D&D 5E (2014) Hope for an open GSL?

[BryonD]

Umm, no? The creation of 3.5 was in the works from the second 3e released. However, the original idea that it would replace 3.0 some 5 years after 3e released, when sales started to stagnate. A perfectly reasonable business model with a proven track record.

So, if sales of 3.0 were so fantastic, why was 3.5 released 2 years early? Why spend all the money releasing a new edition if sales were still booming?

As I said, because of a combination of tons of valid suggestions on improvements and an (probably unexpectedly so) huge fan base to re-tap.

The only reason to pump out a new edition is flagging sales. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. It's far too costly and risky an undertaking to do if you are still selling well.

In hindsight I think they would agree with you. But that does not remotely mean they thought that way then.

Essentials, OTOH, because it wasn't a new edition, takes a somewhat different tack. Essentials was meant as an alternative path into D&D from core. Core is for people like you and me who know what gaming is and can take a 1000 page rule book and play. Essentials was never targeted at us. It was targeted at a new, newbie demographic. Which, right from the outset of 4e, was always a goal for WOTC. 4e's primary focus was always to try to draw in new players.

I agree completely here. 4E's focus was an attempt to draw in a large number of new players. Essentials was a effectively a mulligan.

3.5 was directly targetted at existing 3.0 players. It was, in no way, targetted at new gamers. It was a replacement, plain and simple. So, what I don't understand is how you can think that sales of 3e were so fantastic, when 3.5 releases two years early?

As I said, they had a huge fan base ready to be milked and plenty of valid feedback on the system which could be used as a justification. It was exactly the fantastic sales that made them change their mind and strike while the iron was hot.


(It is amusing to note that you spent the last couples years vehemently insisting that no amount of market information could allow us to do more than blindly and baselessly guess as to 4E's sales performance, but now you are completely comfortable making a single assumption and the extrapolating from that the success of 3E way back in 2003. Nevermind that people much more in the know were calling that time period the "second golden age" of gaming.)



Keep in mind, I'm not trying to make this black and white the way you are.

While I am unquestionably a fan of the 3.5 ruleset itself, there is plenty of room to be critical of the roll out. And while I'm no fan of 4E/Essentials, the reasoning there seems understandable. It is absurb to call either 3.5 or Essentials a "new edition". If you want to start cherry-picking justifications you can make arguments that look reasonable on the surface for either claim. And neither of those arguments stand up to an impartial and thoughtful consideration.

 

[BryonD]

I believe Ryan Dancey came out and said that 3.5 was released early not because sales of 3.0 were bad, but they weren't at the level that Hasbro wanted. So, sales may have been great for 3.0; they just weren't what Hasbro considered successful.

I can potentially find that believable. But it comes back to the point that the prospective fan base of ANY RPG is only going to be a select niche of the population.

The 3E Boom (or glut depending ow where you stand) is still just within the gamer marketplace. On the scale of Hasbro anything RPGs will ever do will be in a very small teacup.

 

[Hussar]

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to make this black and white the way you are.

Hang on a tick here. I'm not saying that I'm right. I've repeatedly stated that here and other places that I'm raising issues, not preaching gospel. You call 3.5 the "second golden age". Ok. Let's try this:

How much money did WOTC make in 2002? 2005? 2010? Were profits up or down in those years? That's a pretty apples to apples comparison, as all three are two years after release. But, no one in this thread has any idea of the answer. Yet, we're supposed to believe that 2000 was a second golden age?

See, 4e could be the most profitable version of D&D to date and still be considered a failure and 5e would still be coming, simply because the targets were different.

But, let's take a look at a few other points.

I recall reading here that the TTRPG industry is worth about 30 million dollars per year ((although, to be fair that might be my faulty memory and my Google Fu is failing me- that number could be way off - could someone find the correct estimate?)) Now, with that caveat, compare that number to the current DDI. 65k members*7 bucks a month=5.5 million dollars per year.

That means the DDI is now currently worth 18% of the TOTAL RPG hobby industry. Now, from Hasbro's POV, that's still a failure, because the total RPG hobby industry is simply too small to generate the profits that they are looking for, but, good grief, how could that not be considered a MASSIVE success by any other metric.

Would going OGL have helped those numbers? I'm not convinced. I think that going OGL would have hurt those numbers.

BryonD- you claim that I'm making this a black and white issue. It's anything but AFAIC. My problem is that OGL claims are not backed up by anything remotely resembling facts. At best it's hearsay and circumstance. Did the OGL drive 3e sales or were there other factors? Did the OGL have anything to do with the length of editions?

Heck, at a very basic point, what is the total value of the OGL market? Did the OGL succeed in driving WOTC sales?

On and on and on. There are a million questions here that need to be answered before being able to definitively say that the OGL is good for the hobby. Is it good for me personally? Oh hell yeah. I love the options. I thought it was great.

OTOH, BryonD, you talk about all the "split" in the fanbase. How many OGL buyers stopped buying WOTC material? I know I did. I bought very, very little from WOTC, but, I bought a heck of a lot from OGL. How many gamers are like me?

I'm simply not comfortable making bold claims as to the effectiveness of the OGL because of the huge gaps in our knowledge.

I mean, even going form 3.0 to 3.5, if flagging sales wasn't the reason, then why did we get a new edition? For the good of gamers? Gimme a break. That kind of thinking gets you bankrupted pretty quickly. Businesses are in the business to make money.

They're having fantastic sales in leading into 2002, so, they drive a massive spike into those sales by announcing a new edition? Really? Considering that 3.5 sold considerably less than 3.0 (and 4e for that matter), that would have been a really, really bad idea.

 

[Mark CMG]

Hang on a tick here. I'm not saying that I'm right.

What do your local gamestore owners say about the last decade or so?

 

[innerdude]

I recall reading here that the TTRPG industry is worth about 30 million dollars per year....

This, more than anything, is an interesting question that could shed a lot of light on our hobby: what really is the total annual market cap, both in the U.S. / North America and worldwide?

I did a very (very) rough estimate in another thread several months back--we know, for example, for a certainty that the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook is now on its fifth printing.

I've seen a number of reliable sources in the printing industry state that for a book of the PFRPG's size and material, a typical print run is somewhere between 50,000 to 75,000 copies.

Even if we take the absolute high end for that number, that means there are still currently only approximately 350,000 to 400,000 total copies of the PFRPG core in print.

I don't have any idea how Paizo's distribution deal with wholesalers works, but in order to maintain profit all the way down to the local FLGS, I'm assuming that the margin on those $49.99 price tags has to be reasonably high. If you estimate that Paizo's wholesale price to distributors is around $20, (a not unrealistic number, considering Amazon sells the book for $31.49) that means at the approximate maximum, Paizo has made $7.5 million in sales on the PFRPG core book since its release in August 2009--approximately 2.5 years ago. Annualized, that means Paizo saw approximately $3 million in 2011 from the sales of core rules. The real trick would be to extrapolate numbers from other products and product lines, something that we simply can't calculate. We can, for the most part, track which printing a rulebook is on--for example, is the Bestiary on its third printing now? But even that's a lot of guesswork, not science.

But the real point to think about--the second-best, possibly first-best selling RPG title of the past 3 years barely made its parent company $3 million last year.

If, as Hussar suggests, DDI represents approximately $5 million in annual revenue, that's a huge number--relative to what it's going up against, but that's a drop in the puddle for most corporations of any real size.

Based on those two numbers from Paizo and Wizards, though, I'm willing to bet the market cap is higher than $30 million. In fact, I'm sure that combined, WotC and Paizo's total revenue on their RPG lines is upwards of that number ($40 million+). For example, we know for a fact that to be considered a "core" brand, D&D has to hit the $50 million threshold for Hasbro (though since the Hasbro purchase of WotC, D&D hasn't ever reached it).

Throw in Fantasy Flight, Green Ronin, Goodman, Mongoose, Steve Jackson, Cubicle 7, Pinnacle, and White Wolf, and it's not a stretch to expect that total market cap number to keep creeping upwards. If all eight of those companies averaged ~$5 million across all product lines, that puts the total value somewhere around $80 million. Throw in another ~$5 million for everyone else--OSR, indy press, etc.--and you're at $85 million. Throw in the U.K. and European mainland markets, that number might go as high as $100 or $110 million.

But to give some perspective--a typical, modest, run-of-the-mill hospital in a rural area in the American South has an annual operating budget of $90-$120 million (I used to know a CEO of a hospital in Tennessee). That means to cover expenses, the hospital has to do AT LEAST that amount of revenue to remain viable.

In other words, a single, average-sized hospital in a low-density population area in the U.S. brings in as much or more revenue (not necessarily profits, but revenue) in a typical year as the ENTIRE RPG INDUSTRY.

Now that's sobering.

 

[BryonD]

You call 3.5 the "second golden age".

Actually, I'm quoting others, but ok.

How much money did WOTC make in 2002? 2005? 2010? Were profits up or down in those years? That's a pretty apples to apples comparison, as all three are two years after release. But, no one in this thread has any idea of the answer. Yet, we're supposed to believe that 2000 was a second golden age?

"Golden Age" isn't tied to "after tax profits of the publisher".

See, 4e could be the most profitable version of D&D to date and still be considered a failure and 5e would still be coming, simply because the targets were different.

Agreed

But, let's take a look at a few other points.

I recall reading here that the TTRPG industry is worth about 30 million dollars per year ((although, to be fair that might be my faulty memory and my Google Fu is failing me- that number could be way off - could someone find the correct estimate?)) Now, with that caveat, compare that number to the current DDI. 65k members*7 bucks a month=5.5 million dollars per year.

That means the DDI is now currently worth 18% of the TOTAL RPG hobby industry. Now, from Hasbro's POV, that's still a failure, because the total RPG hobby industry is simply too small to generate the profits that they are looking for, but, good grief, how could that not be considered a MASSIVE success by any other metric.

Again, that is a hell of a lot of taking crap for granted from a guy who spent the last several years saying we knew "nothing" and could only make wild guesses. It is amusing to see the shoe on the other foot.

But that misses the point anyway. I have repeatedly stated that I do believe the DDI is a brilliant marketing approach. (I've also pointed out that Paizo has a not completely unrelated subscription model that is a key part of their own success)

But you and I specifically had at least one conversation in which I point out that WotC may very well have been making as much raw cash on 4E as they were on 3E because, (completely in theory and ballparking here) they could be making so much more per fan that it makes up for the loss of fan base. You made some point that then they shouldn't care because they still making the money. I pointed out that if you are making more money per person then it just makes losing fans that much more of a shame. I said multiple times, if they are doing ok with a DDI supported 4E, just imagine how much cash they could rake in with a DDI supported game that was highly popular.

And that is the point you have changed topics on here. DDI made a lot of money for WoTC. I have never before, nor now challenged that idea.

4E had a lot less fans than 3E.
3E was selling a lot of copies to a lot of people in 2002.
In 2002 WotC decided to ramp up 3.5 (earlier than Plan A) so it would be on shelves in 2003. I don't know why, but I strongly suspect it was because they wanted to use the combination of feedback as an excuse and popularity as fertile field to re-sell a whole lot of books.

You claimed it was a "new edition" and then went further and claimed that this was clear evidence that 3E was selling poorly. I am saying I don't think those are reasonable conclusions and I think they fly in the face of a lot of other data.

Would going OGL have helped those numbers? I'm not convinced. I think that going OGL would have hurt those numbers.

BryonD- you claim that I'm making this a black and white issue. It's anything but AFAIC. My problem is that OGL claims are not backed up by anything remotely resembling facts. At best it's hearsay and circumstance. Did the OGL drive 3e sales or were there other factors? Did the OGL have anything to do with the length of editions?

Heck, at a very basic point, what is the total value of the OGL market? Did the OGL succeed in driving WOTC sales?

I said nothing about the OGL being black and white. It certainly ties back to the key point. But I was responding back to a very specific claim from you about popularity.

OTOH, BryonD, you talk about all the "split" in the fanbase. How many OGL buyers stopped buying WOTC material? I know I did. I bought very, very little from WOTC, but, I bought a heck of a lot from OGL. How many gamers are like me?

Ok, so we now agree about the split?

Again, there is a fundamental difference here between a fan base split and a market share split. There may have well been a lot of 3E fans not buying WotC stuff because OGL publishers were making better stuff. But that says nothing about the merits of the 3E core system and a lot about the merits of WotCs products. If you want to say that WotC put out a decent stream of crap post 3.5 and were getting their butt kicked by their competition, I won't argue. I don't personally think it was that extreme, but I won't get worked up enough to argue if someone else does.

Paizo has demonstrated that the OGL isn't a barrier to huge success. But quality is key more than ever. All the OGL really does is lift a key element of the monopoly.

I'm simply not comfortable making bold claims as to the effectiveness of the OGL because of the huge gaps in our knowledge.

I mean, even going form 3.0 to 3.5, if flagging sales wasn't the reason, then why did we get a new edition? For the good of gamers? Gimme a break. That kind of thinking gets you bankrupted pretty quickly. Businesses are in the business to make money.

Agreed. And I have (now three times) answered that question. And not once did I claim WotC did it from kindness. (nor should they be expect to do so)

(Again, still amusing how comfortable you are making bold, and contrary to other data, claim about 3E sales.)

They're having fantastic sales in leading into 2002, so, they drive a massive spike into those sales by announcing a new edition? Really? Considering that 3.5 sold considerably less than 3.0 (and 4e for that matter), that would have been a really, really bad idea.

First, recall that 4E fans over and over trumpeted that 4E 1st print run > 3.5 > 3.0

That makes sense. The overall market base grew steadily throughout 3E.

First, I still find it laughable that you claim things like changing Wilderness Lore to Survival equate to a "new edition".

But beyond that, it seems clear now that 4E drove a spike in D&D sales. And yet it would be stupid to claim that WotC expected that. It was an unintended consequence. You can't look at a clearly unintended consequence and then try to say that was part of the design strategy.

Your presumption about 2002 sales is wrong. But either way talking about something that happened AFTER 3.5 came out doesn't tell us how things were going a year BEFORE.

If anything we have a lot of clear statements from 3PP leaders about how 3.5 was a kick in the nuts to THEM because it caught them with a bunch of product that instantly lost the whole "new shiny" thing and became behind the times just for not saying "3.5" on the cover. Their response was to stop playing in harmony with WotC and start going more head to head with them.

So, if anything, that is evidence against you. WotC failed to develop a plan that took the strength and value of the OGL into account and it worked against them.

But again, look at what you are saying. 3E "lasted three years" because sales were bad, so they brought out 3.5, which "put a spike in sales". So it went from "bad" to "bad with a spike in it". And that lasted 5 years.

I think the OGL helped WotC until WotC started making mistakes and overrating their control of it. Yes, the way things played out the OGL hurt WotC. But that is because of poor choices WotC made. They COULD have used it to make themselves huge.

 

[Roland55]

I think we'll see a less stringent game license. I'm not sure if it will be as open as the OGL though.

How open is open enough? I doubt anyone knows.

Perhaps it's time for an experiment.

Somewhere between might be good.

 

[Nylanfs]

And once again no new info on licensing.

 

[mudbunny]

And once again no new info on licensing.

D&D Next is, by most guesses, about 17 months out. While it would be nice to expect them to have any sort of announced plans on licensing, it is somewhat unrealistic IMO.

If we see any sort of deal, I expect it to come out in about 12 months.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

It's interesting. As good as the licensing was for 3rd edition, it was part of the cocktail that created Paizo and Pathfinder (not the only factor, but one of them).

Given that they've clearly decided to shift their focus away from creating new players, and towards bringing back those that jumped ship, it would be a big surprise to me if they went with a very open license again.

I dunno, though. Anything's possible at this point.