What Would Happen If (Almost) Nobody Paid for RPGs?

[resistor]

mlund is basically mirroring my thoughts here. I know how open source software works; I dispute that model would work for a role-playing game (or a movie, a song, a book, or any other piece of art that can only be judged subjectively).

And I'm pointing out that software is judged subjectively too, and the approach works pretty well there.

There's no One True Way to write an operating system, a compiler, a shell, or a text editor. Just like there's no One True Game.

 

[resistor]

To clarify my own opinion, I don't actually agree with any of the poll options.

All I'm sure of is that it would be very, very different. I don't know that it would be inherently better one way than the other (though I'm confident that both approaches are at least viable).

 

[Caliber]

And I'm pointing out that software is judged subjectively too, and the approach works pretty well there.

There's no One True Way to write an operating system, a compiler, a shell, or a text editor. Just like there's no One True Game.

Very true, but there is a way to say "hey, this compiler runs much slower than that one!" and have it be demonstrably true. What are the odds at getting people to agree at which system runs the fastest?

 

[mlund]

mlund is basically mirroring my thoughts here. I know how open source software works; I dispute that model would work for a role-playing game (or a movie, a song, a book, or any other piece of art that can only be judged subjectively).

Indeed. It is the subjective and often capricious nature of entertainment that makes the software-to-entertainment proposal an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're not going to get the motion picture production of "Ben Hur" out of a system in which no one pays for movies.

While you may be able to build multiple operating systems or encyclopedia, an operating system has to operate and an encyclopedia has to survive fact-checking (a major strike against Wikipedia, btw).

Meanwhile forum-created RPG products may be high quality in the opinions of some, but I haven't seen any penetrate the mass-market or even become popular enough that any regulars in our city-wide D&D get-together even mention them in passing. Like I said, the only way I see that obstacle being overcome is if people start paying for RPGs again and people start releasing distributions that people buy.

- Marty Lund

 

[resistor]

Very true, but there is a way to say "hey, this compiler runs much slower than that one!" and have it be demonstrably true. What are the odds at getting people to agree at which system runs the fastest?

Nice choice, since a compiler is actually what I work on. ;-)

While that's nice in theory, it's never that simple, even when talking about software. The answer is always "it depends." The compiler I work on is faster for some workloads, while other compilers are faster than it at other things. Similarly, each has some areas of code quality in which they out perform the other. All of these boil down to under-the-hood differences in the design decisions.

To pull an example from operating systems, FreeBSD and Linux differ in how they do kernel-userspace thread mapping. Linux uses 1-1 mapping, while FreeBSD uses M-N mapping. M-N mapping is theoretically more efficiently, but is harder to get right, and loses its efficiency edge if not well tuned. So the answer to which one is better for threading? "It depends." What really matter is "Is it better for running the programs I care about?"

This all seems very analogous to the world of RPGs. There are SOME quantifiable attributes (rules-heavy vs. rules-light, conflict vs. task resolution, etc.), a lot of it comes down to "how well does it meet your own personal goals." If you goals are to have a game that plays fast and light, you might like system X. If you want something very detail-oriented, try system Y.

 

[kenmarable]

I think it would be pretty bad for it overall. It wouldn't kill the industry, but it would cripple it into being trapped in an ever dwindling niche. The few reasons I see for this are:

1) Maybe culture will change in a generation or two, but for now, unless it's in a professional pretty box on a shelve (even virtually), it won't be widely accepted. Appearances are a big factor in branching out into new customers, and high production standards wouldn't really be possible without good returns.

2) The industry would lose A LOT of great talent. Yeah, there's plenty of great amateur talent, but especially at first, the talent levels would plummet. Look at how many WotC layoffs are doing work part time. A few have tried (aka the Game Mechanics), but most have either been hired by other companies (aka Sean Reynolds at Paizo - but even that was years later) or moved out of the industry. Plus, living and breathing it as a full time job generally leads to richer, better work than doing it nights and weekends when your kids are wondering when you can spend some time with them. Lastly, I think high-end artistic talent, since that's probably easier to use in other industries, would dry up the worst.

3) The industry standard would probably be along the lines of what's available at RPGNow for $2 and less. Not saying that's good or bad - there's actually both extremes in that area - but the likes of Pathfinder, Tome of Magic, Manual of the Planes, would probably not exist. The vast majority would be small personal projects since large scale coordinated efforts on CREATIVE projects is very hard to manage all the way to completion (I've been part of over a dozen failed ones, and ZERO completed ones). Something along the lines of 4e would probably not happen either because of this.

4) No licensed properties. Star Wars RPG wouldn't exist. Without a clear financial return, I don't see any licensed RPG ever appearing. Of course, there could be fan conversions as long as the copyright holder doesn't notice or care.

5) No printed books unless they were print on demand. But POD is gaining serious ground on traditional printing, so quality is not much of an issue and cost will eventually become more comparable.


However, I think something short of that is still possible. The main open source/shareware business model is actually along the lines of "give away some of the goods, so that they will pay for the rest". In software this is typically either a more robustly featured version or support contracts. Now a big company like WotC could go along these lines with either a limited free version (e.g. heroic tier only, cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard, human/elf/dwarf), and then sell the full version. In fact I think that could really work well, but it's too untraditional for a company as "corporate" in mindset as WotC. The "support" option could go along the lines of giving away the PHB online, but offering DDI subscriptions. That's a little riskier (since the PHB requires A LOT of development costs), however.

Secondly, for smaller companies (e.g. not WotC, White Wolf, or Paizo), I think a shareware model is actually a great idea. Beyond the top companies, it becomes much harder to stand out, and market penetration is a much bigger factor. Being distributed free won't help WotC gain much more market penetration (in their position advertising costs is more bang for the buck than lost book revenue), but for Tommy Publishing that works in dozens, or if really lucky hundreds of sales, free distribution can be a huge boon. In the end, I think it still helps if there is some revenue coming in somehow, but at the small scale if it's even just breaking even, that can help keep someone producing a lot of content much faster than getting absolutely nothing in return. Individual projects may be motivating enough to do it for nothing (which is actually at a loss if you think about what else you could be doing as well as any costs of art, software, website, etc.), but sustained interest often needs more reward than appreciation.

At least in my opinion.

 

[kitsune9]

Here's my scenario:

1. The industry would disintegrate and cease to be professional and become mostly the work of amatuers. By amateur, I'm not saying good ideas by newbies, I'm saying mostly stupid ideas through poor grammar by newbies with sporadic knowledge of the content they're writing about. You'd see some work from guys who'd put their souls into the work, but they are few and far in between.

2. Boredom. Doing something for free and putting in blood, sweat, and tears into it is a huge time committment that pays off only in bragging rights, if at that. Even then, unless the person is a really talented artist and knows how to do good layout, quality content will just look like a Word doc. Eventually, the people who put in the really good effort will quit, because they are going to efficiently use their time for other things and that will leave us the work of #1. Eventually those people will get tired and do something else.

3. Content disappears. With no money in the industry, there's no money for maintaining websites, so content starts to disappear as websites get shut down when their subscriptions expire. The only place to get existing content would be community forums like this one that offers downloads. Even then, EN World needs donations and revenue to stay open. If that goes away, then these places go away.

Another poster stated that they would love to live in Star Trek where everyone did their best or worked their hardest for the good of humanity. I would like to live in that world too, but unfortunately, that's not the reality of any industry, let alone this one.

 

[resistor]

Meanwhile forum-created RPG products may be high quality in the opinions of some, but I haven't seen any penetrate the mass-market or even become popular enough that any regulars in our city-wide D&D get-together even mention them in passing. Like I said, the only way I see that obstacle being overcome is if people start paying for RPGs again and people start releasing distributions that people buy.

I'll agree with you that mass marketing publishing would probably be out of the picture in this hypothetical world.

As for the rest, I think you're confusing incumbent advantage with impossibility. (Almost) Everybody plays D&D because it has a MASSIVE inertial advantage. And I certain agree that, if all the publishers tanked tomorrow, it would take some time for a "open source" alternative to gain sufficient steam to make a dent in it.

But I don't think that's unexpected. Firefox, probably the most popular open source success story, has taken most of a decade to become a major market player. And it had the advantage of starting from a previously-commercial codebase. Linux, the other big success, has taken a decade and a half to get to where it is today.

 

[resistor]

That's not the reality of any industry, let alone this one.

Except, of course, that is, for at least one. ;-)

OK, slightly exaggerating there, but I think you're ignoring significant precedent otherwise.

 

[Beginning of the End]

...and an encyclopedia has to survive fact-checking (a major strike against Wikipedia, btw).

Here's the thing to remember about Wikipedia: It is just as reliable as any other random resource you might choose to peruse, although it does have the advantage of openly available community critique (check the Discussion and History tabs on any article) and most of the articles will have hot-linkable citations that can be quickly checked.