Essentials opening door to 3rd Party Support?

[GMSkarka]

Interesting thought -- Everything I've seen from the Essentials leads me to think that it's emphasizing tabletop play (the inclusion of maps and counters in the Red Box, DM's Kit, etc.), and away from the DDI tools.

Does this emphasis open the door again for 3rd Party support products (which, essentially had been largely cut out by lack of inclusion in DDI)?

Could we see more 3pp adventures/settings?

 

[AllisterH]

Interesting thought -- Everything I've seen from the Essentials leads me to think that it's emphasizing tabletop play (the inclusion of maps and counters in the Red Box, DM's Kit, etc.), and away from the DDI tools.

Does this emphasis open the door again for 3rd Party support products (which, essentially had been largely cut out by lack of inclusion in DDI)?

Could we see more 3pp adventures/settings?

I'm not sure how this follows...

As you mention, Essentials has elements that cant be duplicated by DDI so if the 3PP want in on that, sure...but those 3PP companies are ALREADY doing that for 4e.

If you mean, does essentials mean that a 3PP book of feats will appear. Not likely as things like that are still competing with the WOTC-produced Essential "crunch" that is supported by DDI.

 

[Klaus]

I think a 3pp is better served by doing:

1) Adventures - No matter how many adventures Dungeon puts out, it won't be enough.

2) Settings - Focusing more on story than crunch, offering maybe new backgrounds or rituals (mostly stuff that won't impact on the Character Builder). But maps, NPCs, adventure hooks, etc can be done. Scope could range from single location (like Hammerfast and Vor Krugoth) to regional (like the Nentir Vale) all they way up to continental and above.

3) Play props: we're seeing a lot of this already, from Fiery Dragon, Alea, Dapper Devil, Gale Force 9 and more.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a 3pp is better served by doing:

1) Adventures - No matter how many adventures Dungeon puts out, it won't be enough.

2) Settings - Focusing more on story than crunch, offering maybe new backgrounds or rituals (mostly stuff that won't impact on the Character Builder). But maps, NPCs, adventure hooks, etc can be done. Scope could range from single location (like Hammerfast and Vor Krugoth) to regional (like the Nentir Vale) all they way up to continental and above.

3) Play props: we're seeing a lot of this already, from Fiery Dragon, Alea, Dapper Devil, Gale Force 9 and more.

Well, maybe a 3pp is best off making adventures, but it is still a bit of a fringe business. I mean I suspect if there was a huge demand for many adventures then WotC would be pumping them out, wouldn't they? I've always understood they are mostly pretty marginally worth doing.

3pps CAN do settings, but of course Essentials hasn't changed the equation there. Seems to me the best bet is to something like Amethyst where you present a niche setting along with a fairly extensive set of content to go along with it. Even then you're dealing with no DDI support, etc. It has to be pretty appealing to make any real sales.

Props are props. Few of them are 4e specific and there is a metric ton of stuff out there already to compete with. Again including the official 4e stuff. If you're Warhammer and have your own fan base it is one thing. Making tile sets and other game aides or figures etc is another pretty small revenue.

I mean there is room for a couple people out there like KQ and Wofgang Bauer's sponsored stuff and Blackdirge manages to sell a decent amount I assume, but how many more people can really make money? Unless you're 1 of 3-4 companies you really aren't going to make much.

HAVING a ton of adventures? That would be great. Having a ton of settings? Great. It is all great for the players, the more stuff the better. 2010 doesn't seem like a great year for getting into putting ink on paper though. PDF sales are cheap enough you might make a little, but really how many copies of WotBS or other online adventures and story arcs or settings really get sold?

 

[darjr]

One thing I hope it does is signal that character classes do not need to follow any current WotC model to be accepted by players. The power model seemed like a burden for new class creators, now it could probably be dropped.

 

[Zaran]

One thing I hope it does is signal that character classes do not need to follow any current WotC model to be accepted by players. The power model seemed like a burden for new class creators, now it could probably be dropped.

What's funny is that alot of players got used to the classes all working the same way. And because the game was originally made that way they are now having to rewrite some of the older material to try to head off broken builds. Hopefully that line won't be crossed too often. I don't think anyone wants to see Twin Strike being an auto-hit power.

But I do think that now that line has been crossed that people will be able to look at third party products without trying to fit it into the not as rigid class structures.

 

[Shroomy]

One thing I hope it does is signal that character classes do not need to follow any current WotC model to be accepted by players. The power model seemed like a burden for new class creators, now it could probably be dropped.

Essentials hasn't dropped the 4e power model, its just tweaked its application. I also seriously doubt it will have this effect since no such materials will be included in the Character Builder, which IMO, is the single biggest obstacle to getting players to accept 3pp player-centric materials.

I also don't follow the OP's original point. DDI tools are currently geared towards supplementing table-top play, and WotC's move away from its traditional formats to content that can't be or isn't duplicated in the DDI tools leads me to believe that enough of the player base has transitioned to the subscription service that the previous model is no longer feasible. Now WotC is producing books with a bit more fluff at a cheaper price point, box sets that contains tiles, maps, and tokens, etc. I don't see how this trend will lead to the development of more 3PP settings or adventures; map packs and tokens, maybe, but not rules, settings, or adventures.

 

[ggroy]

Wonder if the DDI has reached its market saturation, where it is no longer growing significantly (in revenue), but is nevertheless a reliable steady source of monthly revenue for WotC.

 

[TerraDave]

I don't really know/understand how essentials slots in under the gsl. Honestly, some time has passed, and I don't really understand the (4E) gsl.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

If Essentials is slotted under the GSL, I imagine we could produce some "patch" for those people wishing to implement it for Amethyst. I don't think we would embrace it whole cloth, only because Amethyst promotes more role-playing and I can do more with the base 4E than with Essentials (at least for the moment).