WotC should make an online SRD....

[DracoSuave]

If they want to protect their IP, it is

Short-sighted.

'Protecting the IP' is corp-speak for 'protecting the revenue stream' when referring to piracy.

There's a huge difference.

Sure, the only argument that it effected their bottom line is of piracy. That is all. It is STILL effecting their bottom line.

There's also the issue of PDF sales endanger the sales garnered through the brick and mortar shops that they -need- to fund their other revenue streams. RPGs can be done strictly online, being that it is a strictly intellectual property consisting of information.

Collectable Card Games on the other hand are not so simply 'pdf'd'.

I remember once working for a company the guy in charge said 'Look, if you're in sales, so long as you're making the sales, the company will go under before it'll lay you off. Anyone else is expendable, but even if the company is down to two people, you're the guy sitting with the CEO.'

Essentially, the brick and mortar shops are THE primary sales units for Wizards of the Coast. Any business strategy that endangers that is -directly- messing with their revenue.

Any suggestion otherwise has no idea what a 'salesperson' is.

I play 4E exclusively. I don't bother to read the anti-4e boards or the 3.5 boards. But I do know that 4e suffers because of a lack of support from 3PPs.

You cannot know a subjective opinion. You feel those things.

However, for this statement to be true, the idea that a lack of third party support means that a gaming product suffers, that would mean that one would have to cite evidence towards this.

Instead, however, I ask of you this. If the lack of third party support causes a role playing product line to suffer, then why is White Wolf still in business? Steve Jackson Games? Chaosium?

Moreover Paizo's third party support isn't actually a good example of 'good business practices.' Such support is required under the OGL that they've had to adopt in order to use the very game system they're founded on. They have to have third party support, because they -ARE- third party support.

It's not a matter of choice for them... they use d20 and therefore must allow third party support.

AND, to boot, if Wizards truly wanted to, they'd be absolutely allowed to rescind the OGL for 3rd edition, thus causing Pathfinder to completely end. Done. Finito.

It's a good thing then that Wizards is pro-third parties, or their 'number one competition' if I interpret your opinion correctly simply would not be.

Paizo seems to me to be gaining traction. Just read the general forums here sometime. The general attitude (on the internet, as that is all that can be gauged online) is one that favors Paizo as a company vs Wizards.

The only thing less trustworthy than statistics are statistics that don't even bother with the numbers.

Sources, mate. You need them before you start passing off personal impressions as 'facts.'

Could that be 4E hate? I suppose. Or it could be that Paizo is doing something better than or something that Wizards is not offering. In my view, Paizo has a better online rep than Wizards - for whatever reason.

Your opinion is based on your opinion. I can't argue against a tautology like that.

I can however argue against its validity in application to the current argument.

I agree. I am not arguing about the tools. They are the best tools I have used for any game (except for customization - but that is another thread).

The only thing I think is that there should be a digital offering of the books - especially the essentials line that is coming out. What better way to bring new people into the game than to sell into new avenues? The new Apple book store or the Amazon Kindle? As well as have the books in the book stores?

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

You've taken 'Put it into other avenues' and equated that with sales.

But sales does not work that way. It never has.

In order to sell a product, you have to make the person want the product more than the money they have in their hand. You have to make them value your product. And for entertainment dollars, that means you have to give them an entertainment experience.

The easiest, and most effective way to do so, with roleplaying games has always been to allow the prospective buyer the opportunity to see how fun the game is. More games are sold by -playing- the game than by any other means.

Successful game stores don't have games just sitting on the shelves waiting for buyers. They have games on tables waiting for players. And the player plays the game, and then get sold by the simple fact that they've -already had a positive experience with the product.-

'The kids' might want pdfs, but 'the kids' don't yet want Dungeons and Dragons pdfs because 'The kids' don't know about it and don't want to play it. They want to spend money on other things, and telling them 'Hey look, it's now on pdf!' isn't exactly a selling point when they don't give a crap about the thing in the first place.

 

[mudbunny]

AND, to boot, if Wizards truly wanted to, they'd be absolutely allowed to rescind the OGL for 3rd edition, thus causing Pathfinder to completely end. Done. Finito.

I don't think that they can. One of the clauses in the OGL is that the OGL is irrevocable.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

/derail

 

[Kingreaper]

They had them and then pulled them. That is a big difference. They were in the market. There may have been issues (for instance a lot of people complained about the price of the PDF). It was worthwhile at some point. What happened? All we can do is look at what we know happened..

Prove it.

You're saying the WotC are making a massive blunder by not having PDFs on the market. You can't say "WotC released PDFs, it must have been the right thing to do" and still say that WotC are doing the wrong thing.

That's a completely self-contradictory argument.

Maybe WotC made a mistake, realised the money they were making from PDFs was too low to justify the downsides (because they weren't selling well at high prices, and would have had to be lowered, which wouldn't have been worth it) and scrapped the whole thing.

WotC before they tried it is more likely to be wrong than WotC AFTER they tried it.

 

[rjdafoe]

Short-sighted.

There's also the issue of PDF sales endanger the sales garnered through the brick and mortar shops that they -need- to fund their other revenue streams. RPGs can be done strictly online, being that it is a strictly intellectual property consisting of information.

Essentially, the brick and mortar shops are THE primary sales units for Wizards of the Coast. Any business strategy that endangers that is -directly- messing with their revenue.

Yet they sell to Amazon and they have probably done more to close gaming stores than anyone else.

However, for this statement to be true, the idea that a lack of third party support means that a gaming product suffers, that would mean that one would have to cite evidence towards this.

So the lack of third party support is a plus for 4E? I am not sure that I know of anyone that would agree with you. It most certainly is a negative to everyone I have ever spoken with or to. Just for you ( )- I will revise it and say 4e cannot realize it's full potential without robust 3rd party support.

But... this is not what this thread is about so we are going off on a tangent here.

Sources, mate. You need them before you start passing off personal impressions as 'facts.'

right back at ya....

Nothing I have said and I have stated this repeatedly yet you still insist this have I ever said that they are facts. In fact, because of your insistence that everything I say is a fact, I have added stuff like it seems to me or I think just for you

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

You've taken 'Put it into other avenues' and equated that with sales.

And you have taken put it into other avenues as no sales.

And what of those potential customers that never visit a game store? Or never go into that corner of the book store? New players (I would say the potential of most new players) do not necessarily come from other rule sets or even anything that would be in a game store. Getting new players has always been a problem. Getting some of the lines of entry away from game stores exclusively is a good thing. We are not talking about some exclusive club here.

When I was a kid, I did not go into a game store for 2 or 3 years until after I had been playing. We only ever met like minded gaming people in a game store as well.

 

[rjdafoe]

Prove it.

You're saying the WotC are making a massive blunder by not having PDFs on the market. You can't say "WotC released PDFs, it must have been the right thing to do" and still say that WotC are doing the wrong thing.

That's a completely self-contradictory argument.

Maybe WotC made a mistake, realised the money they were making from PDFs was too low to justify the downsides (because they weren't selling well at high prices, and would have had to be lowered, which wouldn't have been worth it) and scrapped the whole thing.

WotC before they tried it is more likely to be wrong than WotC AFTER they tried it.

So what your saying is that after the fact, it could NOT be the wrong decision to remove them?

I could say the same thing for you about prove it. My proof exists on the internet, in a time line if you care to look as to what happened. All we can do is make a conclusion as to that time line as to what is likely that happened. Your the one claiming they didn't make any money.

You can't get any more explicit than this:

ICv2 - WotC Ends PDF Download Sales

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

The fact is, you do not know that they were not making money and they pulled the PDFs at the time of the lawsuits. Period. Straight from WotC.

If what "some participants" says are true in the first link (they are as true as you guys are) - then I don't buy your not making money argument.

The other thing that makes digital books good for customers (but I will say maybe not good for businesses) is that errata can be incorporated into them and they can be re-downloaded with updated fixes.

 

[CovertOps]

So what your saying is that after the fact, it could NOT be the wrong decision to remove them?

I could say the same thing for you about prove it. My proof exists on the internet, in a time line if you care to look as to what happened. All we can do is make a conclusion as to that time line as to what is likely that happened. Your the one claiming they didn't make any money.

You can't get any more explicit than this:

ICv2 - WotC Ends PDF Download Sales

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

The fact is, you do not know that they were not making money and they pulled the PDFs at the time of the lawsuits. Period. Straight from WotC.

If what "some participants" says are true in the first link (they are as true as you guys are) - then I don't buy your not making money argument.

The other thing that makes digital books good for customers (but I will say maybe not good for businesses) is that errata can be incorporated into them and they can be re-downloaded with updated fixes.

Piracy options:

1) Do nothing (and watch piracy increase substantially) - "Here's a copy of my PDF...WotC won't do anything anyway if I share it with you..."
2) Sue

From WotC's stand point both cost money. The only question is how much?

Companies do this thing called a Cost/Benefit analysis. It's where they look at potential revenue for selling a product as well as it's associated costs, including but not limited to, lawsuits, distribution, contract obligations, etc. When WotC filed their lawsuit it dramatically changed the Cost/Benefit of selling PDFs. The cost was increased (legal costs) and the benefits decreased (lost revenue).

Your assertion several pages back was that pulling PDFs was a "kneejerk reaction" based on the filing of the lawsuit and was completely arbitrary. My assertion is that your didn't follow your assertion all the way back to the "root cause" which is based on the almighty dollar. Unless you're now going to claim that the filing of the lawsuit was cost/benefit neutral.

 

[Solvarn]

They still would have the piracy issue to tend with. They will never sell pdfs until they can figure a way to make them so they can't be pirated. Wizards not putting their books on pdf is the reason why I haven't bought an iPad yet.

Maybe Steve Jobs and his +5 black turtleneck can intimidate them into releasing the books in PDF format to increase Ipad sales.

 

[Solvarn]

 

[rjdafoe]

LOL that is great.

 

[rjdafoe]

Piracy options:
Your assertion several pages back was that pulling PDFs was a "kneejerk reaction" based on the filing of the lawsuit and was completely arbitrary. My assertion is that your didn't follow your assertion all the way back to the "root cause" which is based on the almighty dollar. Unless you're now going to claim that the filing of the lawsuit was cost/benefit neutral.

I still think it was. The reason? It didn't stop piracy. Nothing will. There will always be piracy. Take a google at Character Builder torrent.

The only garanteed way to stop piracy is to stop producing their product.