How does pulling old edition pdfs benefit WotC?

[TheFindus]

haakon1 wrote:
"Old modules with 4e rules, but no more old materials with original text? Yes, I would be pissed about that. It would be like selling only the "Greedo shot first" versions of Star Wars, not the original intent of the artist -- only worse, since it's not just an artist changing his mind and retouching his own work, but a hack messing up the work of an earlier artist (Gygax, for example)."

Why will you be angry about that? The fluff and setting would be almost the same, you just get the rules info for 4e with it and won't have to translate the old rules into 4e. That means less work for you and me as DMs. And that always sounds great to me.
I really feel no emotional attachment to the artistic qualities of 25 year+ old adventure and campaign roleplaying books. Not even for the Drangonlance modules and I have played them a total of 3 times: once as a player, once as a DM in the 80s and again as a DM using 3.5 rules. And IMHO - from a design point of view - these modules are very well done, even by today's standard. But that does not mean that I would not have liked to have Dragonlance already translated into 3.5 for me. I would have paid for that, because it would have saved me a lot of prep time.

Selling old stuff in a 4e cloak on a subscription basis seems to make a lot of sense to me. This is a good thing, because you can have the best of both worlds: The old setting that you like and the new rules that you prefer.

 

[haakon1]

Why will you be angry about that? The fluff and setting would be almost the same, you just get the rules info for 4e with it and won't have to translate the old rules into 4e. That means less work for you and me as DMs. And that always sounds great to me.

I don't have a problem with them re-doing stuff in 4e rules, but I'd like them to publish the original versions too. For three reasons:
- We can get more stuff if they'd just scan and sell it all, instead of only translating a few things.
- I don't play 4e, and I'm intimately familiar with 1e and 3e, so translating down from 4e would actually be more difficult for me.
- I like the idea of being able to buy the original version of things. It's more fun sometimes than an update -- if you want the original artists interpretation of things. The original "Temple of the Frog" by Dave Arneson is more interesting -- to see how he thought and how D&D was originally intentioned -- than a modern version of the same thing would be. Not that there's anything wrong with doing it in 4e, if someone wants to. It's just a different product.

I really feel no emotional attachment to the artistic qualities of 25 year+ old adventure and campaign roleplaying books.

I do. But collecting on PDF is not the same as being able to get it all on paper -- on the other hand, it's a lot easier and cheaper to get a PDF.

 

[TheFindus]

I understand your point of view. I guess that there are a lot of people on this board who share it.
You seem to be a collector of these old modules and sourcebooks (please correct me if I am wrong about this) and would like WotC to support your search for the old versions by offering them in a pdf format.

Now, we do not have the business numbers of WotC on the sales of pdfs of old modules and sourcebooks, so we can only speculate. But they are a very successful company and must look at those numbers before making a decision like this (pulling the pdfs). And my guess is that the numbers where in favor of actually going through with this decision.
Because the way it seems, byselling old pdfs, the products of other companies were supported and not the 4e product that WotC wants to sell. So it is a legitimate decision to not allow other companies to sell the old versions.

People like you suffer from that, for sure. But WotC must see this as irrelevant businesswise (from a sales point of view). So it still remains a legitimate business decision I think. Because the overall sales probably were not so good. There certainly is no evil scheme to hurt collectors behind it, I don't think.
Just a vision of making more money for WotC and less money for their competitors who are benefitting from the OGL, a product which WotC paid for and gave to them for (almost?) free. I am not sure if a company like Green Ronin would be where they are now without the OGL. Did they not produce a lot of D20 stuff in the beginning and use the experience gathered with the system to create True20? And Paizo profits from it for sure. And I would have done the same thing, don't get me wrong.
But I fail to see why there are people who expect (instead of only hope for) WotC to be as generous again with 4e.

That I do not understand.

 

[haakon1]

There certainly is no evil scheme to hurt collectors behind it, I don't think.

I doubt they thought much about it. And refusing to sell PDF's of out of print stuff does actually help one type of collector -- the FLGS and other dealers who collect it not to use/read but to sell/appreciate in value. PDF's must undercut some of that market. Back in the 2nd Edition and early 3rd Edition era, there was a lively and somewhat expensive market in OOP 1st Edition and earlier materials online.

Just a vision of making more money for WotC and less money for their competitors who are benefitting from the OGL, a product which WotC paid for and gave to them for (almost?) free. I am not sure if a company like Green Ronin would be where they are now without the OGL. Did they not produce a lot of D20 stuff in the beginning and use the experience gathered with the system to create True20? And Paizo profits from it for sure. And I would have done the same thing, don't get me wrong.
But I fail to see why there are people who expect (instead of only hope for) WotC to be as generous again with 4e.

That I do not understand.

WotC changes their business model. I'm not mad at them for that, but the old model was certainly more fun for the consumer (lots and lots of apps on their operating system, so to speak).

 

[amethal]

But I fail to see why there are people who expect (instead of only hope for) WotC to be as generous again with 4e.

The OGL was not intended to be generous. The idea was that it made business sense for WotC.

Clearly they don't think it makes business sense for 4th edition to go down the same route.

I see no reason to be grateful for the 3rd edition OGL, and no reason to be angry about the lack of a 4th edition one. Since the OGL suits me better, I'm sticking with 3rd edition.

 

[TheFindus]

amethal wrote:
" I see no reason to be grateful for the 3rd edition OGL, and no reason to be angry about the lack of a 4th edition one. Since the OGL suits me better, I'm sticking with 3rd edition."

I kind of agree with you. I am no publisher. If I was (were?) I could be, because I would not have to pay any fees for using the powerful D&D 3.x system, D20 logo and would not have to invest into system research. Just use somebody elses product and make my own money with it. So there is lot to be thankful for as a publisher.
But I am thankful as a player and a GM that they made such a wonderful game which I enjoy immensely.

amethal wrote too:
"The OGL was not intended to be generous. The idea was that it made business sense for WotC."

Yes, of course it made perfect business sense for them, I agree with you. It was not some kind of altruism. Or maybe it was (I was not there when thy made that decision), but most certainly not completely.
But I have the feeling that a lot of people seem to condemn WotC for pulling the pdfs. Or at least questioning the quality of the business decision (to the point of: Aaaaah, it's a death spiral! We are all doomed!). At the same time, we do not know the numbers and the full strategy behind it. And a reaction like this seems a little too far fetched, I must say. After all, WotC has made pretty good business decisions before. And they keep publishing excellent material. I am not worried about them at all is all I'm saying.