OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Storm Raven]

Actually, to be specific, standalone OGL products do not need the PHB. They supercede the PHB by inclusion of material that products under the d20 license cannot include.

True. But the effect of such products is still to WotC's benefit: they need an active and growing pool of gamers to sell to. Those sorts of products, compatible with their flagship product, help drive the market, and ultimately keep the hobby thriving. Cut that off, and the market starts to stagnate, and WotC, as the industry leader, would likely suffer the most.

 

[Turanil]

Actually, to be specific, standalone OGL products do not need the PHB. They supercede the PHB by inclusion of material that products under the d20 license cannot include.

Here lies the whole problem with the OGL. The original poster of this thread thinks that the OGL will be a failure. Well, in some way it is already a failure (although not for publishers and customers). Here is what I mean:

d20 and OGL are NOT the same thing! At first, the principle was to let publishers create d20 products, that would require customers to have a D&D PHB, or at least a d20 Modern book. This is how d20 was meant to promote WotC sales. But then, because the OGL was badly written someone (I think that Mongoose Publishing was the first to notice and take advantage of) was able to create a full game that wouldn't be labelled d20, but that would use d20 mechanics from OGC sources. As such, when you buy a OGL book that doesn't need a PHB, it initially wasn't intended and foreseen by the people at WotC. (I guess that the lawyer who wrote the OGL must have been fired for this fault.)

 

[Turjan]

It was reduced to zero market value because an alternative was open to third party publishers, the 3.5 OGL. Without that they could have still published 3.0 material and advertised it as compatible. Companies in the past, before the OGL, did exactly that. TSR got itself into a tizzy about it, and drove them out of that business (i.e. Mayfair and Judges Guild), but WotC would be hamstrung on that score by the 3.5 OGL.

You can ask whomever you want: d20 products produced for the 3.0 OGL did not sell anymore after WotC published D&D 3.5. They lay in the shelves like lead. They immediately lost their market value. Only new product sold, and not all d20 companies managed to get out 3.5 material. For many, all that unsold 3.0 stock broke their neck.

Psychologically, a shift from version number 3.0 to 3.5 is much smaller than one to 4.0, with the latter indicating a larger shift. Nevertheless, the last revision invialidated 3.0 product. There's no reason to believe that this would be different with a shift to 4.0. The gamers will move on to the next versions and leave the "old stuff" behind. It has always been this way, and there's no reason to assume it will be any different next time. There will be a few die-hards, like always, but that's not important for the market.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But then, because the OGL was badly written someone (I think that Mongoose Publishing was the first to notice and take advantage of) was able to create a full game that wouldn't be labelled d20, but that would use d20 mechanics from OGC sources. As such, when you buy a OGL book that doesn't need a PHB, it initially wasn't intended and foreseen by the people at WotC. (I guess that the lawyer who wrote the OGL must have been fired for this fault.)

You're very much off-base.

The OGL wasn't badly written; it does exactly what it is supposed to do. The same goes for the d20 license. There was nothing unintended or undiscovered in the licenses such as you surmise. The divergence of OGL products and d20 licensed products was forseen by the architects of the OGL-- many of whom have now moved on, leaving the OGL mostly unchampioned. Whether or not Hasbro is still happy with the OGL is a different story, but largely irrelevant.

What matters is whether they are still happy with the d20 STL and whether it will continue to 4e. If they do not extend the d20 STL to 4e, then they will put themselves in a position to compete against OGL products. But this is largely the same as the situation today, where products like Mutants and Masterminds compete (successfully so) against Dungeons and Dragons dollars.

The only impact a change in the d20 STL will have is on smaller publishers who have not established a lasting OGL brand, or who have not cultivated valuable contacts with a larger OGL publisher whom they can continue to support.

And by "impact" I mean, "They will cease to exist."

 

[eyebeams]

There is one recurring undercurrent within this thread that I simply can't understand : What evidence, other than standard gamer paranoia, is there that WotC would publish a 4e without some kind of open license ?

Their abandonment of the sales strategy open gaming was ment to support. WotC got into this thinking they would get out of something called the "supplement treadmill," whereby companies keep pushing our product to maintain cash flow but face steadily diminishing returns. WotC was supposed to leave supplements to third parties while it stuck to the business of making core books.

Stormwrack, Ghostwalk, the Complete series and so on were never supposed to be written under this strategy. WotC was supposed to come out with the odd cheap little softcover to keep their hand in while everyone else made specialized supplements about specific topics so WotC didn't have to.

After a couple of years, the company went back to selling successive supplements on an aggressive schedule like every other successful company. This means that, from the company's perspective, the OGL/D20STL isn't doing its job of providing support for the core books in such a way that keeps their sales evergreen (3.5, which came about because of flagging 3.0 sales more than anything, is clearly indicative of this). If the licences are doing nothing for the company, the company has no motive whatsoever to share.

 

[Storm Raven]

You can ask whomever you want: d20 products produced for the 3.0 OGL did not sell anymore after WotC published D&D 3.5. They lay in the shelves like lead. They immediately lost their market value. Only new product sold, and not all d20 companies managed to get out 3.5 material. For many, all that unsold 3.0 stock broke their neck.

And that's all well and good, but it doesn't begin to descriube the same market that would be extant if WotC published a 4.0 version without an OGL, since customers assumed, given the now OGL, all publishers would shift to that. Without that assumption, I don't think your argument holds true.

Psychologically, a shift from version number 3.0 to 3.5 is much smaller than one to 4.0, with the latter indicating a larger shift. Nevertheless, the last revision invialidated 3.0 product. There's no reason to believe that this would be different with a shift to 4.0.

Except, of course, for the fact that the market conditions you assume would be radically different. I think it interesting that you assume different market conditions would necessarily produce the same result. And, of course, you keep dodging the real question: what motivation would WotC have to screw the market, and themselves along with it?

 

[Turjan]

And that's all well and good, but it doesn't begin to descriube the same market that would be extant if WotC published a 4.0 version without an OGL, since customers assumed, given the now OGL, all publishers would shift to that. Without that assumption, I don't think your argument holds true.

You give the publisher too much weight. You assume that companies have their fans who will stick to them no matter what happens. Though there are a few people like that, this is not the norm. Generally, it doesn't matter to the D&D consumer (that one who's open to d20) who delivers the new stuff, they just want the new stuff. If it's only WotC that produce 4.0 product, it will be WotC that get the sales.

Except, of course, for the fact that the market conditions you assume would be radically different. I think it interesting that you assume different market conditions would necessarily produce the same result. And, of course, you keep dodging the real question: what motivation would WotC have to screw the market, and themselves along with it?

I'm not dodging that question, I have already answered that one in several of my posts above; no point in repeating this. Ironically, I think that it's you who is not taking the changed conditions into account. With D&D 3.0, WotC was dealing with lots of nameless d20 companies that were no real competition; the only big weight was WW, but they dropped the ball on quality and have since left the d20 market (I still don't know whether this sloppy production was on purpose or not ). With the advent of 4.0, WotC will have to deal with a bunch of high-quality competitors that know the d20 pond inside-out and also know how to draw customers to themselves. It's, indeed, a completely different situation .

 

[philreed]

You give the publisher too much weight. You assume that companies have their fans who will stick to them no matter what happens. Though there are a few people like that, this is not the norm. Generally, it doesn't matter to the D&D consumer (that one who's open to d20) who delivers the new stuff, they just want the new stuff.

I'm fairly confident that _if_ 4e comes out minus the OGL my days of producing fantasy PDFs will be over. Whether or not I'll still be able to make a living at writing PDFs I couldn't even guess.

 

[John Morrow]

Their abandonment of the sales strategy open gaming was ment to support. WotC got into this thinking they would get out of something called the "supplement treadmill," whereby companies keep pushing our product to maintain cash flow but face steadily diminishing returns. WotC was supposed to leave supplements to third parties while it stuck to the business of making core books.

They also wanted to get out of the module and adventure business. Given that Necromancer, Goodman Games, and others have stepped in there and WotC has been able to avoid putting out a constant stream of adventures, I think that part of the idea has been fairly successful.

 

[Storm Raven]

You give the publisher too much weight. You assume that companies have their fans who will stick to them no matter what happens. Though there are a few people like that, this is not the norm. Generally, it doesn't matter to the D&D consumer (that one who's open to d20) who delivers the new stuff, they just want the new stuff. If it's only WotC that produce 4.0 product, it will be WotC that get the sales.

No, I assume companies, in the absence of a 4e OGL, would be capable of emulating companies that successfully founded their business on making D&D related products long before the OGL was even thought of. Given the fact that they would have a very similar OGL to draw upon, they would likely be much more successful than companies like Mayfair were in the 1980s.

I'm not dodging that question, I have already answered that one in several of my posts above; no point in repeating this. Ironically, I think that it's you who is not taking the changed conditions into account. With D&D 3.0, WotC was dealing with lots of nameless d20 companies that were no real competition; the only big weight was WW, but they dropped the ball on quality and have since left the d20 market (I still don't know whether this sloppy production was on purpose or not ). With the advent of 4.0, WotC will have to deal with a bunch of high-quality competitors that know the d20 pond inside-out and also know how to draw customers to themselves. It's, indeed, a completely different situation .

And yet, according to WotC, their current share of the market is larger than it was when they were competeing against those "nameless d20 companies that were no real competition". The simple fact that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that WotC is dependent upon the existence of a thriving gaming hobby, and the OGL is a huge part of making sure that exists. Eliminating the OGL will go a long way towards making sure that doesn't continue, and would be terribly detrimental to WotC. As a result, I find it highly unlikely that we will see a OGLess 4e.

(As a footnote, well polished d20 companies are a benefit to WotC, since when people buy those products they are happy, and likely to buy more d20 products, and that most likely means they will buy some WotC produced products on the way. When people buy crappy products, they are less likely to buy more d20 stuff of any kind, which means WotC loses sales in the long run.)