Third Edition Revised Covers??

[Michael Morris]

I was snooping around Amazon.com and bumped into these images

At first glance they don't look different from the current books but look closely, there's another word under the phrase "Core Rulebook." It looks like "Revised."

Second, the font used for the phrase "Core Rulebook X" seems to have changed, but it's hard to tell in these thumbnail scans. Note the PHB cover - "Core Rulebook I" is as high as the adjoining gems, but on the original PHB the text was only half the size of the adjacent gems. This is not an artifact of resizing.

Finally, the shadows on these thumbnails don't match those on the cover of my books, particularly the MM. Remember that the D&D Core Rulebook covers are actually photgraphs of engravings / carvings made by Henry Higgenbotham. WotC may have simply rephotgraphed the originals under better (or at least different) lighting conditions. The shadows seem deeper and more defined, though this could be caused by image resizing.

If these are indeed the new images, a bigger scan would help shed light on the situation. Then again, Amazon might just be showing a new mock-up we haven't seen before instead of the final version.

I've already sent Russ a copy of this for the front page.

 

[Paul_Klein]

And they seem to have added a "30% off" logo in the lower right-hand corner. It's hard to see, but its there.

I wonder why.

 

[Knight Otu]

Not that this helps much, but I recall WotC saying that the covers would be different from those used now, but still recognizable.

I don't know about other, but for me it sounded like a redesign of the covers, so these covers might be just mock-ups...

 

[Michael Morris]

Not that this helps much, but I recall WotC saying that the covers would be different from those used now, but still recognizable.

I don't know about other, but for me it sounded like a redesign of the covers, so these covers might be just mock-ups...

How different though? If you change the font on the "Core Rulebook" phrase and put "Revised" beneath it, you do have a different cover. Not vastly different, but different.

 

[Michael Morris]

And they seem to have added a "30% off" logo in the lower right-hand corner. It's hard to see, but its there.

I wonder why.

The scans are taken from where they are found, Amazon's site. I've never known them to just "make up" a mock up cover, and until recently they had not been showing a cover. So that's part of the mystery.

By the way, your attitude is not appreciated.

 

[Zander]

Not that this helps much, but I recall WotC saying that the covers would be different from those used now, but still recognizable.

I don't know about other, but for me it sounded like a redesign of the covers, so these covers might be just mock-ups...

I agree. Publishers who want to keep a book's cover under wraps until its launch often use conceptual cover artwork to publicise the book within the industry - and that's what's on Amazon.

I suspect that WotC will want to distinguish 3.5 from 3.0 by making the covers quite different. They may be in the same style, but I doubt they'll simply change some of the wording, fonts and shadows.

 

[Michael Morris]

I agree. Publishers who want to keep a book's cover under wraps until its launch often use conceptual cover artwork to publicise the book within the industry - and that's what's on Amazon.

True, true. But why send out a mock up almost indistiguishable from the original. ISomething is rotten in the state of Denmark.. er WotC.

I suspect that WotC will want to distinguish 3.5 from 3.0 by making the covers quite different. They may be in the same style, but I doubt they'll simply change some of the wording, fonts and shadows.

While they definately want them to appear different at a glance, they also want them to be recognizable as the 3e core books. These two needs are dymetrically opposed, and it will be interesting to see the solution of the art department.

It could be that they leave the art the same and change it's colorations slightly. That sort of trick could be very noticable at full size and not very noticable in a thumbnail. Or they might do a radically different layout.

I don't know. But regardless of the truth, these are the first covers that have been shown anywhere that have been associated with the revised covers. Whatever the final looks like remains to be seen.

 

[Zander]

But why send out a mock up almost indistiguishable from the original.

The usual suspects: lack of time and money.

While they definately want them to appear different at a glance, they also want them to be recognizable as the 3e core books. These two needs are dymetrically opposed, and it will be interesting to see the solution of the art department.

My guess is they'll go with the 'tome look', only not the same tomes as the current ones. Perhaps they'll keep the same colour scheme: brown for the PHB, blue for the DMG and red for the MM. They'll probably keep the D&D logo as it is but I wouldn't place a bet on it.

 

[Marius Delphus]

My guess is they'll go with the 'tome look', only not the same tomes as the current ones. Perhaps they'll keep the same colour scheme: brown for the PHB, blue for the DMG and red for the MM. They'll probably keep the D&D logo as it is but I wouldn't place a bet on it.

Agreed, save that I speculate they'll keep the D&D logo as is, for the following reason: "trade dress" continuity. From a marketing perspective, I can't imagine they'd want the new books to appear *that* different from the old books; that'd be taking a chance that customers will fail to identify the new books with the existing brand, and we don't want *that*.

Remember when Burger King changed its logo to the "circle" from the "burger"? There was a big marketing push to make sure people realized it was still the same restaurant... same logic here, only no money for a big marketing push.

 

[Morrus]

WotC have confirmed in the past that the new books will have entirely new art on the covers.

While this may have changed since, I'm betting on the "mockup" theory.