Licensees not going to 4e because of poor sales?

[hailstop]

A friend of mine said this to me:

"Just read an article about this indicating several licensees had declined their 4E contracts. Wizards' spin was that they wanted less of a product glut than happened with 3E anyway; the licensees' was that reception of 4E did not indicate a level of success commensurate with what they were being asked to invest."

I don't know if these are the 3PPs or game licesnsees. Has anyone heard anything about this?

I asked my FLGS recently how their 4e sales were going, and he said they were quite happy with it.

 

[Halivar]

the licensees' was that reception of 4E did not indicate a level of success commensurate with what they were being asked to invest.

We have many people from the biggest 3PP's here on EnWorld, and I have yet to hear a single one give this as a reason for not taking to 4E. The argument sounds specious.

The real issue is IP, licenses, and contracts.

 

[Mark]

A friend of mine said (. . .)

Please, contact that friend . . .

"Just read an article (. . .")

. . .and ask where he saw the article.

 

[Aristotle]

Agreed, you don't get to quote an article unless the article itself is provided. Even then the article is likely to be discredited if it doesn't detail what industry professional/insider provided the data...

 

[Obryn]

A friend of mine said this to me:

"Just read an article about this indicating several licensees had declined their 4E contracts. Wizards' spin was that they wanted less of a product glut than happened with 3E anyway; the licensees' was that reception of 4E did not indicate a level of success commensurate with what they were being asked to invest."

I don't know if these are the 3PPs or game licesnsees. Has anyone heard anything about this?

I asked my FLGS recently how their 4e sales were going, and he said they were quite happy with it.

Look, maw!

An unfounded internet rumor!

-O

 

[Set]

Sounds bogus. All of the 3pp's I've read a reaction from have pointed at the GSL (and / or the severe lateness of it's unveiling, which would have cost them six months to a year of production lead-time) as the reason they aren't going 4E.

I've also heard that 4E is selling well.

 

[Mort]

I checked Amazon

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Gift/dp/0786950633/ref=pd_ts_b_1?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Gift/dp/0786950633/ref=pd_ts_b_1?ie=UTF8&s=books[/ame]

the Core Rules Book Gift Set is currently the #1 seller for puzzles and games and #18 for "entertainment" books - this does not seem like a weak showing.

From various threads here, most 3pp's are just very hesitent of the GSL (as they probably should be; it's mostly stick and very little carrot, unlike the OGL which was the opposite).

 

[JVisgaitis]

I think the OP is trying to say that Wizards had denied granting the GSL to third party publishers. You guys are getting backwards I think...

 

[Mort]

I think the OP is trying to say that Wizards had denied granting the GSL to third party publishers. You guys are getting backwards I think...

Licensee is the person to whom a license is issued. If they (the licensees) are rejecting it (as the OP states) then it's their decission not WoTC's.

 

[Filcher]

This has already be refuted a number of times, but to add to the chorus:

... that reception of 4E did not indicate a level of success commensurate with what they were being asked to invest.

...3pps haven't been asked to invest anything (other than time and IP).

4E is doing great. People want to sign on. The GSL just scares them away.