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

[HeinorNY]

Hasn't this idea that the OGL hurts DnD sales been debunked multiple times by people in the industry? - Ryan Dancey, Monte Cook , etc... The OGL was good for WOTC. 3rd party producers are complementary to 3E not competitors.

WOTC doesn't need Open Gaming.
WOTC doesn't need Spycraft.
WOTC doesn't need SRD 3.5 Pocket Book.
WOTC doesn't need 3PP releasing non-D&D books to open the falacious "doorway to RPG".
OGL doesn't hurt WOTC sales, but WOTC doesn't need it.
WOTC needs a strong and trustful base of competent 3rd party publishers to produce complementary D&D products to be used with WOTC core books, bring people to D&D, etc.
WOTC doesn't need OGL for that.


Microsoft doesn't need Open Source...

 

[Lizard]

It was. Now, it seems it is not.

This hasn't been shown.

It's been implied -- but never explicitly stated -- that some people at WOTC/Hasbro think it is. Since they haven't said this, they also haven't offered any kind of proof of the thing they haven't said. So what we have is people on the internet with no knowledge of sales numbers saying what they fervently wish to be true, and people on the inside -- Dancy, Cook, etc -- saying the opposite.

I know who I'm more inclined to believe.

 

[AllisterH]

This hasn't been shown.

It's been implied -- but never explicitly stated -- that some people at WOTC/Hasbro think it is. Since they haven't said this, they also haven't offered any kind of proof of the thing they haven't said. So what we have is people on the internet with no knowledge of sales numbers saying what they fervently wish to be true, and people on the inside -- Dancy, Cook, etc -- saying the opposite.

I know who I'm more inclined to believe.

I agree and disagree with you somewhat.

I tend to think the OGL was initially good for WOTC when everyone was producing products that required having the PHB. A paizo adventure will require the use of the DMG/PHB as does a campaign setting or a monster book and this is what I always remember Dancey talking about when he said, "The OGL will be GREAT for WOTC".

I'm not so sure about those products that were entire games in of themselves. On the one hand, there's the belief that since they were similar to D&D in terms of mechanics, players would be more willing to come back to D&D so to speak. I imagine there ARE players that try new games based on a familiar mechanic but I don't think those gamers are anything like the majority. It assumes that after playing Spycraft for a while, you'll naturally drift back to playing D&D.

This, I don't think follows quite as closely as for example, I know many a Vampire player that wouldn't even touch the Werewolf games even though they use the same system and are situated int he same world.

What would be true is that those books do benefit from certain cost reductions (no need to come up with your own mechanics) AND the added benefit of being able to use the d20 sticker to highlight their product.

Here's the thing, WOTC (and by extension, Hasbro) are all about the money. If it makes them money, they do it. We're not taking about someone like Kevin Siembada who has a personal stake and thus will forego potential profits because he doesn't like it.

I think WOTC wants a certain types of product being produced and not anything that can potentially drain customers.

Now, I hope that this could be considered a reasonable interpretation and not fear-mongering or cheerleading.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't want to get the rules for free online, I just want to know more about the game I'm buying. For example, multiclassing, will it hurt their sales so much if they just tell how it works?

Signs point to yes.

 

[pawsplay]

WOTC doesn't need Open Gaming.
WOTC doesn't need Spycraft.
WOTC doesn't need SRD 3.5 Pocket Book.
WOTC doesn't need 3PP releasing non-D&D books to open the falacious "doorway to RPG".
OGL doesn't hurt WOTC sales, but WOTC doesn't need it.
WOTC needs a strong and trustful base of competent 3rd party publishers to produce complementary D&D products to be used with WOTC core books, bring people to D&D, etc.
WOTC doesn't need OGL for that.


Microsoft doesn't need Open Source...

WOTC "needs" OGL so that they can avoid having to sue people it is useless to sue. The "safe harbor" was in WotC's best interest. Trying to "license" their game system commercially is not only a step in the wrong direction, but likely anticompetitive under the laws of many countries.

 

[Lizard]

I agree and disagree with you somewhat.

I tend to think the OGL was initially good for WOTC when everyone was producing products that required having the PHB. A paizo adventure will require the use of the DMG/PHB as does a campaign setting or a monster book and this is what I always remember Dancey talking about when he said, "The OGL will be GREAT for WOTC".

You can only sell one PHB/person. Once someone has that, they don't need another. What they DO need are reasons to keep buying other WOTC products even if they're not playing D&D, and/or to play D&D longer, and that's part of what the OGL did.

I think very few people, overall, bought a PHB because of a third party book -- but they did keep playing D&D longer because of third party support. The more limited and restrained it is, the more gamers will find that what they want isn't out there anymore, and drift to other games or out of the hobby.

 

[Ydars]

3rd party support will be even more important now that WoTC have advanced the timeline of FR in a way that many people won't like. There are going to be a lot of disgruntled potential 4E players who will want a "new" world to play in now that their favourite one has been "violated". Unless WoTC are planning to fill this gap (quickly) then someone else should be given a chance to do so.

And before I get an avalanche of "I love what WoTC have done with FR in 4E.........." type posts, I don't mind one way or another. I preferred the early versions of FR and seriously disliked the 3.5E version, especially killing off Halaster etc. The 3.5E Undermountain adventure was the most disappointing 3.5E product I bought. Not because it was bad per se, but because it didn't feel like Undermountain to me and I was really expecting fireworks.

 

[hong]

I think very few people, overall, bought a PHB because of a third party book -- but they did keep playing D&D longer because of third party support.

I think you're very correct that very few people kept playing D&D longer because of third party support.

 

[Lizard]

I think you're very correct that very few people kept playing D&D longer because of third party support.

You seem to have misread me.

 

[xechnao]

This hasn't been shown.

It's been implied -- but never explicitly stated -- that some people at WOTC/Hasbro think it is. So what we have is people on the internet with no knowledge of sales numbers saying what they fervently wish to be true, and people on the inside -- Dancy, Cook, etc -- saying the opposite.

I know who I'm more inclined to believe.

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).