D&D 5E Hope for an open GSL?

[JoeGKushner]

Ohh, I thought that you were discussing the state of DDI right now. If I would have known that the discussion was on how WotC screwed up 4 years ago, well, I would never have gotten involved.

History is history, and continually dragging it out to prove or disprove some nebulous point is of no interest to me.

I was discussing it in the context of the OGL being the single thing that has lead to WoTC being perceived by some as not being with it. My apologies to you as I thought I made that clear in the initial post where I was bullet pointing some of the issues WoTC may have had that helped pushed the OGL and Paizo as a counter point to those who were unimpressed with WoTC handling of several things.

 

[JoeGKushner]

How much profit is being turned is anyone's guess, but DDI has been very successful on a number of levels:

1. Engaging fans, e.g. the Legends and Lore blogging.
2. Capturing subscribers during a recession, i.e. lots of sticky customers who are used to logging in for ideas/ resources to use in their games. (Most are highly likely to at least try 5e subscription, as they're used to finding value in the fluff)
3. Preparing and testing the content delivery technology
4. Developing the site to a stage where they can react quickly and innovate without becoming locked into expensive projects, e.g. since starting on the 4e table it's become much cheaper to link a figure and a touch tablet at the tabletop to a PC's lifestream/ database entries, for that to go to a character visualization database, and then on to a 3D printer - allowing an evolving set of figures to match the PC's in-game evolution, e.g. scars or reaching a certain level.

The site might be even more successful if they stopped putting a big, graphics-heavy nag banner in the screen as it comes up.

On another field, let me try to clarify my rantings. I'm not saying that the DDI is in and of itself bad.

I'm saying that during the initial phase over to 4e, there were probably people lost to the magazines going online and the preceived treatment of Paizo and 3rd party support in general. Failure of WoTC to open the DDI to allow 3rd party support from even the most adamant supporters like Goodman Games may have helped push sales down for those that did support 4e until it was no longer vialbe for them to do so at which point their either did their own thing or went to supporting other OGL that was more friendly.

There may also have been loss with the whole online character thing and some of the other dubious market speak coming out of WoTC at that time but overall most people seem to be happy, if not very happy, with the package.

(Although I wonder what the churn/turnaround is on the DDI subscriber base.)

 

[nedjer]

On another field, let me try to clarify my rantings. I'm not saying that the DDI is in and of itself bad.

I'm saying that during the initial phase over to 4e, there were probably people lost to the magazines going online and the preceived treatment of Paizo and 3rd party support in general. Failure of WoTC to open the DDI to allow 3rd party support from even the most adamant supporters like Goodman Games may have helped push sales down for those that did support 4e until it was no longer vialbe for them to do so at which point their either did their own thing or went to supporting other OGL that was more friendly.

There may also have been loss with the whole online character thing and some of the other dubious market speak coming out of WoTC at that time but overall most people seem to be happy, if not very happy, with the package.

(Although I wonder what the churn/turnaround is on the DDI subscriber base.)

These kind of botches are fairly typical of large switches to e-commerce. New bunch of legal advisers specialising in technology law, (and warning loudly of piracy dangers and effects), meets new or revised marketing team, (desperate to show their worth), meets programmers, (looking to work with proprietary code they can then maintain). The voice of the games designers, (who know the real nature of their market), can then easily get lost amongst the smoking mirrors . . .

In WotC case they were possibly doubly-damned by the pace of technological progress, e.g. they've got people and interests locked into working with complex code when xml, Web 2.0 and AJAX comes along and makes most of what they're doing possible without the need to build from scratch.

It seems pretty likely there will be an OGL, as Pathfinder and others are at too much of an advantage with their own and third party support if WotC don't OGL. However, they won't want to do that much in advance or there could be queue of third party materials available alongside their own range of add-ons from day 1 of 5e. There's also the danger that they'll try to hobble the licence.

Always wondered why they didn't go for an add-ons licence from the off, e.g. do what you like when you're producing scenarios and settings but no you can't make a competing rules set.

 

[Scylla]

I'm hoping that WotC will post the final version of 5E under the OGL. By now they've had ample time and evidence to show that the OGL helped them when they used it, and the GSL hurt them.

If they post 5E under the OGL, it would (I think) go a long way to restoring goodwill towards them in the RPG community. It certainly would make me warm up to them, and 5E, a lot.

This.

The release of 4e, GSL-wise, was a debacle. Restoring a more open model and getting 3rd-party publishers the new rules, when promised, would generate much goodwill, IMHO.

 

[Hussar]

On another field, let me try to clarify my rantings. I'm not saying that the DDI is in and of itself bad.

I'm saying that during the initial phase over to 4e, there were probably people lost to the magazines going online and the preceived treatment of Paizo and 3rd party support in general. Failure of WoTC to open the DDI to allow 3rd party support from even the most adamant supporters like Goodman Games may have helped push sales down for those that did support 4e until it was no longer vialbe for them to do so at which point their either did their own thing or went to supporting other OGL that was more friendly.

There may also have been loss with the whole online character thing and some of the other dubious market speak coming out of WoTC at that time but overall most people seem to be happy, if not very happy, with the package.

(Although I wonder what the churn/turnaround is on the DDI subscriber base.)

So, let me get this straight. I push away a segment of my target market. I then turn around and GAIN 50% of the best numbers I have ever achieved in the previous market and that's still a failure.

Oh, right, because the magazines now come bundled with other products, there can be no comparisons made. Obviously not. Since, well, the comparison made shows that WOTC did in fact know what they were doing when they brought the magazine in house and made it digital.

But, since that's what the evidence says, we must never, ever allow that to be unchallenged because, after all, WOTC can never, ever succeed.

Look, my entire beef here is that the OGL evangelists are insisting that we accept without criticism the "truths" that they are putting out there. That any other interpretation of what happened must always be wrong and only the interpretation that says OGL is the greatest thing evah is the way of the truth.

Take the idea that OGL made 3e popular. Hrm. Let's go back in history a bit shall we? 3e was the first D&D release in over ten years and probably one of the biggest RPG releases of any game in several years as well. Vampire was dying, there had been no major new games for years and TSR had died. Along comes 3e, riding an excellent marketing campaign, backed by some serious cash and people who were very passionate about the game.

Boom. Huge success.

Now, compare 4e. Third major D&D release in less than ten years, never minding several competing games releasing around the same time. A marketing campaign that was... heh... less than excellent to say the least.

Fizzle.

See, my question is, if the OGL market was driving 3e, why did it fail? Even the huge sales during the 3e bubble couldn't save 3e from 3.5. Sales fell for WOTC, even when the 3PP were doing the best business they would ever see. Two years after 3e releases, you get 3.5. If the OGL was so successful at driving sales, how do you explain this?

In my mind there are any number of equally valid explanations for the ups and downs of D&D. The problem is, the OGL evangelists refuse to accept any other possible interpretations.

Which brings me to my biggest concern. Those who are the most vocal about the OGL have a vested interest in seeing an OGL D&D. Their personal pocketbooks are the ones directly affected by this. The cynical part of me looks at the posters in this thread, many of whom make money writing OGL material and wonder just whose interests are being served here. Gamers or people who want to sell to gamers.

Now, I know I'm just going to get blown off yet again with another round of posrepping whoever "rebuts" my point. But, to the rest of you reading this, step back and think for a second. Just who benefits from an OGL?

 

[mudbunny]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - I agree with you. While I think that there will be some sort of OGL for D&D Next, I would be very surprised if it is as open as that for 3.X. I find it impossible to believe that WotC (let alone Hasbro) would allow a license which would allow their rules to be taken and used to create a directly competing product.

My guess is that there is a license that is somewhere between the OGL and the GSL in terms of liberty.

 

[Remus Lupin]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I'm not sure why the subtly of this argument escapes you. I haven't seen anyone arguing, at least not without some serious qualification, that the OGL was "responsible" for the success of 3rd Edition, or that the DDI was not successful on its own terms. Rather, the argument as I've been reading it is that 1) the OGL contributed to the success of 3rd edition in numerous ways, but wasn't certainly solely responsible for its success, and that 2) the success of the DDI does not in itself demonstrate an increase in readership for Dungeon & Dragon because the bundling undermines the ability to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the two.

It's possible to say that the DDI has been successful on its own terms for what it does what not acknowledging that it represents a successful continuation of the Dungeon and Dragon magazine lines (which several readers think have suffered under the transition -- I can't say because I don't subscribe, being one of the ones they lost)

It's also possible to say that 3rd edition was successful on its own terms for lots of reasons, while also saying that the OGL was a contributing factor to that, and could be a contributing factor to the success of a new edition, particularly as it will bring back many of us (like myself) who were enthusiastic about the OGL and would like to see it return.

It's not make or break of course. Just as the OGL was only one contributing factor to the success of 3rd edition, it would be only one contributing factor to the success of 5th edition. Much will depend on the strength of the rules, the quality of the products, the willingness of Pathfinder players to go back to D&D now that they've got a new game, the willingness of 4th edition players to switch over again to a new edition so soon after the release of 4th edition, etc.

What the OGL may do, in my estimation, is give many fans back something that I think they lost in the 4th edition transition -- a sense that once again this is their game, not a property that they're just borrowing from WOTC for a few hours a week.

 

[Yora]

See, my question is, if the OGL market was driving 3e, why did it fail? Even the huge sales during the 3e bubble couldn't save 3e from 3.5. Sales fell for WOTC, even when the 3PP were doing the best business they would ever see. Two years after 3e releases, you get 3.5. If the OGL was so successful at driving sales, how do you explain this?

Source please?

 

[IronWolf]

So, let me get this straight. I push away a segment of my target market. I then turn around and GAIN 50% of the best numbers I have ever achieved in the previous market and that's still a failure.

Oh, right, because the magazines now come bundled with other products, there can be no comparisons made. Obviously not. Since, well, the comparison made shows that WOTC did in fact know what they were doing when they brought the magazine in house and made it digital.

It certainly is an apples and oranges comparison though. Dragon and Dungeon seem to be a shadow of their former selves. Sure they are bundled and have some value, but I wonder how many people subscribe to DDI purely for Dragon and Dungeon access? We would need to know that for true apples to apples comparisons, otherwise, yes, I think the product sub numbers you are using are quite different than what the Dragon/Dungeon subscriptions numbers were back in the day.

People are subscribing to DDI for the character builder, rules compendium, etc with the extra perk of Dragon and Dungeon being included. At least that is how it looks from where I sit. Of course I have no proof of that, but when I hear DDI mentioned it always seems centered around the electronic tools (or people complaining about a lackluster Dragon/Dungeon).

But, since that's what the evidence says, we must never, ever allow that to be unchallenged because, after all, WOTC can never, ever succeed.

Look, my entire beef here is that the OGL evangelists are insisting that we accept without criticism the "truths" that they are putting out there. That any other interpretation of what happened must always be wrong and only the interpretation that says OGL is the greatest thing evah is the way of the truth.

Heck, I hope WotC succeeds with D&D Next, so I am not entirely against WotC in what they do. But they do need to step up their game if they want to stop resting on their laurels of simply being WotC the company that makes D&D.

None of us have concrete numbers to throw around. Your statements are not backed by concrete stats or inside data analysis. We are all here just stating what we think based on very subjective data. It is the nature of the topic we are debating.

Coupled with I know at least Joe has posted in this very thread that he agrees the lack of an OGL was not the only thing that made acceptance of 4e difficult for many. It is simply one factor. I totally agree with that as well. OGL is certainly one factor, but there were many other mis-steps WotC made along the way. It is just this is a thread about the OGL, so the conversation tends to focus on that.

In my mind there are any number of equally valid explanations for the ups and downs of D&D. The problem is, the OGL evangelists refuse to accept any other possible interpretations.

Yep. Several have been mentioned by these "OGL Evangelists" in this thread even.

 

[Mark CMG]

In my mind there are any number of equally valid explanations for the ups and downs of D&D. The problem is, the OGL evangelists refuse to accept any other possible interpretations.

Naw. Weak sauce. From my perspective, and from a number in this thread, the OGL usage issue is an obvious difference and therefore likely one or the factors in the turn of the tide of success. Possbly a major factor, but certainly not one to ignore. A few who disagree seem to suggest that if it isn't quantifiable, it must be a nonfactor, which seems like a poor argument for ignoring its potential as a factor. Labeling folks as "evangelists" is a disrespectful and dismissive way to avoid the discussion which could more easily be sidestepped by not entering the thread or being disrespectful and dismissive. Do you mind taking a step back from the name calling?