Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 5373891" data-attributes="member: 58105">This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The IP holder does not play around with her IP like that.The deal is that the IP holder will try to make the best of its asset investment wise. The IP holder will try to expand the value of the IP as much as possible while making the most out of it financially wise (aka regarding profits).This comes first, design evolution comes later.The problem is that as we go on in the information age IPs lose much of their potential regarding their staying value. The competition becomes heavier and heavier and IP holders try to focus more on short term profits rather than long term ones. Many IP holding companies, including TSR were really afraid of the information age and demonstrated elements of panic when it was reaching their door step. Just right there, Wotc tried a bold move so to revive D&amp;D in the new age. Thus the open game license. Some years later, when the internets were getting better understood and mastered, Wotc launches a massive internet campaign regarding a new edition while at the same time tries to regain more control over the brand as its proprietary patron.And it somehow works. But there are some pitfalls. What are the pitfalls? First of all the game tries to go too far away from certain traditional concepts so that it could more easily distance or rather barricade itself from what was freely out there. This, along their distance from the OGL created negative feelings in the fan base and the fanbase split enough to make them really worried or so I think. This fact gave room to competition to capitalize on that resentment up to a point where the competition manages to capture half the share of D&amp;D's market.This is the history of the forces that have shaped the game of D&amp;D. It has a lot less to do with game designers than marketing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="xechnao, post: 5373891, member: 58105"] This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The IP holder does not play around with her IP like that. The deal is that the IP holder will try to make the best of its asset investment wise. The IP holder will try to expand the value of the IP as much as possible while making the most out of it financially wise (aka regarding profits). This comes first, design evolution comes later. The problem is that as we go on in the information age IPs lose much of their potential regarding their staying value. The competition becomes heavier and heavier and IP holders try to focus more on short term profits rather than long term ones. Many IP holding companies, including TSR were really afraid of the information age and demonstrated elements of panic when it was reaching their door step. Just right there, Wotc tried a bold move so to revive D&D in the new age. Thus the open game license. Some years later, when the internets were getting better understood and mastered, Wotc launches a massive internet campaign regarding a new edition while at the same time tries to regain more control over the brand as its proprietary patron. And it somehow works. But there are some pitfalls. What are the pitfalls? First of all the game tries to go too far away from certain traditional concepts so that it could more easily distance or rather barricade itself from what was freely out there. This, along their distance from the OGL created negative feelings in the fan base and the fanbase split enough to make them really worried or so I think. This fact gave room to competition to capitalize on that resentment up to a point where the competition manages to capture half the share of D&D's market. This is the history of the forces that have shaped the game of D&D. It has a lot less to do with game designers than marketing. [/QUOTE]

Verification