Is it OK to distribute others' OGC for free?

philreed said:
I don't think it's a question of ethics. I think the question is:

Is it good for the game industry to release collections of OGC for free?

Let's take a hypothetical (or two).

WotC releases Unearthed Arcana. One year later, well-meaning fans post the material as OGC for free. At that time, WotC still has 50,000 copies of the UA hardcover for sale. Let us assume that monthly sales of UA have dropped to 4,000 and are stable. So in 1 year WotC will sell out of UA.

But what happens if the free OGC drops their monthly sales to 3,000? We're now looking at over 16 months before sellout. That's 4 more months that the products take up space in the warehouse. A less drastic effect, say 3,500/month, requires just over 14 months to clear out the inventory.

Hmmm. D&D sales are slowing. Time to drop some staff and cut back a little on the schedule. Maybe just fire two employees and drop 1 D&D book/year from the schedule.

A little deeper digging uncovers the free UA online. Well, hell. That's the last time we do an OGC product.
Do you sincerely think that it has that much impact? Or, rather, that the impact of freely-available OGC extract, 1 year after product release, would even approach the impact of illegally-available scan, 1 month after product release? If someone wants it for free rather than pay for it, they can already get it. It is a matter of speculation how many of those peolpe would knuckle under and pay (grumbling teh whole time), if there were no free alternative, legal or otherwise. If someone is willing to wait a year (in a market that has demonstrated most sales occur right away] to get the content for free, i'm not convinced they'd ever buy the book. [I'm ignoring those who both buy the book and download the OGC extract, because they are immaterial when judging impact on sales.] Or, more specifically, i don't think they'd buy it through first sale. More likely, they'd wait for a cheap copy to come up used somewhere. (About half of my D20 System stuff was bought used for dirt-cheap, because i was only willing to spend half or less of the cover price, because that was what it was worth to me, but i also think that the producers are charging a reasonable price, given their costs, so i'm not gonna undercut them or retailers by going to places like Amazon. IOW, if the producer's price is higher than i'm willing to pay, i'll do without rather than buy it for less. And then, if i'm lucky, i'll get it for less anyway, later, from a secondary source.)


Let's now look at a smaller company. Bastion or Green Ronin make excellent examples since both have lots of 100% OGC products and are respected by fans.

Let's say a hypothetical product released at the same time as UA included 100% open game content. After one year of sales, someone releases the material free online. At this point, we can safely assume that monthly sales of that product are around 75-100/month (and this may be a little high). We'll go with 100 for simplicity. We'll also assume that the publisher saw the market trends and only printed 2,500 copies and now have 1,200 copies to sell.

So what happens to monthly sales? If we assume that only 10% of the people that would download the UA SRD will download this one monthly sales of this hypothetical product drop to somewhere between 0 and 50 copies. At this rate, it will take somewhere between 2 years and infinity to clear the product out of the warehouse. 2 years? Damn, that's a problem. Better print fewer copies of the next title.

Oh no. We're printing less than 2,000 of a new release? Might be time to get rid of some staff . . . might even be time for a new job. It's certainly time to stop doing products that are 100% OGC.
Unless you have data i don't, i think you're mistaken (or being disingenuous). From everything i've heard, a given print product sells upwards of 90% of it's lifetime sales inside of 3mo. So, if you print an appropriate size print run, it'll sell out 90% within 3mo, and by a year later, sales will be essentially nil. Your example 2500 print run sells 1300 the first month, 650 the second month, 300 the third month, 100 the fourth, and, let's say, 25 each month after that, so it'll be all gone in 10 mo. [And, btw, while these specific numbers are made up, the rough trend is intended to model the general curve as i've had it described to me by someone who runs a distributor (or is the proper term fulfillment house?--I'm fuzzy on the exact distinction), and thus sees sales numbers for dozens of game companies. And the few public examples we have--such as some of the GoO products that have now gone to PDF, demonstrate that reasonably-sized print runs are selling through 100% in 10-14mo. Based on another thread, i believe we also just saw the sell-out of the Fantasy Bestiary, after roughly 16mo.]

So, now, our fans wait a year to release the OGC. The print product has been out of print for 2mo, and may even have sold through all the retail channels (though, realistically, there're almost certainly a few copies still sitting on store shelves). From the publisher's standpoint, the OGC release has zero impact. The distributors and/or retailers *might* notice the release--it might take a little longer to sell those last 25-50 copies. But it's also quite possible that the, say, 10% decrease in sales is pretty much lost in the noise of random fluctuations.

What if they go with the oft-proposed 6mo delay for releasing OGC? Well, now our game has sold 2400 of its 2500 copies. Let's be generous and assume a 20% hit on sales from then on out. It now takes 5 more months, instead of 4, for the product to sell out. Yes, that makes a difference--but we're talking about waring housing less than 4 boxes (probably) to start with, and only one extra month for that last box. Even in the aggregate, that's not gonna break the bank. And if it is, you're underpricing your goods. Moreover, all of this assumes a near-perfect match between supply and demand, something that i doubt ever happens. What happens if you print 3000 copies and demand is unchanged? Now your monthly warehousing costs past the 6mo mark go from 100-75-50-25 copies to 600-575-550-525-500-475-450-425-400-375-350-325-300-275-250-225-200-175-150-125-100-75-50-25 copies. And that's assuming sales don't just plain stop after 2500 copies, and you're sitting on those last 500 copies 'til the cows come home. IOW, dwarfing any impact that diminished sales from free content are likely to have--your product is already basically done selling, and while a 20% decrease in those last few months might be noticable, we're talking about a 20% decrease in sales of 4% of your total sales--IOW, roughly a 1% overall loss in sales. Again, much less than, i'll wager, the typical misestimation of demand.

Anyway, regardless of whose figures are correct, the point stands: if you wait until sales are done, or all-but-done, releasing the OGC for free is going to have little-to-no effect. That's pretty much a truism. The question becomes: when do we reach that point, and is there any reasonable way of estimating ahead of time what that point will be? I believe the answer to the latter question is 'no', which is why most have proposed taking the most-generous estimate out there (6mo) and doubling it, just to be safe. That strikes me as emminently reasonable. And, even if the number is wrong, it still comes from fans trying to take exactly what you've said into account: wait until sales won't be undercut before releasing. Which implies that, if they are apprised of the real situation, they'd adjust their delay accordingly, too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Poster Bard said:
Thank goodness top quality designers, such as Charles Rice of RPG Objects has discovered the SRD 3.5 Revised Bundle from Creative Mountain Games! He has rated it at 5 of 5 and has some very nice comments to make here, not to mention it being tied for #4 in the top twenty all time of PDF products in the EN World reviews section.

Clearly there will never be a problem getting your mitts on the best damned SRD product ever produced, provided all good people support top notch companies like Creative Mountain Games!

That's Creative Mountain Games! They do the work, so you can play! ;)

[/jack] :p

Brilliant! That Charles Rice sure knows his stuff! :)
 


philreed said:
I'm not sure if this is a direct threat against me or not.

What I do know is that if I'm ever forced to change my OGC declaration I will be absolutely certain to explain why the change is made.

It probably wasn't a threat. I think he was pointing out that now since you've freely designated large portions of your work OGC, praying is the only thing you can do to prevent someone from republishing it for free.

EDIT: Seems Cergorach explained himself at the same moment!
 
Last edited:

philreed said:
Here's a question:

Should I stop being generous with my OGC declarations?

Currently, 99% of the D20/OGL products Ronin Arts publishes are 100% OGC. If people are going to start collecting and releasing that material for free (or, because the threat of such action exists) would it be a good idea for me to start using something like:

"Material derived from the SRD or existing open game content is released as open game content. All other material is closed content and protected by copyright."

Is that what I should be using? Feels quite stingy to me. But it would protect a lot of my material.

To be clear, I'm fine with people using the OGC I release in their own products. My concern is that my material will be strip mined and posted online which will have a significant effect on my sales.

Opinions on whether or not I should change my manner of releasing OGC?
Two issues here. First, i'll tackle the "easy" one--the problem with that declaration isn't that it's stingy, it's that it's useless. Unless i'm familiar with every product you've derived from and the definition of "derived from"--a definition that does not exist anywhere in the WotC OGL or attendant documents [and if we're using the standard IP-law interpretation of "derived from", i'd say that not a single thing in any of your PDFs that isn't a direct verbatim reprint from another source qualifies as derived material--pretty clearly not what the WotC OGL has in mind] --i don't know what's OGC in your work. If you want to cut down your OGC to the bare minimum, that's fine, but please use a clear designation (as the license legally requires), so that i can figure out what is OGC and what isn't. As someone has proposed: do your OGC and PI declarations pass the 6-yr-old test: can a literate 6-yr-old with a highlighter identify the OGC and PI in your document? If not, it isn't "clearly identified". That's, at best, bad form, and at worst a violation of teh terms of the license. Any statements of the form of "any derived material" or "all original names" are vague. [Does "original" mean "first time a widget in D20 System has been given this name"? "first time this flavor of widget in D20 System has been given this name"? "a name that you can't find in a dictionary or encyclopedia"? I still don't know if "stomp" as the name of a feat is being claimed as PI--never mind whether it is a supportable claim.]

Now, as to what you "should" do: IMHO, continue to release that which you would want available, were you the reuser. Essentially, use the Golden Rule. I honestly think planning yoru strategy on how the public is going to behave is foolish, and probably futile: there'll always be those with a contrarian streak that'll get more malicious as you lock your IP down more, and i suspect that they'll roughly balance out the "benevolent" re-users that give up because not enough content is OGC to be worthwhile. I suspect that your risk of OGC extracts floating arou]nd is a roughly-constant thing, and all that'll change is who's doing them, and why. But as you lock down more IP, the good you contribute to RPGs in general diminishes, as does the odds of your specific work expanding to greater influence in the general system. So, i think locking down your IP tightly is cutting off your nose to spite your face--you're not gonna actually stop malicious reuse, but you'll definitely cut down on positive reuse.
 

Psion said:
(That said, isn't that technically against the terms of the d20 system trademark license, which requires you to have 5% OGC?)
It doesn't have to be new OGC--it's quite conceivable that one of Phil Reeds "dozen widgets" documents has 5% of its content embodied in just the stat blocks alone (which are semi-new).
 

WizarDru said:
The OGC wasn't created to develop intellectual freedom, or even as a favor to the 3rd party publishers. It wasn't meant to help them, per se, so much as encourage them to create content for D&D, to help sell WotC's product. It was a clever idea that benefits players, 3rd party publishers and most importantly, WotC. It's no accident that the one company that produced virtually no OGC material for years was WotC itself. WotC wants people to provide for them....that's part of the business model. Then they can pick and choose and bring the bright ideas back in house...for no money.
[BTW, i'm just presuming that several instances where you say "OGC", you mean "OGL", as in the WotC OGL. If not, i don't understand your above passage.]

And the day that WotC starts doing that wholesale, is probably the day i start buying their products. Unearthed Arcana was a step in the right direction--but i really wish that D20 Modern (and Unearthed Arcana) had both credited Spycraft, and used a system more like it, for action dice, frex. And neither of them is D&D--they're both "fringe" products from WotC--optional rules that don't define the baseline or have the staying power of D&D. As is, D&D is the millstone around D20 System's neck: the powerful incentive to remain compatible with teh current version of D&D often works against the incentive to innovate and improve.

Frex, in a recent interview Monte Cook says that, based on fan response, he might've made AU even more divergent from the D20SRD, if he'd known how much fans would relish the changes he did make. The magic and class and race bits of AU are vast improvements over D&D3E, IMHO--some true innovations, combined with good old-fashioned iterative refinements. But the combat system is still the same old slow albatross. I'd've loved to see him build a system that's designed for armor-as-DR, or used some of his other more-radical ideas that he's hinted at. Or, frankly, almost anything that diverged as much from D20SRD combat rules as it does from the magic rules. And, if we knew that D&D was going to continue to grow and incorporate the best, cherry-picked ideas from all the other D20 System stuff out there, the D&D and innovation incentives would synergize instead of fighting each other--you'd want to come up with the New Cool Thing, because then D&D would incorporate it, too, and you'd be The Innovator, who had it before D&D did. But D&D3.5E makes me think that WotC isn't willing to be beholden, even to the degree the WotC OGL requires, to external creators. So i don't have much hope for D&D4E to be any more community-driven than D&D3.5E was. And while cool OGC-derived products like Unearthed Arcana are great, they're still "fringe" optional products (within the context of the best-selling RPG producer, of course).
 

woodelf said:
[BTW, i'm just presuming that several instances where you say "OGC", you mean "OGL", as in the WotC OGL. If not, i don't understand your above passage.]

No, when I say OGC, I'm using it the same way that I thought everyone else was using it, namely for Open Game Content. At least, that's what I intended. If that's not correct, could you explain the difference to me? The OGL is the mechanism/requirement which drives the creation of OGC.

woodelf said:
So i don't have much hope for D&D4E to be any more community-driven than D&D3.5E was. And while cool OGC-derived products like Unearthed Arcana are great, they're still "fringe" optional products (within the context of the best-selling RPG producer, of course).

Well, I certainly never expected that WotC would suddenly become community-driven...in point of fact, that's exactly the opposite of what I was trying to communicate; specifically, WotC gets to pick and choose what they want, not be driven by the developers. Unearthed Arcana was about options, but changes to the core? Much more controversial and difficult to implement.

The difference is that you and I obviously feel differently about D&D 3.5e, WotC's releases in general and the driving forces of 3rd party developers in general. I don't think that being incorporated or not is a driving force in a developer's mind when he creates a new piece of OGC, nor should it be. The alternate damage model of Mutants & Masterminds is fun, but not very appropriate for D&D or the PHB, IMHO....but some folks might like it, which is why it's in UA.

I have no doubt that Monte would probably consider going further, next time. I also suspect that Monte's combined PDF and print sales are still far less significant that WotCs and are, by definition, fringe (as you point out, in WotC's context, anyhow). As I said, WotC didn't create the OGL out of altruism...although they didn't do it out of entirely selfish reasons, either. IMHO, the OGL is enlightened self-interest. Personally, I think that the incentive to invent and innovate is quite strong - but the financial realities are counter to that incentive. Even so, I see plenty of innovation going on: Mutants and Masterminds, Grim Tales, CoC and Spycraft all are shining examples of d20 system that are very unlike D&D, IMHO. But none of them, even M&M, can rival D&D in sales. That's a powerful incentive.
 

Enlightened self-interest? I don't think so, i would go so far as to say that Ryan Dancy weaved a web with popular words like "Open Source" and "Customer Gratification". Ryan should have the title "Spin Doctor" and should be cast as 'Face' in the new A-Team movie ;-)

In the end the folks that really provited from the OGL are the ex employies of WotC. Also removing a significant bit of control out of the hands of Hasbro guaranties the survival of one of the more popular systems in the RPG business.
 

Cergorach said:
Enlightened self-interest? I don't think so, i would go so far as to say that Ryan Dancy weaved a web with popular words like "Open Source" and "Customer Gratification". Ryan should have the title "Spin Doctor" and should be cast as 'Face' in the new A-Team movie ;-)

In the end the folks that really provited from the OGL are the ex employies of WotC. Also removing a significant bit of control out of the hands of Hasbro guaranties the survival of one of the more popular systems in the RPG business.

So you don't think that WotC and D&D has significantly benefited from the OGL? Or, for that matter, that the gaming community hasn't benefited? Heck, you point out that D&D has been effectively protected from the threat of Hasbro killing the brand. That doesn't sound like an act of flim-flammery to me.
:\
 

Remove ads

Top