D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Wicht]

The fact that you happen to be one of those 3PP studios that wanted to release content from the very beginning of WotC's 5E lifespan makes your opinions on the matter less than objective. You can claim WotC would have been better off... but in truth, it's you and other designers like you who truly would have been better off because you'd be actually selling things right now, rather than not selling anything. So it's very hard to take your statements on the situation at face-value.

You are of course assuming that 5e has hurt the 3pp publishers, which I am not sure is actually the case. Certainly its not the case that 3pp are not selling anything. Pathfinder is still doing well enough, and I noticed at BAM yesterday that not only is there still more Pathfinder material being offered than 5e, especially if you add in the APCG, but there are also now some 3pp Pathfinder books there as well, Jason Nelson's Legendary Games books in particular.

 

[spectacle]

You are of course assuming that 5e has hurt the 3pp publishers, which I am not sure is actually the case. Certainly its not the case that 3pp are not selling anything. Pathfinder is still doing well enough, and I noticed at BAM yesterday that not only is there still more Pathfinder material being offered than 5e, especially if you add in the APCG, but there are also now some 3pp Pathfinder books there as well, Jason Nelson's Legendary Games books in particular.

Pathfinder isn't a 3rd party publisher for D&D anymore, they're a 1st party publisher of their own game, so how much they're selling isn't really relevant to the status of 3rd parties relative to D&D. And whether or not 5E has hurt 3rd party publishers is also not the issue, but that they would almost certainly have benefited a lot more from 5E if there was an explicit and good license for 3rd party 5E content.

 

[delericho]

I know that Hasbro has discontinued producing certain licensed products such as Cabbage Patch Kids and Pokemon; but have they ever actually sold IP to another company?

This has been discussed at various points. In one of the debates waaaay back, someone came up with a short list of IP that they did indeed sell. I'm afraid I can't provide a citation for that, though.

(IIRC, they were all very minor IP, though. I'm not aware of them selling anything of the scale of D&D, where although the central product is small change, the licensing rights are potentially huge.)

 

[pemerton]

although the central product is small change

What do you mean by "the central product"? [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has the details, but my understanding is that D&D has sold enough recently to have been called out in Hasbro annual reports/stockholder updates. That doesn't suggest "small change" to me.

 

[delericho]

What do you mean by "the central product"?

The D&D RPG, of course.

my understanding is that D&D has sold enough recently to have been called out in Hasbro annual reports/stockholder updates. That doesn't suggest "small change" to me.

Sigh. It wasn't an attack on WotC or D&D. I'm well aware of the fact that 5e is doing spectacularly well right now. Long may it continue.

 

[pemerton]

It wasn't an attack on WotC or D&D.

I didn't think it was. I'm more interested in accuracy. And also in separating commercial from aesthetic judgments. As it happens, I play 4e and don't play 5e, and there's a reasonable chance I will continue to play 4e in the future, whereas it's unlikely I'll play much if any 5e. But that aesthetic/play preference is quite separate from commercial issues. It seems pretty clear to me that 5e is a commercial success, and that from Hasbor's point of view it's more than just "small change". So I don't see that WotC has any strong commercial reason to release 5e (or some portion of it) under the OGL at this point.

I may be wrong about that, of course - there may be reasons I'm ignorant of - but the recent posts in this thread by OGL proponents haven't really spelled out what those reasons would be.

 

[delericho]

It seems pretty clear to me that 5e is a commercial success, and that from Hasbor's point of view it's more than just "small change".

While it's absolutely true that 5e has been, and continues to be, a huge success, this hasn't been the pattern for the 15 years Hasbro have owned the IP, and of course there's no guarantee that it will continue to enjoy that same level of success.

So while it is indeed currently "on a tear", it would be much more normal to consider the D&D-RPG to be small change when considered against the likes of Transformers, My Little Pony, or even Magic. Or, indeed, the potential licensing benefits from a movie, video game, or other uses.

So I don't see that WotC has any strong commercial reason to release 5e (or some portion of it) under the OGL at this point.

I was responding to a sub-thread where it had been suggested Hasbro might sell D&D as a whole, hence my comment about not being aware of them selling any IP of the sort of size of D&D.

(Of course, if they were thinking about selling then now would actually be about the best time to do so, what with 5e doing exceptionally well and them getting the movie rights back. That means value of the IP is high, and may be more likely to go down than further up. But since I don't think they're planning to sell, or indeed ever would sell for anything less than silly money, it's rather a moot point.)

As regards any commercial argument for releasing 5e under the OGL: I'm not sure there is one. I rather suspect that if they do such a thing it will be more about garnering goodwill than about a solid business case. I have no idea if or when they would do such a thing - though we can be sure they won't if they think it would be harmful (rather than beneficial or neutral) to the numbers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You are of course assuming that 5e has hurt the 3pp publishers, which I am not sure is actually the case. Certainly its not the case that 3pp are not selling anything. Pathfinder is still doing well enough, and I noticed at BAM yesterday that not only is there still more Pathfinder material being offered than 5e, especially if you add in the APCG, but there are also now some 3pp Pathfinder books there as well, Jason Nelson's Legendary Games books in particular.

I am of course referring to the third-party publishers who wish to sell *5E* material... which should have been blatantly obvious.

 

[Wicht]

Pathfinder isn't a 3rd party publisher for D&D anymore, they're a 1st party publisher of their own game, so how much they're selling isn't really relevant to the status of 3rd parties relative to D&D. And whether or not 5E has hurt 3rd party publishers is also not the issue, but that they would almost certainly have benefited a lot more from 5E if there was an explicit and good license for 3rd party 5E content.

Yes, but Legendary Games, who I cited, is a 3pp. And I consider anyone publishing Pathfinder material to be publishing D&D, but thats a matter of semantics and world-view.

But, what I was responding to was the claim that 3pp were not publishing anything because there was no OGL for 5e. That's simply not a true statement, and its not even a true statement relative to 5e alone.

 

[Wicht]

I am of course referring to the third-party publishers who wish to sell *5E* material... which should have been blatantly obvious.

I apologize for misconstruing your meaning and that it was not obvious to me.

But even so, the claim that there are no 3pp producing anything for 5e is not factually correct on its own merits. I will assume therefore you were using hyperbole and let it drop.