually eventuated is a different matter, but not WoTC's responsibility (as far as I can tell).

And one of the terms of that licence was terminability at will. So the eventual termination is not really such a great surprise.

I expected termination to mean no new d20 logo books, not the scrapping of existing ones. I was surprised when I heard they wanted the licensees to stop selling existing products.

Why does WoTC have to bear the blame. You could equally say it is the fault of Mongoose et al for being petty and not de-logoing their publications.

Alternatively, if you think it is reasonable for Mongoose to decline to bear the cost to them of doing that work, then why is it not equally reasonable for WoTC to delcine to bear the cost to them of maintaining a licence that is (in their view) a drag on their own profitability?

No I consider it reasonable not to do extra active work for little gain. Mongoose's goal is not to deprive me of product consumption choices, that is just the result of their reasonable reaction to the situation. I don't consider that petty.

I consider WotC responsible for their action of how they chose to terminate the license and seek to obtain gaming purchases. Their chosen action is designed to impact me personally and directly in a negative way and I hold them responsible for intending to do that and for actually doing it.

WotC's action is clearly blameworthy.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why does WoTC have to bear the blame.

Because they are the ones who write rules designed to remove competition and customer choice? Sheesh...

 

[pemerton]

Because they are the ones who write rules designed to remove competition and customer choice? Sheesh...

But it is Mongoose et all who are deciding not to de-logo their products.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

But it is Mongoose et all who are deciding not to de-logo their products.

I think you're also assuming that it's as simple as them firing up the production file (say for example an InDesign file) spend a half hour or hour removing any references to d20 STL stuff, delete the d20 logo, and they're done.

It's not that easy.

If it was _just_ the logo it might be.

The first big assumption being made is that they've still _got_ the files that were used for the print run. I got the distinct impression (from the Grand OGC Wiki project) that this wasn't in fact the case. At least for a fair number of their older books.

I don't know about other publishers, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that many of them have their print files either lost or incomplete in some fashion.

So there's a definite amount of investment in terms of time, which translates to money. And that's going into a product that's "dead" for a decent chunk of the hobby. Well, that chunk of the hobby that's even going to bother buying 3rd party books to begin with.

After you get over the hurdle of even finding the darn files, then you're going to have to make sure you don't have errata that contradicts or fixes the text. Because let's face it: if a company goes through and spends some time re-tooling their books and _doesn't_ incorporate fixes to known errors? People rip on them. "I don't see what's so difficult about including [blah blah] since they were already taking the time to... [whatever]"

So now you've got the hassle of finding the files, making sure you don't have to include fixes of some sort, and then removing all the offending stuff. And then making sure that you _include_ some sort of OGL version of stuff that's otherwise missing. Because if you don't, then people are going to rip on you for putting out an incomplete/unfinished thing.

And after all that? Chances are the layout is going to have shifted. Which means going back through page by page to make sure the text flow hasn't gotten messed up in any number of different ways.

Potentially all of that work for just _one_ product.

Oh and what about artwork? I've no idea what the contracts are regarding the text and artwork, but there's the distinct possibility that re-tooling a book would mean having to go through and re-purchase art. Something along the lines of them (Mongoose) having bought the art to use for that _version_ of the game and possibly subsequent reprints of the book, but not for a new edition; and the OGL version could be argued to be a new edition.

I suppose it's possible that the artists (and writers?) gave up any rights to the work, and Mongoose can reuse any and all of that stuff from now until Doomsday. But I think that's an awfully big assumption to make.

Yeah, doing something like that for a small press type person _might_ be worth it. But for a larger publisher, I can certainly understand why they figure it's just not worth their effort.

Especially when you factor in things like:
Rising costs of paper
Overall cost increases in publishing (things like having to do larger print runs because it's more expensive for the printers and so forth)
Rising costs of shipping
A continued struggle to get _any_ money from an rpg product, let alone a "dead" line

Sure, the companies that aren't retooling their existing product have some blame. They're not willing to invest the money. But it's not like already existing fans are going to rush out and buy the _new_ versions. Heck no. "Why should I buy the same book again?" is going to be the question. So the company has to decide if there's actually going to be enough _new_ people showing up looking for _that_ specific product to justify the expense of redoing it.

The kind of products where it _is_ a simple matter to retool the product? I wouldn't be surprised if they're product that 95% of people aren't buying in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

Scurvy Platypus, I have no doubt that it would cost Mongoose et al to change their files. But equally WoTC have formed the view that it would cost them to maintain the d20 licensing regime. My question is only this: why is it legitimate for Mongoose et al to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers), but not legitimate for WoTC to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers)?

 

[freyar]

Scurvy Platypus, I have no doubt that it would cost Mongoose et al to change their files. But equally WoTC have formed the view that it would cost them to maintain the d20 licensing regime. My question is only this: why is it legitimate for Mongoose et al to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers), but not legitimate for WoTC to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers)?

I don't presume to talk for Scurvy Platypus, but I can sum up why I think WotC's decision might raise more ire than, for example, Mongoose's. The point is that it's easy to see how Mongoose would need to put effort and money into changing their products (hardcopy or PDF). It is less easy to see how WotC loses money -- yes, I know, they have an opportunity cost, since they believe they will sell fewer 4e books if there is 3e competition around. It's much harder for people to "see" that kind of cost; furthermore, I think many people disagree with the assumption that 3rd party 3e sales will hurt WotC 4e sales. Frankly, WotC seems to assume that they can drive everyone toward 4e by eliminating 3e support, but it's not clear that will happen. In addition, it just seems mean-spirited to wipe out -- almost unilaterally -- a number of pre-existing game products.

 

[Voadam]

Scurvy Platypus, I have no doubt that it would cost Mongoose et al to change their files. But equally WoTC have formed the view that it would cost them to maintain the d20 licensing regime. My question is only this: why is it legitimate for Mongoose et al to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers), but not legitimate for WoTC to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers)?

Mongoose's goal here is to not spend its efforts on updating old products. Mongoose is not trying to detriment me as a consumer. Their choice is to focus on making new products they hope I will buy. Though I am dissapointed I don't have ire towards mongoose for that decision. They are not trying to detriment me.

WotC's goal here is to drive down my choices as a consumer in the hope that I will therefore buy their new products instead. They are trying to detriment me. This dissapoints me and ticks me off.

 

[Voadam]

I don't presume to talk for Scurvy Platypus, but I can sum up why I think WotC's decision might raise more ire than, for example, Mongoose's. The point is that it's easy to see how Mongoose would need to put effort and money into changing their products (hardcopy or PDF). It is less easy to see how WotC loses money -- yes, I know, they have an opportunity cost, since they believe they will sell fewer 4e books if there is 3e competition around. It's much harder for people to "see" that kind of cost; furthermore, I think many people disagree with the assumption that 3rd party 3e sales will hurt WotC 4e sales. Frankly, WotC seems to assume that they can drive everyone toward 4e by eliminating 3e support, but it's not clear that will happen. In addition, it just seems mean-spirited to wipe out -- almost unilaterally -- a number of pre-existing game products.

Regardless of whether WotC's decision is a rational net economic decision for them the point is how they are approaching consumers. Trying to sell me good products? Great! Trying to cut off my options to buy things I want? Ire.

Even if WotC feels they will make more money by taking actions that tick off some consumers that is not a reason for those consumers not to be ticked off at WotC.

 

[freyar]

Yeah, I generally agree with you, Voadam.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

My question is only this: why is it legitimate for Mongoose et al to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers), but not legitimate for WoTC to act in a way that is self-interestedly rational in respect of their costs (despite the unhappy consequences for consumers)?

You might think this a "cheap" answer, but I don't think I can answer your question. I'll explain.

You appear to be approaching this from a ... "rational"?.... perspective. As in, "Well, logically speaking if person A does [this] and it's acceptable, then why is it unacceptable for person B to do the same thing?"

This isn't a particularly "rational" topic. While I'm sure you could find someone somewhere willing to get into a screaming match with somebody else about whether or not the new Nikes that are made are better than the old ones, it's not particularly difficult to find gamers willing to do that about their games.

Yes, for _some_ people, D&D is just a ... I dunno, a thing. Market forces drive it, it mainly manages to only continue to exist because marketing manages to get enough people to buy into the idea that they need to be on the product treadmill. If the product disappears, well that's too bad. It was an inferior product and didn't deserve to succeed. Score one for market forces and capitalism.

For other people though, D&D is a much more personal thing. They may or may not buy a lot of product, but they've got an emotional investment of a sort. D&D isn't just a more expensive and different way of killing some time like whipping out a pack of playing cards and doing solitaire.

At the end of the day, you either feel that WotC has a responsibility to act not just as a company selling a product (like McDonalds selling a hamburger) but also has a member of the "community" or you don't.

I'm not going to argue either way. I've got my own beliefs and just as with religion and politics, it's not the sort of thing you can just have a discussion about, and *bang* the other person sees that you're right and their belief was wrong.

Beliefs don't generally work that way.

At the end of the day, you either feel and believe that what WotC has done is right, or that they're wrong. If you're curious to know _why_ someone feels the way they do and want to explore that, hey that's groovy.

But if you just want reasons so that you can show how someone is wrong? It's not really going to get you anywhere. Heck, I'll make it easy for you...

You're right. No matter what your position on this particular thing... you're right.

I'm not here to take sides in this whole thing. I merely wanted to point out that the "simple" solution of just removing a logo from the product and slapping it back up, isn't really such a simple solution. And that while it might be the company's "choice" to simply axe the product instead, it might not actually be much of a choice that they have.