Raven Crowking
First Post
This be good fightin' words!
The one thing we agree on is that we must fight!
Arrrrr!
Is it "Talk Like a Pirate Day" again already?
RC
Do we want one dominant game, and why?
- Thread starter Starfox
- Start date
Is it "Talk Like a Pirate Day" again already?
RC
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
Simply reply.
No...
No...
A
amerigoV
Guest
Your fine. Its the native speakers that do not understand the language.
I voted yes for the poll. I agree with the points raised by Umbran earlier.
I think that a dominant game is useful as an entry point for new players. It is also useful as a reference point for people to discuss other rpgs. I also believe that it is desirable to have a shared play experience. It is fun to talk to people about how your group got through a particular adventure and the like.
Also, many find it desirable to have a game with a lot of support/supplements, and a dominant game is capable of having this kind of support network, while a large number of less dominant games might all end up with relatively little support.
I think that a dominant game is useful as an entry point for new players. It is also useful as a reference point for people to discuss other rpgs. I also believe that it is desirable to have a shared play experience. It is fun to talk to people about how your group got through a particular adventure and the like.
Also, many find it desirable to have a game with a lot of support/supplements, and a dominant game is capable of having this kind of support network, while a large number of less dominant games might all end up with relatively little support.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
And yet strangely it seems its the number two company (Paizo) that offers the most support products and the widest range of such over the 'dominant' one who only supplies endless books (a very narrow range of support).
GP
nedjer
Adventurer
Brand slavery
Who wants great support like Microsoft offers when they can spend twice as much on a Mac with the same chip. That example's not going to fly is it . . . but, generally, big brands are gravitational.
Long story short:
Microsoft benefited from IBM's having come (late) to the PC market with
(A) the value of its brand name and
(B) a box of mostly off-the-shelf components and a proprietary but quickly emulated BIOS.
Phoenix BIOS and others allowed competitors to make machines that could beat IBM on price, performance, even "IBM compatibility" (which the PCjr notably lacked). IBM itself shifted to other aspects of the business. It could make money selling licenses to features that it had actually patented, which made encouraging "clones" more profitable than competing.
Thus, an "industry standard" architecture emerged. Microsoft had been providing custom versions of its DOS to different hardware OEMs, not just IBM-DOS. With that installed base, it built up an advantage over rival operating systems for the same platforms.
Commodore, Apple, Atari and Sinclair (and others) meanwhile, were focused on their integrated packages of custom chips and other hardware with proprietary OS. Through the 1980s, their lead in capabilities gradually lost ground to the "IBM-compatibles". Even Microsoft's own MSX initiative -- mustering an alliance of Japanese firms -- failed to seize sustainable market share.
Eventually, there was just not enough money to make on software for the less common platforms versus turning out more for the "ISA" and MS-DOS (later Windows). More programs -- especially more new games, perhaps ironic considering IBM's and Microsoft's initial positions on graphics, sound and so on -- helped sell more machines.
It is a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps going around today.
Note that it was basically IBM's loss that was the big win for the platform's dominance. Along with Commodore's savage price war, it helped make the hardware box a "commodity" product -- except for Apple, which was left with the smaller market for fine "fit and finish".
WotC may have come to be worried that the "D20 System" SRD and licenses would do much the same to it and the value of its "D&D" brand. Its current setup does not appear to encourage much jumping aboard by other parties. The level of "dominance" d20 System achieved in the past decade might not be repeated by D&D in the next, because (perhaps) that would be more in the interests of other companies but less in WotC's.
Microsoft benefited from IBM's having come (late) to the PC market with
(A) the value of its brand name and
(B) a box of mostly off-the-shelf components and a proprietary but quickly emulated BIOS.
Phoenix BIOS and others allowed competitors to make machines that could beat IBM on price, performance, even "IBM compatibility" (which the PCjr notably lacked). IBM itself shifted to other aspects of the business. It could make money selling licenses to features that it had actually patented, which made encouraging "clones" more profitable than competing.
Thus, an "industry standard" architecture emerged. Microsoft had been providing custom versions of its DOS to different hardware OEMs, not just IBM-DOS. With that installed base, it built up an advantage over rival operating systems for the same platforms.
Commodore, Apple, Atari and Sinclair (and others) meanwhile, were focused on their integrated packages of custom chips and other hardware with proprietary OS. Through the 1980s, their lead in capabilities gradually lost ground to the "IBM-compatibles". Even Microsoft's own MSX initiative -- mustering an alliance of Japanese firms -- failed to seize sustainable market share.
Eventually, there was just not enough money to make on software for the less common platforms versus turning out more for the "ISA" and MS-DOS (later Windows). More programs -- especially more new games, perhaps ironic considering IBM's and Microsoft's initial positions on graphics, sound and so on -- helped sell more machines.
It is a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps going around today.
Note that it was basically IBM's loss that was the big win for the platform's dominance. Along with Commodore's savage price war, it helped make the hardware box a "commodity" product -- except for Apple, which was left with the smaller market for fine "fit and finish".
WotC may have come to be worried that the "D20 System" SRD and licenses would do much the same to it and the value of its "D&D" brand. Its current setup does not appear to encourage much jumping aboard by other parties. The level of "dominance" d20 System achieved in the past decade might not be repeated by D&D in the next, because (perhaps) that would be more in the interests of other companies but less in WotC's.
Hussar
Legend
Umm, what? DDI, D&D Essentials, D&D Expeditions, RGPA, and in the past, support for gaming clubs - you could get cash and merchandise from WOTC for starting up a D&D club in your area. I'm sure that there are a whole host of other things.
That's a far cry from a company that "only supplies endless books".
You can complain about WOTC for a lot of things, but not supplying support? Really? There's about five years worth of free cartography on their website. There's about two dozen free, professional quality modules on their website. Every single book comes with web enhanced material. Every single book in 4e is now errata'd on a regular basis.
What more support do you want?
RPGA is (or was, a year or so ago) pretty visible support at my town's FLGS, and there's more going on with games in member DMs' homes.
DDI seems pretty significant, too. It looks as if WotC's restricting of Character Builder and so on to its own content has value enough to dissuade some potential "third parties". That depends, of course, on the perceived value among 4e consumers.
Ditto the rest of what Hussar pointed out, if accurate (which you can check for yourself).
Paizo appears to have built itself on providing "support products" for WotC's 3e -- with I don't know how many years of back stock before the 4e PHB appeared. To the very extent that Pathfinder is compatible with that, it's sure a leg up.
So, Paizo is just doing what it's been doing on that front -- and mostly taking a ride on work that WotC has already done when it comes to this venture into publishing a rules set.
WotC, on the other hand, has never in my view been great at the adventure scenario business. In recruitment, organization, corporate culture, or whatever, they have not really hit that mark the way they did the game-system deal.
DDI seems pretty significant, too. It looks as if WotC's restricting of Character Builder and so on to its own content has value enough to dissuade some potential "third parties". That depends, of course, on the perceived value among 4e consumers.
Ditto the rest of what Hussar pointed out, if accurate (which you can check for yourself).
Paizo appears to have built itself on providing "support products" for WotC's 3e -- with I don't know how many years of back stock before the 4e PHB appeared. To the very extent that Pathfinder is compatible with that, it's sure a leg up.
So, Paizo is just doing what it's been doing on that front -- and mostly taking a ride on work that WotC has already done when it comes to this venture into publishing a rules set.
WotC, on the other hand, has never in my view been great at the adventure scenario business. In recruitment, organization, corporate culture, or whatever, they have not really hit that mark the way they did the game-system deal.
Similar Threads
