Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shadow" data-source="post: 1124963" data-attributes="member: 2182">This is just my theory, but I think the changes have more to do with D&amp;D licensed products than the game itself.&nbsp; Wizards has been talking a lot about &quot;brand recognition&quot;, and how the D&amp;D game is widely recognized (although poorly understood) by the general public.&nbsp; Hence, owning the D&amp;D game is owning a product with a lot of potential market.&nbsp; &nbsp; Now, the although RPGs don't sell all that well to the general public, licensing the &quot;brand&quot; out to different companies has the potential to make quite a profit.&nbsp; Hasn't Wizards been talking somewhat about this?&nbsp; Remember Scourge of the Worlds ?&nbsp; Or what about the D&amp;D based MMORPG computer game?&nbsp; I think that this is WotC's (or more likely Hasbro's) first attempt to see how well they could market D&amp;D based products to the general public.&nbsp; It's a way of getting their feet wet so to speak.&nbsp; I wouldn't doubt that WotC is looking to license the D&amp;D name out for some big projects.&nbsp; The afforementioned MMORPG is probably the first.&nbsp; However, I think that Hasbro is worried about their image.&nbsp; If D&amp;D based products are going to be widespread, it could negatively affect them if D&amp;D has a bad name.&nbsp; Although d20 products aren't published or endoresed by WotC, the general public might not make such a distinction. (Especially if the book says &quot;requires the use of Dungeons &amp; Dragons PHB to play&quot;.)&nbsp; &nbsp; Although one could argue that controversy could increase sales, Hasbro which owns WotC has an image to maintain.&nbsp; As essentially a toy company, Hasbro probably wants to look &quot;kid friendly&quot; to the public.&nbsp; It wouldn't do their reputation very good if the public &quot;knew&quot; that one of their subsidiaries was publishing a game full of &quot;violence, racism, and sex&quot;. This happened to Disney a few years ago when their subsidiary, Miramax, made the movie Priest.&nbsp; Although as a big company, Disney wasn't hurt to much financially, they were boycotted by the Southern Baptist churches and earned them the censure of many Christians.&nbsp; &nbsp; Moreover, unlike the &quot;D&amp;D causes demon worship&quot; rumor of the 80's, issues of pornography, violence, and racism touch a lot more people than conservative Christians.&nbsp; Racism is especially a touchy topic.&nbsp; If a supremacist group published a book like RAHOWA d20, D&amp;D's name may get associated with hate and racism.&nbsp; Of course having D&amp;D associated with gratuitous violence, sex, or racism would really hurt WotC (hence Hasbro's) chance of licening the D&amp;D name out to other companies.&nbsp; Also it would soil Hasbro's reputation of being a &quot;kid friendly company&quot;.&nbsp; I don't agree with WotC current policy.&nbsp; To me the spirit of the OGL has always been one of being able to publish what you would like.&nbsp; IMHO, it would probably have been better if WotC simply added a clause saying something to the affect of &quot;Wizards of the Coast does not endorse or condone any content in this book&quot;. (Of course that probably wouldn't stop criticism since few critics bother to read the material they are criticizing.) Hopefully WotC will listen to the complaint and remedy everything in the next version of the license.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shadow, post: 1124963, member: 2182"] This is just my theory, but I think the changes have more to do with D&D licensed products than the game itself. Wizards has been talking a lot about "brand recognition", and how the D&D game is widely recognized (although poorly understood) by the general public. Hence, owning the D&D game is owning a product with a lot of potential market. Now, the although RPGs don't sell all that well to the general public, licensing the "brand" out to different companies has the potential to make quite a profit. Hasn't Wizards been talking somewhat about this? Remember [U]Scourge of the Worlds[/U] ? Or what about the D&D based MMORPG computer game? I think that this is WotC's (or more likely Hasbro's) first attempt to see how well they could market D&D based products to the general public. It's a way of getting their feet wet so to speak. I wouldn't doubt that WotC is looking to license the D&D name out for some big projects. The afforementioned MMORPG is probably the first. However, I think that Hasbro is worried about their image. If D&D based products are going to be widespread, it could negatively affect them if D&D has a bad name. Although d20 products aren't published or endoresed by WotC, the general public might not make such a distinction. (Especially if the book says "requires the use of [B]Dungeons & Dragons[/B] PHB to play".) Although one could argue that controversy could increase sales, Hasbro which owns WotC has an image to maintain. As essentially a toy company, Hasbro probably wants to look "kid friendly" to the public. It wouldn't do their reputation very good if the public "knew" that one of their subsidiaries was publishing a game full of "violence, racism, and sex". This happened to Disney a few years ago when their subsidiary, Miramax, made the movie [U]Priest[/U]. Although as a big company, Disney wasn't hurt to much financially, they were boycotted by the Southern Baptist churches and earned them the censure of many Christians. Moreover, unlike the "D&D causes demon worship" rumor of the 80's, issues of pornography, violence, and racism touch a lot more people than conservative Christians. Racism is especially a touchy topic. If a supremacist group published a book like RAHOWA d20, D&D's name may get associated with hate and racism. Of course having D&D associated with gratuitous violence, sex, or racism would really hurt WotC (hence Hasbro's) chance of licening the D&D name out to other companies. Also it would soil Hasbro's reputation of being a "kid friendly company". I don't agree with WotC current policy. To me the spirit of the OGL has always been one of being able to publish what you would like. IMHO, it would probably have been better if WotC simply added a clause saying something to the affect of "Wizards of the Coast does not endorse or condone any content in this book". (Of course that probably wouldn't stop criticism since few critics bother to read the material they are criticizing.) Hopefully WotC will listen to the complaint and remedy everything in the next version of the license. [/QUOTE]

Verification