removed

[Cergorach]

Fewer, certainly. People would have pooled resources and we would have seen fewer (but hopefully, better) products released.

Having money to spend on a product doesn't mean it will be a good product, if that was true i would be happy to throw some money around (whatever i have)...

What if it was $10k, even fewer publishers.
Publishers would try to work around it either using their own system or something that's compatible.

When 4e comes around i think it would be foolhardy to not release a OGL SRD, folks would expand the 3(.5)e SRD to be compatible with 4e on their own. At least WotC would be able to direct the 'movement' of 3rd party developers.

A brand name that's more recognized then D20, but (a lot) less costly then the D&D brand name would be interesting. But centralized quality control and oversight would be very costly and time consuming, not to mention restrictive. Some sort of quality control would guarantee a certain level of quality...

 

[Henry]

In my opinion, if WotC "closed" the next edition of D&D it would just re-introduce the exact same legal question back on the table -- the old familiar faces of "what is copyrightable" and "what is non-infringeable" about terms like Armor Class, Orc, Goblin, Kobold, etc. With the OGL, you actually stipulate that you're making certain key concessions about what's IP and what's not in order to publish contention-free under the license. Except now that the OGL's out of the bag, the terms like "Armor Class," "Hit Points," etc. etc. are quite useable, which makes any changes WotC makes for a new edition very likely easy to overcome for 3rd party publishers.

 

[jaerdaph]

I think it would be interesting if they released a free to use SRD and d20 logo for 4e, but this time charged a fee to use the official D&D logo.

 

[philreed]

I think it would be interesting if they released a free to use SRD and d20 logo for 4e, but this time charged a fee to use the official D&D logo.

Which would need an approval process. Not a bad thing.

 

[jaerdaph]

Which would need an approval process. Not a bad thing.

Bingo, and (hopefully) everyone's happy.

Eventually the future Green Ronins, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, and Ronin Arts yet-to-be could "upgrade" from the d20 to the D&D logo when their product quality and sales justify it.

 

[Ranger REG]

I really couldn't disagree more.

If that had happened in 3e how many of Ronin Arts, Malhavoc, Green Ronin, Adamant Entertainment, Goodman Games, Necromancer Games, Fiery Dragon, RPGObjects, and so on would have existed?

Probably not Ronin Arts. Hmm. Maybe philreed have the right idea.

just kidding...

 

[2WS-Steve]

What a vibrant discussion for a "removed" thread!

The license fee for the logo would seem reasonable, though I'm not sure how many takers there would be.

Still, we had something like that already with Kenzer and Co's D&D branded books. Generally I thought they were solid, and I thought that other companies, such as AEG and particularly FFG produced some good material and they're the kind of places that could have afforded a licensing fee.

But I do think that a bunch of the really great and innovative stuff was made by the guys in my list. A license fee might increase the average quality because it clears out the slough -- but I don't care about the average quality because I'm just going to buy the great books.

I think what a license fee would do is protect you from the low-end stuff, which I don't need protection from, at the expense of the A-list stuff.

 

[jaerdaph]

The license fee for the logo would seem reasonable, though I'm not sure how many takers there would be.

Paying for the D&D logo would have to have a serious "value-add" over the d20 logo, like "canon" or "official" status. For example, like what Paizo has with the DRAGON and DUNGEON Mags.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Paying for the D&D logo would have to have a serious "value-add" over the d20 logo, like "canon" or "official" status. For example, like what Paizo has with the DRAGON and DUNGEON Mags.

I'd think for them that the D&D logo isn't as valuable as the Dungeon and Dragon logos and brand loyalty.

The best test would be looking at the sales of Kenzer & Co. D&D branded books versus the sales for similar, merely d20 branded books at the time.

I suspect that it was a strong initial boost, particularly for getting distribution and getting retailers to carry the stock -- but didn't count as much as company reputation down the line.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'd think for them that the D&D logo isn't as valuable as the Dungeon and Dragon logos and brand loyalty.

The best test would be looking at the sales of Kenzer & Co. D&D branded books versus the sales for similar, merely d20 branded books at the time.

I suspect that it was a strong initial boost, particularly for getting distribution and getting retailers to carry the stock -- but didn't count as much as company reputation down the line.

Yeah, I didn't come around to pick up any KoK products.