The issue for prospective 3rd party publishers isn't the $5000 but rather the long lead time necessary to write, playtest, edit, layout, print, and ship a physical book to stores. Had they gotten the GSL early in the year as expected, they could have probably gotten books on the shelves this summer - soon after the 4e launch and in time for GenCon, which gives them the best chance to make back the $5k license fee and actually turn a profit. If the GSL was released tomorrow, which isn't happening, the "early adopters" get maybe 3-4 months of exclusivity vs using the free license and releasing books in 2009.
D&D 4E Monte Cook on licensing (and 4E in general?)
- Thread starter Dedekind
- Start date
I think you misunderstand me- I'm not saying that the designers are electing not to go with 4Ed in favor of their own thing, I'm saying that because of the delay in the GSL, they may not have enough lead time to produce quality products for 2008 release.
IOW, the delay is taking the choice out of their hands.
Furthermore, if those designers have bills to pay, they may be forced to produce products for non-4Ed games in 2008 just to stay afloat.
Yes.
As I pointed out in another thread, 4Ed runs the risk of being the RPG equivalent of New Coke (aka Coke II). Here's why:
Despite having the most powerful name in the market, the new edition has features and omissions that risk splitting the fanbase. How deep and profound a split, only time and the free market will tell.
The game its slated to replace has many ardent supporters. It also has many popular variants in existence and some more coming on line as we speak. Those variants- "substitutes" in econ-speak- are in the hands of good companies with top-flight designers on board.
One of the great strengths of 3.X was the OGL. That toolbox let a huge number of companies produce their own takes on the game...but most still required WotC's Core 3 (or a portion thereof) to work- that boosted sales. 3.X and related games were everywhere. The mis-timing of the GSL release will drive freelancers to design for products they have in hand, namely 3.X and the above-mentioned substitutes. It will also delay or even prevent other companies from doing 4Ed versions of their own products.
Another problem with the delay in the GSL is a loss of goodwill. Many of the designers in the industry know each other, especially those involved in the D20 movement. They'll have to decide whether the delay was unintentional and unavoidable, or if it was a marketing ploy (most likely under orders from higher-ups in Hasbro). If consensus is the latter, 3rd party 4Ed products could be as rare as California Condors.
To put it a different way, a videogame console depends upon what games it will actually play- consoles that only have a few games soon find themselves edged out of the market. If 3rd party publishers continue to support 3.X/True20/M&M/etcRPG, 4Ed could find itself marginalized and fighting for space on the bookshelves WotC's OGL helped fill.
Again, only time will tell. 4Ed could prove to be the baddest Mace Windu in the house...or Jar-Jar Binks.
WhatGravitas
Explorer
Well, it helped third party publishers. For example, Mike Mearls broke into the business. So, in a way, 4E is the child of the OGL movement.ainatan said:
And while he's the prime example, there are others, like Mouseferatu, who has written his first RPG products for White Wolf and Sword & Sorcery. Now he's writing WotC books for 4E.
If nothing else, the OGL helps WotC to find and identify promising authors without any cost. That's certainly a benefit.
Cheers, LT.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
1) As others have pointed out, nobody had to pay the 5,000 $ without actually having the GSL. So, if there's no GSL, the only drawback for the early-adopters would be that they now have spare 5,000 $. (The real drawback actually being that they might have invested time and money in preparing something for 4E - which may very well be more then 5,000 $) 
2) I think the delays of the GSL are a kind of fiasco, since the original plans they proposed didn't work out. But I also believe it is a recoverable one. The drawbacks are that either the early-adopter advantage will be lost (and presumably the 5,000 $ are also gone), or that the late-adopters will have to wait even longer (more June 2009 then January?).
2) I think the delays of the GSL are a kind of fiasco, since the original plans they proposed didn't work out. But I also believe it is a recoverable one. The drawbacks are that either the early-adopter advantage will be lost (and presumably the 5,000 $ are also gone), or that the late-adopters will have to wait even longer (more June 2009 then January?).
Moon-Lancer
First Post
AZRogue said:
that is my mistake then. I thought they had. Not quite the fiasco i had thought was, but still, if ones word is their bond...
I understand your POV and respect you opinion, but I find that very unlikely.Dannyalcatraz said:
To be honest, I believe that even if tomorrow WOTC announces they won't have any GSL at all, that they don't give a damn for open gaming and that they want 3pp to screw themselves, your scenario will still be very very unlikely.
We are a minority amongst D&D players. Most D&D players don't care about this discussion, they don't care or don't even know about OGL, or 3pp products. They don't care about the RPG market. They don't know who Scott Rouse, or Mike Mearls or Rob Heinsoo are. They have busy lifes and D&D represents juts a small portion of their lifes. All they want is to grab their D&D books and play some D&D on the weekends.
The coke analogy makes no sense. Coke II would succeed if costumers liked its taste more than they liked the original taste.
The same with 4E. It will succeed if it come to be a good game that the players enjoy playing it. It will fail if it comes to be a terrible game and players prefer 3.5 over it.
Last edited:
The differences between the various eras is important.
When they said it about 3Ed, they were talking out of ignorance- 2Ed and the company that owned it were in decline. In contrast, between WotC and the 3rd party publishers, the 3.X environment is quite robust.
Most of the changes between 1Ed and 2Ed were, in some ways, cosmetic- the To-Hit charts turned to THAC0, for instance. It was more like the switch from 3Ed to 3.5 than anything else. In addition, there were no real substitutes for D&D at the time. Sure, games like Runequest had their fans (like me, for instance) but no one was seriously challenging D&D for the throne.
Here, the risk isn't an outside product overtopping D&D, its the revision underperforming.
I'm not being a doomdreamer here (
), I'm just pointing out a particular difficulty.For all I know 4Ed could wipe the floor with 3.5...and every other game on the market. It could also wind up getting seriously bloodied.
The most likely scenario is that it rules the market in some way. The real question is by how much. Is it 4Ed über alles, or does it have to get some kind of power-sharing agreement and form a coalition government with 3.X?
Last edited:
And a lot of those guys don't want to shell out $100+ and spend a lot of time learning a new game.
I speak from experience: despite my fairly comprehensive 3.5 (& related games) collection, only 2 of the 15 gamers I currently play with have even given 3.5 more than a cursory glance.
These are people with disposable income, but without a lot of spare time. They view the 3.5 revision as unneccessary in both $$$ and devoting time to learning the "new" game.
How do you think they will react to 4Ed?
The answer- so far- is they've begun discussing upgrading.
To 3.5.
Similar Threads
