OGC Wiki (merged)

[Morrus]

Phil recently put a very interesting thread about his sales in the publisher forum. I recommend you take a look at it. His top sellers TODAY include stuff he released years ago.

It would not be a stretch to say that the PDF business thrives on backlist.

It would not be a stretch to say that the d20 Wiki project will KILL PDF publishers.

I completely agree with this. And, given that EN World partly depends on sales of EN Publishing PDF products (another publisher which designates entire products as OGC), could never support such a project.

 

[D_Sinclair]

Accumulated, perhaps, and just perhaps. Problem is, say in one year I do get my $500 worth of accumulated OGC from the resource. Nest year I still have to pay and there is no assurance (actually, we can say it's pretty much a given) that there will have been $500 of good new OGC added to the resource. In that case I am the one who's $500 down with only a small fraction of that cost of new OGC to show for it. For it to be worth it again, I'd have to wait another 4-5 years so that the accumulated amount of OGC since my last raid of accumulated OGC becomes worth my expense.

I think the idea of a publisher OGC resource is good; I would love to have a place where I can check for existing OGC and whether it fits my needs or not (heck, I'm in that place right now, and I'm about to design it myself just because of the hassle of finding out if there is anything out there, let alone if it's good for my needs), but not at such a cost, even if I could afford it on a regular basis.

You need to remember, that $500 isn't mere a fee to access an OGC website. It is also paying the costs of someone going through books and collecting the OGC content to place it online, and probably would also cover obtaining copies of products from dead game companies. And odds are, for many publishers, that $500 a year will probably be significantly less than what they spend annually on game books anyway.

BTW, my boss has suggested a D20 Modern OGC database in the past. Even though there were no takers at the time, we've gone ahead with the project, gathering OGC into a series of documents which will eventually become a private wiki. Details are here: http://www.bakabanashi.com/arp/D20MOGCRD.php

 

[jmucchiello]

Every time something like this comes up, I have the same comment. How do I as a publisher know that the wiki page I'm looking at actually contains OGC? Someone could easily have put some PI into the page by mistake. I can't use this hypothetical resource if I can't trust its contents. Yeah, some pages will be input by people I can trust but not all of them. Not all pages will be edited, error-checked and vetted perfectly. Mistakes will happen. If I only use my own sources for content, I only have myself to blame if I get something wrong. This idea has zero value to me as a publisher.

As for the publisher only idea, do I count as a publisher? Who's allowed in and who isn't and who decides? And who wants to put up with the headaches of answering those questions?

 

[jmucchiello]

And odds are, for many publishers, that $500 a year will probably be significantly less than what they spend annually on game books anyway.

Not me. I'm a cheapskate. I spend maybe $100 a year on game books, tops.

 

[hexgrid]

It means you should expect to see a lot less new open content from professionals.

Well, if open content isn't really open, what difference does it make?

 

[Cergorach]

Which is why I think that a professional, subscription-based site -- say $500/year -- would be a good idea. It's not that I'm against the idea of publishers having access to lots of OGC so that they can work from it. I'm against the idea of all of this material being loaded online for free where it can kill sales for a lot of publishers.

And i would only have to pay $500 to gain access to all this OGC? Why i could then copy it, and distribute it for free...

No offense to the pdf publishers here, but maybe it's time to revise your business plan, you knew this day would come eventually. I not saying that just because Mike is saying it now (damn that kid is slow as hell, some folks have been saying this for years) it's going to be the end of you all...

Look at Linux for example, wasn't the OGL losely based on the GPL, that whole OS is 'free'. And you know what, a lot of people are foing over to the OS, governments, corporations, schools, individuals, etc. It's not yet the majority (not by a long shot), but MS has noticed, other OS companies have noticed (Sun => Solaris) and have changed their business plans accordingly. It took a while, but it's happening...

 

[Morrus]

No offense to the pdf publishers here, but maybe it's time to revise your business plan,

Yes. It's called "don't release any more OGC". Simple. Phil suggested it pages ago.

Whether people like it or not, that's the only change publishers would make. They'll do what they feel they need to do to continue publishing. Yet, I've seen people criticise Phil harshly for saying that. It all seems very one-way here - "you have to change the way you do things, but you can only change it in a way that benefits me, not you"; but if Phil chose to do that in reponse to such actions, I'd not blame him one whit.

 

[Rasyr]

And there I was, adding my disclaimer while thinking of you, and then you go and quote me on another board.

Just for me? How sweet.... hehe

Seriously, I would not have thought that you had inside information unless you said you did. Nor did I even think up that theory on my own, and I am normally pretty paranoid when it comes to the actions/motives of large companies (in general). However, like I said, I did find your little joke to be a plausible theory.

Well, at least you did quote the whole thing.

That was on purpose as well, as I did want others to know that YOU were joking when you said it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Yes. It's called "don't release any more OGC". Simple. Phil suggested it pages ago.

Whether people like it or not, that's the only change publishers would make. They'll do what they feel they need to do to continue publishing. Yet, I've seen people criticise Phil harshly for saying that. It all seems very one-way here - "you have to change the way you do things, but you can only change it in a way that benefits me, not you"; but if Phil chose to do that in reponse to such actions, I'd not blame him one whit.

I see where that's coming from, and as I told Phil, the only way that it would be possible to compete with that is some value added to the commericial PDF, and even that would be no guarantee of sales. Better art, layout, editing, hyperlinking, pop up boxes, etc... would be one way to combat the old open content issue.

It doesn't effect print products as much because well, they have the advantage of being print right off the bat and are often preceived as a higher level of professionalism.

 

[BryonD]

Yes. It's called "don't release any more OGC". Simple. Phil suggested it pages ago.

Could you sell as many units if you left the OGL behind?
Honest question.

Whether people like it or not, that's the only change publishers would make. They'll do what they feel they need to do to continue publishing. Yet, I've seen people criticise Phil harshly for saying that. It all seems very one-way here - "you have to change the way you do things, but you can only change it in a way that benefits me, not you"; but if Phil chose to do that in reponse to such actions, I'd not blame him one whit.

I like Phil. I like his products. I like most of what he says.
He is getting a lot more criticism than Wulf. Why is that?
I think because Wulf has just made some matter of fact statements, while Phil seems to be claiming certain privledges that are not really due. Maybe it isn't meant. But that is the way I read it. And I don't think I'm the only one.

Open content has been released and that is the end of the discussion there.
What is ethical and what is nice and yadda yadda yadda are all just a smoke screen around that.
I someone cranks out all Phil's OGC and crashes his sales, it is not a crime. And I'm sorry, but it isn't even unpolite. Phil has already provided full blessing and permission to do exactly that so long as whoever does so meets the OGL requirements themselves.
It isn't a punishment to re-release his product.
And it isn't a punishment to refuse to buy his product if it isn't OGC.

Would this Wiki thing crash sales? Absolutely.
Do I want that to happen? Absolutely not.
I agree completely that if this were to happen, there'd be a major drop in production.
And no one would have a right to complain from either side.

A comment specifically NOT aimed at Phil: When someone who readily hamstrings the Open Gaming community with counter-open cripple content such as IP spell names starts talking about how it should be a friendly community, I find that hypocritical.

Anyway, I apologize Phil if you take offense to this. Its not my intent.