Is WotC still the industry LEADER?

[wedgeski]

The thing is that WotC is also building on other people's work, at least in the case of D&D.

The fundamental difference is that Wizards *purchased* the rights to do that, with all the inherent risk of the property which that entailed, which must have been significant given the state of TSR and the game as a whole at the time.

Paizo are using the OGL as the basis of their new product, saving themselves millions of dollars of development in the process, and producing something which is an iteration of an already proven design. Despite the fact that I think Paizo create stupendous products, this is inherently not market leadership.

 

[Maggan]

The fundamental difference is that Wizards *purchased* the rights to do that, with all the inherent risk of the property which that entailed, which must have been significant given the state of TSR and the game as a whole at the time.

Paizo are using the OGL as the basis of their new product, saving themselves millions of dollars of development in the process, and producing something which is an iteration of an already proven design. Despite the fact that I think Paizo create stupendous products, this is inherently not market leadership.

Interesting point.

/M

 

[Darrin Drader]

Paizo are using the OGL as the basis of their new product, saving themselves millions of dollars of development in the process, and producing something which is an iteration of an already proven design. Despite the fact that I think Paizo create stupendous products, this is inherently not market leadership.

Millions? No. Only if you're a huge corporation that wants to spend that much. It would be fairly easy to pay three guys $30,000 a year for less than a year to come up with a perfectly workable and playable RPG system. In fact, people routinely do it without spending any money at all on the manuscript prior to editing.

Also, Paizo has a reason for sticking with the OGL: their current product line is already using it, their customer base expect it, and they are well within their rights to use it. It is market leadership because they are taking an existing but flawed system, reworking it to minimize flaws, and giving it back to the audience that wants it. You can call this leadership or just good marketing, but I call BS on anyone who thinks they're somehow cheap or lazy for doing it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Their OGL and their GSL are also something others start copying - Paizo is planning their own Pathfinder License so that others can imply compatibility.

I might be misunderstanding ... are you saying that you believe that Paizo is following WotC in the area of licensing? As WotC is currently heading (or has recently been)?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I might be misunderstanding ... are you saying that you believe that Paizo is following WotC in the area of licensing? As WotC is currently heading (or has recently been)?

They follow the idea of creating licenses to allow others to create compatible products to strengthen their own sales. That is an example of others following the example of WotC.

Their implementation differs, of course.
But even Paizo Pathfinder License seems to have a kind of "decency" clause - a clause they don't like with the GSL. Of course, how they would interpret that clause and, and how they word it, is probably different. And it's understandable to have these clause, regardless of whether you're WotC or Paizo. You don't want your product to be associated with "indecent" products that you had no say in. It will hurt instead of help your product.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

They follow the idea of creating licenses to allow others to create compatible products to strengthen their own sales. That is an example of others following the example of WotC.

No, that's an example of others following many, many others in many, many other fields.

You might as well say that Paizo is following Microsoft.

To the extent that Paizo and WotC (as WotC is currently) are related in licensing, you could argue that Paizo has learned from WotC ... specifically, what not to do. (Me, I'd argue that Paizo probably already knew that.)

The implication that WotC is leading Paizo in the area of open game licensing is seriously, seriously bizarre. Paizo is playing the part of the sane guy, backing slowly away from the meth-crazed dude who wants to go into the dark woods to find the serial killer. "Yeah, man, that's, you know, cool, but I think I'll, you know, just kinda mosey on my own way, here. Good luck with that, though."

 

[Wicht]

Their OGL and their GSL are also something others start copying - Paizo is planning their own Pathfinder License so that others can imply compatibility.

I'm not sure that anyone would really, if they were honest, think that the GSL was a sign of leadership nor that it was in any way on par with the OGL. If anything, the differences between the mentality that took us a year to even see the GSL and the mentality that gave us the OGL are indicative of the change in WotC's thinking.

Sure Paizo is making a compatibility license but they are also using the OGL. WotC showed (past tense) game companies that this was a good thing and the OGL promoted the welfare of the game industry as a whole. So, Paizo is allowing a compatiblity license (and some might compare that to the GSL) but their game rules are OGL and anyone can use them in a book regardless of whether they sign the compatibility license.

But the GSL is a completely different animal. The 4th edition rules are not OGL and WotC want to be clear that you are playing in the market at the whim of WotC and they can take their ball away from you at any time. Of course, as we have been told repeatedly, they would never do such a thing. The PR would be horrible.

So, WotC was an industry leader and game companies still benefit from that era, nobody would argue otherwise, but they are not actively, as a corporation, trying to promote the welfare of other companies at the moment. They are concerned in the main with themselves. This does not affect players up front. As has been pointed out, WotC is working to help players have access to their game and have fun doing it. But as far as other companies go, you don't see a lot of concern on the part of the corporation for their welfare.

Out of curiousity, for those in the know, Stan! said that WotC would give seminars to help other companies run better in the past. When did these stop?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, that's an example of others following many, many others in many, many other fields.

You might as well say that Paizo is following Microsoft.

If Microsoft was in the Role Playing Game business, you might have a point.

License models or subscriptions are not new concepts, but applying them to Role Playing Games (including online RPG services) is new.

To the extent that Paizo and WotC (as WotC is currently) are related in licensing, you could argue that Paizo has learned from WotC ... specifically, what not to do. (Me, I'd argue that Paizo probably already knew that.)

The implication that WotC is leading Paizo in the area of open game licensing is seriously, seriously bizarre. Paizo is playing the part of the sane guy, backing slowly away from the meth-crazed dude who wants to go into the dark woods to find the serial killer. "Yeah, man, that's, you know, cool, but I think I'll, you know, just kinda mosey on my own way, here. Good luck with that, though."

Who came up with the OGL? The d20 License? Was it Wizards of the Coast or was it Paizo?

Yes, they are still leading. WotC is not doing the same as it used to do, but that's because they also learned and found the old model not working good enough anymore. Paizo is still following their OGL, and they also copy their d20 License and their GSL examples.

Sure Paizo is making a compatibility license but they are also using the OGL. WotC showed (past tense) game companies that this was a good thing and the OGL promoted the welfare of the game industry as a whole. So, Paizo is allowing a compatiblity license (and some might compare that to the GSL) but their game rules are OGL and anyone can use them in a book regardless of whether they sign the compatibility license.

Until Paizo abandons the 3E core rule framework as outlined in the SRD, they can't go away from the OGL. (Or maybe they could. I suppose no one ever tried.) Until someone bothers to use the Pathfinder OGL rules to create his own core handbook and his own adventure path to go with it, Paizo hasn't even a need to leave the OGL behind.

But such things are actually why WotC felt the need to leave the OGL behind - they figured out that they could earn more if they made competition with their core products (Which is Core Rulebooks, not Adventures, as it is for Paizo) harder, while still promoting additional supplemental material that relies on the Core Rules.

I think, though, that Paizo is leading the market in a different aspect:
Adventure Paths as a Core Business.
I suppose something like Adventure Paths existed before, but Paizo has made it its business model. I don't know if it was "all" Paizos idea to create these adventure paths in Dungeon, but even if it was not, their genius was to turn this into a Core business. When others used to think for quite some time that adventures don't sell well. Maybe they did not, but if you do them right, and if you create a "serialized" format, they do.

It'd doubtful that WotC can take the lead there, because part of why Paizo can lead is because it is their Core Business. Of course, that also puts a "limitation" on leadership for Paizo (at least regarding WotC), since they follow differen business models.

Maybe this is also a reason why some question WotC leadership and see it "only" as 800 lbs Gorilla - The d20 market created (or at least strengthened) an "ecosystem" of business models. You don't have to sell an entire game system to make some profit - or gods, multiple ones - you can do fine with supplements and adventures for a game system.

 

[wedgeski]

Millions? No. Only if you're a huge corporation that wants to spend that much. It would be fairly easy to pay three guys $30,000 a year for less than a year to come up with a perfectly workable and playable RPG system. In fact, people routinely do it without spending any money at all on the manuscript prior to editing.

Yes and how successful are those systems? I'd rather just agree to disagree on this one, because else we'll start arguing about the power of the brand vs. the quality of the system.

You can call this leadership or just good marketing, but I call BS on anyone who thinks they're somehow cheap or lazy for doing it.

I'm not implying anything of the sort, I know Paizo aren't cheap or lazy, their portfolio speaks volumes to that. I'm simply disagreeing with your earlier assertion that Paizo deserve leadership kudos that Wizards do not, the reason being that -- to me -- the foundation of their business is a vast development effort that essentially got handed to them both risk and cost-free.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Who came up with the OGL? The d20 License? Was it Wizards of the Coast or was it Paizo?

You seem to be confusing the words "leading" and "led." Different tenses. WotC "led" the RPG industry in the area of open licensing. WotC is no longer "leading" the RPG industry in the area of open licensing.

Since the thread is titled "Is WotC Still the Industry Leader?" (emphasis mine), the focus is on the "leading" form of the verb. If the question were, "Was WotC an Industry Leader?" then the "led" form of the verb would be appropriate (and I doubt anyone would be disagreeing with you).