Dear Wizards of the Coast blog post...

[Nellisir]

Saying "it is unlikely" is hardly presenting something as fact.

"more as a fact and less as an opinion" is what I actually said. He presented it as an objective statement of probability, not a subjective statement of his belief.

 

[Nellisir]

It's true according to the artist. ...This puts a MAJOR problem in the way of reprinting older adventures...

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to MerricB again."

Darn! But hurrah for proof!

Maybe a decent team of lawyers could put some kind of ambigious spin on scanning and selling the original product to argue it as a legal practice, but it wouldn't be something I'd choose to do or expect WotC to want to pursue. you'd spend a lot more on the lawyers than you'd get from the products, IMO.
Remaking the originals into "new" digital products would be pretty clearly be right out.

 

[billd91]

I asked for proof because he presented it more as a fact and less as an opinion. And the assertion wasn't specific to any one artist; it was TSR products in general and -particularly- the art. All of it.

He might be right. I think it would be odd, since TSR wasn't really shy with the lawyers and not locking down ownership seems rather unprofessional, but I'm not a RPG publishing company.

Look at the trouble WotC had compiling the Dragon Magazine CDs. They failed to secure the rights to redistribute the KotDT strips that appeared in later issues of Dragon. That landed them in a legal dispute that they eventually settled by allowing Kenzer and Co* to use 1e intellectual property for Hackmaster.

So, locking down ownership (for all time)? Not so much. But keep in mind that nobody was thinking of electronic media compilations when they secured the rights to art they never expected to use for more than one printing.

Also keep in mind that once TSR went to work for hire they did start to reuse art... sometimes a lot. Anybody remember Spellfire? One turn off for me, and probably one notable reason it didn't make much of a dent in Magic's market, was the recycled art. Magic was visually fresh and vibrant. Spellfire... we'd seen it all before.


*FYI: David Kenzer, company president of Kenzer and Company, is, I believe, a lawyer by main profession.

 

[Nellisir]

Look at the trouble WotC had compiling the Dragon Magazine CDs. They failed to secure the rights to redistribute the KotDT strips that appeared in later issues of Dragon. That landed them in a legal dispute that they eventually settled by allowing Kenzer and Co* to use 1e intellectual property for Hackmaster.

I'm aware of the Dragon issues. I expected the actual products to be handled somewhat differently, but MerricB has already gone through that.

But keep in mind that nobody was thinking of electronic media compilations when they secured the rights to art they never expected to use for more than one printing.

They produced 5 "Best of Dragon" compilations, so clearly the idea of compilations wasn't a totally foreign one.

MerricB has already settled most of the questions I had about this. It's clear that contrary to my initial beliefs, ownership is indeed an area of concern.

 

[rounser]

Man, kids these days should really get off your damn lawns, huh?

Disliking online subscription models, slot machines posing as games, and micropayments makes you old? How about just "not a fool"?

Many in both generations x and y will be lucky to be able to afford a lawn to ask someone to get off of with all that's going on. That makes me concerned and sad. At least it's still possible to throw dice with some friends without paying some parasite in a suit, if you choose, but you may need to write your own character generator if they've locked theirs behind a monthly subscription paywall. Hardly an incentive to keep up with D&D's current edition if this happens and you have your head screwed on right.

 

[Dire Bare]

Man, kids these days should really get off your damn lawns, huh?

Disliking online subscription models, slot machines posing as games, and micropayments makes you old? How about just "not a fool"?

Disliking a subscription model doesn't make you old, but the "hate" you feel towards it and your need to rant and call those of us who do like the model "fools" does make you old. Old-spirited, if not actually old by years.

The next edition of D&D will be fully playable without a computer, and without any sort of subscription. If supplemental content shifts largely to an online subscription, like Dragon and Dungeon magazines already have, it's okay if you'd rather the support be in print. Just don't crap on the parade for those who understand it's not 1974 anymore, that time marches on, and that the market has changed, as has the technology.

If you would rather a discrete character generator program for a one-time cost be the plan rather than a subscription or micropayments . . . . well, sorry, but WotC does have to keep an eye towards profit. Your way profit does not lie for them, while the subscription model has already proven profitable for WotC, and acceptable for a large number of their fans.

 

[rounser]

You could just as easily say that I'm an "angry young man" about corporate greed. Plenty of youthful protest about the topic. But it's your money...

 

[Nookie]

I don't particularly care about the blog, but I'd like to point out that it's not a him, or a "Mr. blog man". A woman wrote this. She points out she's a wife and a mother right in the second paragraph.

It doesn't make a difference for the contents of the blog, or for people's reactions to it, but I suppose it just bothers me for people to just automatically default to thinking a long blog post about D&D was written by a guy.

Also goes to show that some of you didn't read the whole thing and are tearing it down none the less. I dont know if the Blogger made points as to why D&D is floundering. But I recall someone making a comment to the effect of producing POD editions of the old games will require to much development time. However That they fail to realize is that those editions are already produced and with a little reorganizing and editing they are good to go in E-format.

I am no business man by any-means but the basic idea of any business as far as i know if give people what they want not what you think they want. Just my two cents.

 

[Number48]

Regarding the copyright thing. The question isn't "does WotC own the rights to the art?" The question is "are the rights to the art (and writing) so well locked down that it is virtually impossible for someone to even attempt a lawsuit?" The lawsuits don't even have to win to deflate all the potential profit. So I am not stating any particular facts for reprinting older material that WotC has to contend with, but I am stating that the legal morass is too risky for a product that is going to have such low cost-to-profit ratio and doesn't drive new sales.

 

[Number48]

Also goes to show that some of you didn't read the whole thing and are tearing it down none the less. I dont know if the Blogger made points as to why D&D is floundering. But I recall someone making a comment to the effect of producing POD editions of the old games will require to much development time. However That they fail to realize is that those editions are already produced and with a little reorganizing and editing they are good to go in E-format.

I am no business man by any-means but the basic idea of any business as far as i know if give people what they want not what you think they want. Just my two cents.

You're going to have to read a few pages back. It is a misconception to assume these products already exist digitally. A book printed in 1980 by a defunct company is pretty damn unlikely to have even the art accessible anymore. To produce 2E or earlier materials that are more than crappy scans will take an ENORMOUS amount of work. Trust me, I've been in the printing/graphic design business for 20 years.