Kalontas
First Post
No, it only means the pre-orders are irrelevant as an argument towards the summarised success in the end - as 3E didn't have an equal competitor.
D&D 5E Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition OGL?
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
No, it only means the pre-orders are irrelevant as an argument towards the summarised success in the end - as 3E didn't have an equal competitor.
Huh? It means that fans want to buy the game no matter if it is OGL or not (4e was not an OGL game). Now, of course, as you say, fans will stay with the game only if it is good enough, especially if there is some competitor around.
But this is a different matter. To put it another way: it does not mean that if 5e is OGL, that 5e will be a good game.
Last edited:
It does not ignore any factor. My point was not that pre-orders are important for financial success. My point was that the OGL is not an important thing for financial success as fans do not think it makes the product more valuable for them, since they are equally willing to buy the product if they know that the product is not under OGL. Simply put, the fans do not care whether the product is under OGL or not.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
I'm not going to argue how they launched 4E. But if there was no major competitor to the new edition your choices would be 1) switch; 2) continue playing an unsupported game; or 3) quit. IME most gamers have a big problem with option #3 and the majority dislike playing an unsupported game enough to have probably made the switch. There would, of course, have been those who did choose options 2 or 3, but not as many that continued playing a supported version of 3E because of the OGL.
That's what I'm trying to say. WotC put a check on its own power. Ask most companies if that's good for business and my guess is that you'd get a big NO. Is the power check good for gamers? It seems to be so far, but time will tell.
KidSnide
Adventurer
The third party licensing structure for 5e is an interesting question, but it is closely connected to whether third parties will have access to DDI.
So long as 5e maintains the principal of "all the rules you need are on the character sheet", it will be very difficult for third parties to create player supplements without the ability to add their classes, races, powers and items to DDI. Similarly, whether the success of the VTT is tied (both ways, I think) to whether third parties can publish maps and monsters in a way that DMs don't have to upload everything by hand.
I don't know if there would be enough third party material to justify WotC building an "app store" revenue stream from DDI, but I think that should be the goal of WotC's third party program. The objective should be to give third parties the freedom to explore niches in the game that WotC can't address, providing the third parties with the motivation to evangelize the game, and establishing an infrastructure to allow third parties to take advantage of WotC's dominant on-line tools in return for letting WotC capture part of the third party revenue stream.
Yes, third parties also need access to a fair and reasonable licensing regime, but that's only part of the solution.
-KS
So long as 5e maintains the principal of "all the rules you need are on the character sheet", it will be very difficult for third parties to create player supplements without the ability to add their classes, races, powers and items to DDI. Similarly, whether the success of the VTT is tied (both ways, I think) to whether third parties can publish maps and monsters in a way that DMs don't have to upload everything by hand.
I don't know if there would be enough third party material to justify WotC building an "app store" revenue stream from DDI, but I think that should be the goal of WotC's third party program. The objective should be to give third parties the freedom to explore niches in the game that WotC can't address, providing the third parties with the motivation to evangelize the game, and establishing an infrastructure to allow third parties to take advantage of WotC's dominant on-line tools in return for letting WotC capture part of the third party revenue stream.
Yes, third parties also need access to a fair and reasonable licensing regime, but that's only part of the solution.
-KS
Glade Riven
Adventurer
Third Party support isn't needed at launch - it is needed to keep sales going even longer. Opening something up makes lawyers and excutives nervous, because it means giving up a certain amount of control.
For those who may argue that they cannot make money off of free, isn't the Eberron MMO free to play, and has made more money for WotC after they took on the free-to-play model? Arguably, this is equivolent to having a free SRD along side your books.
For those who may argue that they cannot make money off of free, isn't the Eberron MMO free to play, and has made more money for WotC after they took on the free-to-play model? Arguably, this is equivolent to having a free SRD along side your books.
Kalontas
First Post
If pre-orders are a measure of anything, they're a measure of success of the previous edition of a game. Because people haven't seen the new edition yet, they don't know whether it's good or bad - but if the previous edition was successfull, they will buy the next edition, in hopes of continued quality.
And that's what happened with 4E. Guess what did not happen - it did not hold the market share. A very prominent reason for that was GSL - undeniable fall of the number of 3PP materials meant far less material, meant far less players holding on to the game. Also, the GSL directly caused Pathfinder - as repeated numerous times in this thread, Paizo was ready to work for 4E, but GSL shut them so much, they profited more from their own retro clone. And how!
Also, I do not argue anything about 5E, as I have no information about it. I know literally nothing, including whether it's something more than a nagging feeling of need of change in minds of developers of D&D. As such, I can't say if it will be good with an OGL - but it certainly will start falling into further decline without it.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I think that is one of the more important points made in this entire thread. Wish I brought it up myself.
Henry
Autoexreginated
What would 5E rules released under the OGL bring to WotC? In my opinion:
1)Good Will from the Gamer-proselytizers. Those folks who used the OGL to create and publish whatever variant of 5E suited their creative little fancies, allowed them to create the adventure content to share that they wanted, and in general work out issues they have with the game system with no repercussions. With the GSL, there was a feeling of "we don't want you anymore" to the community of tinkerers, who, in my perception of it, where usually those same grass-roots proselytizers.
2) Feeding game design innovations back into 5E. People forget that many of 4E's innovations can be traced to Mearls, and Mearls was an OGL Master before he was a WotC Developer. Who knows who the next Mearls is waiting to be tapped for a future D&D?
Everyone who dislikes the OGL can feel free to tell me how wrong I am and how unnecessary it is.
1)Good Will from the Gamer-proselytizers. Those folks who used the OGL to create and publish whatever variant of 5E suited their creative little fancies, allowed them to create the adventure content to share that they wanted, and in general work out issues they have with the game system with no repercussions. With the GSL, there was a feeling of "we don't want you anymore" to the community of tinkerers, who, in my perception of it, where usually those same grass-roots proselytizers.
2) Feeding game design innovations back into 5E. People forget that many of 4E's innovations can be traced to Mearls, and Mearls was an OGL Master before he was a WotC Developer. Who knows who the next Mearls is waiting to be tapped for a future D&D?
Everyone who dislikes the OGL can feel free to tell me how wrong I am and how unnecessary it is.
What would 5E rules released under the OGL bring to WotC? In my opinion:
1)Good Will from the Gamer-proselytizers. Those folks who used the OGL to create and publish whatever variant of 5E suited their creative little fancies, allowed them to create the adventure content to share that they wanted, and in general work out issues they have with the game system with no repercussions. With the GSL, there was a feeling of "we don't want you anymore" to the community of tinkerers, who, in my perception of it, where usually those same grass-roots proselytizers.
2) Feeding game design innovations back into 5E. People forget that many of 4E's innovations can be traced to Mearls, and Mearls was an OGL Master before he was a WotC Developer. Who knows who the next Mearls is waiting to be tapped for a future D&D?
Everyone who dislikes the OGL can feel free to tell me how wrong I am and how unnecessary it is.
If i was a wizard Exec my question how does this make money for Wizards?
TSR never had an OGL and as far as I know never had a problem recruiting talent. So I would not be convinced by 2.
If the gamer proselytizers are folk that publish games that use WoTC work to produce stuff that does not require anyone to buy WoTC stuff to play their games benifit WOTC.
Now I know many of the arguments that have been trotted out to show the value of the OGL to WoTC but that argument has been lost at senior management level at Wizards. If 5e is to be OGL something really convincing needs to be demonstrated to Wizards maangement otherwise it is not really a flyer.
Last edited:
Ahnehnois
First Post
Money saved is money earned. There is an asset here-the passion of the fans. Give them access to the rules and the opportunity to produce game material, and they will take it and run with it, effectively creating promotional material and doing your advertising for free. Even to this day, I think a lot more money is spent promoting 4e than PF, but look at the business success Paizo is having.
If I were talking to a WotC person, my case would be: this model demonstrably works, so copy it.
Halivar
First Post
This has meaning beyond what you intended, I think, and not in ways that would make WotC amenable to going back to OGL.
This is true. But it is not true that 3.xe was a success because it was under the OGL. After all, as many people suggest, Wotc did not support the OGL beyond the core books and arcana unearthed.
No. This is your suggestion but it does not follow from any facts that it might also be true. After all, many 4e fans complain of rules and product bloat and if it were not for the DDI utilities they would have had a very difficult time to follow new products. Some third party publishers tried to publish for 4e but they stopped since their sales were very low. They believe that 4e fans did not want third party material because it were not compatible with the DDI online tools.
Maybe, maybe not. As noted above, a number of publishers tried to support 4e with the GSL but they did not have any luck in the market. OTOH, the OSR is experiencing significant growth. The OSR would never support 4e, even if it were OGL, yet it is doing better than 4e third party publishers.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I meant it. There isn't really any danger that fans will make a product will directly compete with a WotC product, and there isn't really any danger of saturating the market. If those things were the case, an OGL might be a much worse business decision.
An example of "taking it and running with it" would be Wayfinder, a periodical of fan-produced PF material which Paizo offers through their site. I think that's good for business. By the same token, fan fiction is generally good for the property it's attached to, not bad (although the fiction itself may not be so good).
I believe that 3rd party support and fan created material create a synergistic effect with D&D, rather than subtracting from D&D's pie.
Synergy: the sums are greater than the whole...
Plus, the genie is out of the bottle. OGL and 3rd party stuff exists and has an impact on even D&D. When Necromancer, for example, was excited to bring "1st Edition Feel" to 4E, I was willing to go along, even though at that point I already didn't like what I was seeing. When Necromancer bowed out of 4E, so did I.
I hardly doubt I am the only one who was a fence sitter, waiting on the companies I did trust and like to determine whether 4E would get my money.
Halivar
First Post
Except Paizo did exactly that, using the OGL.
Ahnehnois
First Post
But not while WotC was still using the OGL. So I'm telling the execs "when we closed our license, we lot market share, so open it up again".
The fan-made projects and 3rd party products that existed while 3.X was being supported were not competitive with WotC in the way that PF now is.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I'd imagine if there was a 5E OGL D&D it would garner enough attention that Paizo would also make 5E OGL D&D products, if not convert over entirely. All 3PP would go where the money is and, in doing so, drive more money in that direction. WotC could roll back the changes they made that were made primarily for recapturing IP, like the naming conventions they tacked on, but also keep the better innovations that came with 4E. There'd need to be some smoothing of ruffled feathers, I'd imagine, but if D&D walked back some of their missteps of the past four years I think folks were prefer a united community.
Continuing the pretense: Note the Wizards exec does not believe the Ryan Dancy arguments, he vetoed the OGL for 4e. "So what is this demonstrably works?"
Also much of the third party stuff produced during the 3.x era that rose to some prominence were games that used the D20 mechanics but came with their own players handbook and stood alone from WoTC product. So how does this stuff promote WoTC material?
There were other words i wanted to put in the mouth of this imaginary exec but my train of though was derailed by hte folks at home.
On a more personal note, in my opinion Paizo's success is due to Dragon and Dungeon. They made a name from themselves there and started a business in producing periodic material of such quality to successfully generate a stable subscription revenue.
They might have managed the latter without the former but their rise would have been alot slower. They might also have managed it without the OGL but I really doubt it.
Similar Threads
