Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Qwillion]

Its an interesting business model selling by subscription only.

 

[froggie]

sub only

Not really--other options available soon. You may buy 1 chapter at a time as well; but not until they are ready (chapter 1 later this week).

 

[Mark]

I'm of the opinion that WotC giving away D&D will never happen, should never happen, and would be corporate suicide. They're a publishing house, not a merchandising business; it's not even close to an advantage for them to give away creative control of the thing that they're best at, just so they can try to make money in areas they have no skill or core competencies in.

What they are "best at" is CCGs. Many would argue that RPGs are done much better elsewhere. However, Hasbro isn't going to get rid of any property under it. Hasbro wouldn't allow the sale (or the "giving away") of D&D.

 

[William Ronald]

What they are "best at" is CCGs. Many would argue that RPGs are done much better elsewhere. However, Hasbro isn't going to get rid of any property under it. Hasbro wouldn't allow the sale (or the "giving away") of D&D.

Hasbro is interested in holding on to valuable properties and making money of it, either through new products, tie-in ventures with other companies (such as video game licensing), or through merchandising.

I doubt that Hasbro would ever sell WotC, as the collectible card games (the core of WotC's business and profits) provide them with a steady income stream. While Hasbro has other more valuable properties, I cannot think of a logical business reason for Hasbro to sell such a valuable property as WotC. Nor is there a history of Hasbro selling off its divisions.

 

[Oldtimer]

I'm of the opinion that WotC giving away D&D will never happen, should never happen, and would be corporate suicide. They're a publishing house, not a merchandising business; it's not even close to an advantage for them to give away creative control of the thing that they're best at, just so they can try to make money in areas they have no skill or core competencies in. The risk in that is staggering. It's far wiser for them to focus on what they're great at, build the brand, then license that brand to people who can merchandise it for them.

That may not be best for someone who wants to write 4e material without following the GSL, but I think it's definitely best for D&D as a whole.

It might be best for WotC and Hasbro, or at least they might think it is, but it's definitely not the best for D&D as a whole.

I just loved they way that the OGL moved my favourite RPG away from a dying Copyright Regime. Now it seems it will die with it instead. That's just sad.

 

[Steel_Wind]

It might be best for WotC and Hasbro, or at least they might think it is, but it's definitely not the best for D&D as a whole.

There is nothing "dying" about copyright. This is an extremist view.

I concur with Piratecat's assessment.

 

[BryonD]

There is nothing "dying" about copyright. This is an extremist view.

I concur with Piratecat's assessment.

I want to mostly agree with you. But the "extremist" tag is really petty rhetoric. (And silly to boot)

Dungeons and Dragons THE BRAND and WotC the company are best served by protectionism. There are advantages to Open gaming that benefited WotC, but the disadvantage of being forced to compete more directly clearly outweighed the advantages.

And harming copyright would be disastrous.

But if you are not hung up on brand loyalty, then tabletop roleplaying is better served by open gaming than the GSL approach.

But it gets more complicated, because seriously harming the flagship brand could do more harm than Open gaming does good, at least in the short term.

 

[tomBitonti]

Dungeons and Dragons THE BRAND and WotC the company are best served by protectionism. There are advantages to Open gaming that benefited WotC, but the disadvantage of being forced to compete more directly clearly outweighed the advantages.

Lot's o' disagreement on that point (and I would say not just from me).

To fail to maintain a competitive edge is, I think, a very bad idea.

But, I think you mispeak. "Protectionism" is not the same as protecting intellectual property. Protecting intellectual property is a competitive statement: You are forcing competitors to create their own property.

Even so, there are problems, where your intellectual property is a sandbox for folks to tell stories.

Also, were there ever any truly competing products? For all the talk of open this an open that, the only effect that I could tell was a muddying of product quality. Some was great, and a lot was rather mediocre.

Not that WotC is actually putting out much of the vast IP that they hold.

Thx!

 

[JohnRTroy]

If the OGL was truly economically beneficial to WoTC, I doubt they would have dropped it. I mean, they are the best to know, and have access to their own accounting research, as well as marketing research. And if the OGL was really the superior way to publish, you would have seen a lot more companies take it up than the few (non 3e D&D-based) that have.

Like I said above, a lot of people praise the OGL not so much for true economic benefits, but more about their belief in it. Most of the arguments I see for it, don't come from the publishers, but the enthusiasts, many of who are thinking as gamers first (and the OGL only allowed you to publish work, you always were able to create on your own, so there's no real freedom that affects a gamer).

Belief does not equal Proof. It's okay to believe in a theory but it has to be proven, otherwise it may fail.

 

[Oldtimer]

There is nothing "dying" about copyright. This is an extremist view.

No, it's a visionary view. Copyright will die soon. 300 years is long enough.