D&D 4E Is the OGL the reason for WOTC's secrecy about 4E?

[Charwoman Gene]

You seem to have misread me.

Or perhaps you have misread him?

 

[Lizard]

You must be joking. You know they have explicitly stated that they want no OGL this time but perhaps a GSL (a restricted license allowing support on restricted field).

Yes, I know that they've stated what they WANT. What they haven't stated is words to the effect of "The OGL cost us money", which is what you said. We know they want a new license; we can only speculate as to WHY, and, furthermore, if the reasons stated conform to the facts -- people may want something because they believe 'a', but in fact, 'b' is the case.

It is probable that people higher up in Hasbro believe the OGL cost them sales. This has never been explicitly stated as an official reason for the GSL; further, the fact people believe it doesn't make it so, especially when other people, closer to the issue, have stated the opposite.

 

[xechnao]

if the reasons stated conform to the facts -- people may want something because they believe 'a', but in fact, 'b' is the case.

Sorry, I can't understand this. Can you try to explain better?

especially when other people, closer to the issue, have stated the opposite.

Whatever you have here may as well mean nothing in context. It could very well be due to PR or because of other reasons.



Lizard come on. They have been hurting their PR due to this OGL/GSL flip-flop. They must have a good reason and in business this means money.

 

[AllisterH]

It is probable that people higher up in Hasbro believe the OGL cost them sales. This has never been explicitly stated as an official reason for the GSL; further, the fact people believe it doesn't make it so, especially when other people, closer to the issue, have stated the opposite.

That was the early years though. Dancey always intended for 3rd party support to support D&D and thus allow WOTC not to produce the lower revenue stream adventures. I honestly don't think he intended for games like True20 or M&M which exist independent of D&D and do nothing to increase sales for WOTC.

Keep in mind, as I state before, for WOTC(Hasbro), it comes down to the dollars. This isn't a company that's making a choice based on personal whims (Kevin Siembada is a prime example of a company that could've made a killing in d20 but because of the personality of the owner, chose not to) but based on "Does this increase sales for us"?

Thus, I personally do think the latter years of the OGL it does come down to the almighty dollar.

 

[Ydars]

The fact is, even if people at Hasbro, WoTC or anywhere else THINK they have numbers that show them losing money because of OGL, this is likely based on a facile analysis (see below)

For example, just because Z number of people bought True 20 does not mean that WoTCs sales are down Z x (cost of True 20) dollars because;

a) many people buying True 20 will ALSO buy the PHB and other WoTC products (in fact MOST will) because for many gamers, MONEY is not the limiting factor; they will find money to buy ALL the products they find interesting.

b) Many gamers will CONTINUE playing d20 games that are compatable with WoTC products BECAUSE of True 20 etc.

Without OGL, two things are much more likely to happen;

1) D&D regulars get stale and tired of D&D because they are constantly getting one companies "take" on things and because of WoTC decisions on the direction of worlds (e.g. the PoL makeover of FR)

2) they LEAVE off playing D&D, and having no d20 games to go to, opt to either LEAVE RPGs completely or buy a competitors products that offer NO value to WoTC whatever as they are incompatible.

This fractures the market and makes it unsustainable. If you think Ryan Darcey's analysis is dated, I would say think again; in the age of the Paizo/4E split, OGL could be more important than at any time in the past.

I don't think you can judge the importance of 3rd parties based on their PAST market share. I suspect Paizo just increased their share by a HUGE margin because of their decision to stick with 3.5/3.75.

If WoTC don't announce a GSL then ALL the other 3PPs will do the same (or go out of business) and this will siphon off MORE gamers.

And I don't care what market analysis WoTC has to estimate the impact this will have on their sales; they CANNOT know for sure. Market research is a pseudo-science and very imperfect.

 

[xechnao]

For example, just because Z number of people bought True 20 does not mean that WoTCs sales are down Z x (cost of True 20) dollars because;

It is not only about sales of the past. It is about sales of the present and future, it is about brand value (licensing to video games for example), it is about DDI and Gleemax.

Market research is a pseudo-science and very imperfect.

You are advocating in favor of OGL now. A reason of market analysis that happened 10 years ago has been a key argument to people that advocate in favor of the OGL. What I think they fail to grasp is that now we very well be in a new phase and this is what counts- of course this phase may possibly change again after 10 years but this is irrelevant to what Wotc has to do now, isn't it?

 

[AllisterH]

As an aside, may I say I find it somewhat gigle-inducing that so many people are FOR some sort of OGL because when Dancey originally announced it, the VAST, VAST majority of gamers saw it as WOTC trying to kill the rest of the RPG market (anyone from Eric's black and red site remember Dancey constantly trying to get publishers onboard?).

Oh how times have changed

 

[Lizard]

As an aside, may I say I find it somewhat gigle-inducing that so many people are FOR some sort of OGL because when Dancey originally announced it, the VAST, VAST majority of gamers saw it as WOTC trying to kill the rest of the RPG market (anyone from Eric's black and red site remember Dancey constantly trying to get publishers onboard?).

Oh how times have changed

And if you'll look back, you'll see my position has not changed, and that the only area I was wrong in was that there would be a lot more sharing and reuse of content, including by WOTC. Instead, every company mostly reinvented the wheel, so that the system as a whole did not evolve and improve.

Ironically, now the WOTC is in a much better position, technically, to incorporate other people's improvements (via constantly enhancing the core on Gleemax and making it easily available to gamers), the license is likely to be much more restrictive.

So it goes.

 

[xechnao]

Ironically, now the WOTC is in a much better position, technically, to incorporate other people's improvements (via constantly enhancing the core on Gleemax and making it easily available to gamers), the license is likely to be much more restrictive.

So it goes.

Something I posted a couple of days ago and want to quote it here:

...What Wotc is attempting with DDI or Gleemax, if it turns out successful has to convince the rest of publishers to join their forces and offer a competitive alternative while at the same time promoting their own products. And of course they should be offering to other vendors their services -at some fee of course. Something like drivethrurpg but with its own free forum, virtual table and RPG magazine.

 

[Dausuul]

That was the early years though. Dancey always intended for 3rd party support to support D&D and thus allow WOTC not to produce the lower revenue stream adventures. I honestly don't think he intended for games like True20 or M&M which exist independent of D&D and do nothing to increase sales for WOTC.

On the contrary, that was one of the explicit objectives of the OGL--to kill off a lot of the competing systems and get everybody using d20, thereby increasing the "network effect." If there must be competing RPGs, the thinking goes, then let's make sure they're compatible with D&D so people can transition easily between them.

From Dancey's interview on the subject:

The downside here is that I believe that one of the reasons that the RPG as a category has declined so much from the early 90s relates to the proliferation of systems. Every one of those different game systems creates a "bubble" of market inefficiency; the cumulative effect of all those bubbles has proven to be a massive downsizing of the marketplace. I have to note, highlight, and reiterate: The problem is not competitive >product<, the problem is competitive >systems<. I am very much for competition and for a lot of interesting and cool products. ...

The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books. This is a feedback cycle -- the more effective the support is, the more people play D&D. The more people play D&D, the more effective the support is.

It's rather ruthless actually.