Quote from: Elliot Wilen;445384Nope, nothing more than rumors and anecdotes. Well, that and the fact that WotC seems to be scrambling.


.

See now, i have an alternate hypothesis in relation to the perceived scrambling- I think they are just moving more and more of their stuff online. As I've said before, I think they are charting a future course focused on the subscription model. Brick and mortar book stores my be around for a long time to come  (although, I have my doubts in this regard) but they are not healthy and are unlikely to be ever again; eventually they are going to go away- or be reduced in number to the point where they may as well be gone- like record stores.

Is anybody still buying music on CDs?  I'm sure someone is, but I live in a fairly large city and I know about 1 record store, and most of their space is taken up by used DVDs. I'm sure there are a few more, but I don't know where they are, and I have no reason to bother tracking them down.

As for books, I've got an ereader, and I think it is, for a me a better format; I'd rather read a book on my kindle than dig around in my closet or garage for the same book- much in the same way I'm far more likely to listen to music my ipod than I am to dig out a CD. I really think the future of Rpgs is going to be online, on ereraders and on tablets- certainly physical books will still get published, but I think there's a good chance you'll have to buy those online too.

Now before i get branded as nutty, ask yourself how many ipod owners you knew in 2000 and how many you know now. Furthermore, younger people are already accustomed to getting their content online, this is only going to increase as we move into the future.

iPad + Dropbox + GoodReader = Who needs RPG books?

Quote from: Aos;445394Is anybody still buying music on CDs?  I'm sure someone is, but I live in a fairly large city and I know about 1 record store, and most of their space is taken up by used DVDs.

I think backing music CDs was what Borders was saying was a major contributor to their demise. They've got these huge CD collections that, er, sit there.

Seanchai

Quote from: Aos;445394Is anybody still buying music on CDs?  I'm sure someone is

*Raises hand*

These days I mostly buy music cds second handed, or online.  These are usually cds I find for 2 or 3 dollars a pop, or titles which are not available at all on iTunes.

Quote from: Aos;445394See now, i have an alternate hypothesis in relation to the perceived scrambling- I think they are just moving more and more of their stuff online. As I've said before, I think they are charting a future course focused on the subscription model.

All this makes sense but the scrambling seems to encompass more than just the publishing of physical books. Essentials seems to reflect a rethink in the overall rules, even if the result is a muddle. From hearing others talk, I have the impression that production of add-on materials (rules, scenarios, settings) seems to have slowed and/or changed in emphasis, rather than simply being moved online or parceled out in smaller bits.

In short, trying to turn D&D into something you access over the net, and play into a something you do on a social network that Wizards somehow monetizes certainly makes lots of sense, but I don't see how it ought to affect our reading of the tea leaves one way or the other.

There's one big exception to what I just wrote, which is that if we had access to all the data, we should be looking at the aggregate of all D&D revenue including DDI, and placing relatively less weight on anecdotes from B&M retailers or even Amazon. To be honest I don't know if anyone's claimed to look at things from that broad perspective.

Well there is definitely something going on, but as you say, without all the data, who can say what it is. For example, what we are witnessing could just be the result of meddling from WoTC's corporate big brother. The cause of such meddling might be any number of things and could be completely unrelated to anything practical or rational.

Certain games are friendlier to 3rd party support than others. And this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the publisher, though the terms of the agreements can affect things.

For example, Green Ronin is pretty supportive and open with their properties, but M&M gets better sales than True20 for Vigilance Press. So its not all about the GSL.

As for asking Wizards to promote and reward 3PP, that just seems really naive to me. They weren't doing that stuff in the OGL era, and they were WAY more open to 3PP then than they are now.

Quote from: Seanchai;445322Midnight is its own game in everything but name. It doesn't tell you to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest?

Sorry, but that is just not true. The books (1st and 2nd edition) have no explanation of 3e's basics. It's not only that "4d6" character creation is missing; there is no listing of attributes, saving throws, basic spells (only a handful of added setting specific spells), basic feats, no explanation of how combat works - you just cannot play Midnight with only the Midnight setting book.

According to your logic nearly all setting books, from Sovereign Stone to Wilderlands of High Fantasy to Accordlands to Relics & Rituals: Excalibur to even WotC's own Eberron would be full games, cutting into the sales of the core books.

Quote from: Seanchai;445322That's exactly the point. It's a new game that got to slap a d20 logo on itself.
(...)
But third party publishers started creating non-D&D material with the license.
(...)
What's worse is that when people buy Mutants & Masterminds, they want to play it. So they set aside D&D. Meaning they're less likely to keep up with D&D purchases.

But then I understand even less of what you are saying.

You are right that those new games probably took away sales from WotC, but that was the same situation before the OGL. There were always games tackling different genres (some not even competing with the default dungeon-type fantasy, like CoC), using different rules (sometimes quite similar to D&D, like Palladium), ultimately competing for gamers dollars.

In my shop I observed during that time that the d20 logo had quite the adverse effect.
D&D3 fans were mostly interested in official stuff, or third party settings, gamers of other sytems were pissed that their publishers jumped the d20 bandwagon (L5R, 7S, Sovereign Stone, Deadlands), and many a game that probably would have found their customers if only it had used an original system remained unplayed (Shadowrun, the whole WoD, Ars Magica became a success or found their niche in their time, Stargate, Digital Burn, Armageddon 2098, Farscape, Dragonstar, Judge Dredd ... not so much).
The d20 connection was actively driving away more customers than it attracted.
But that might have been a German phenomenon.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;445472Sorry, but that is just not true. The books (1st and 2nd edition) have no explanation of 3e's basics. It's not only that "4d6" character creation is missing; there is no listing of attributes, saving throws, basic spells (only a handful of added setting specific spells), basic feats, no explanation of how combat works - you just cannot play Midnight with only the Midnight setting book.

Hmmmn. I might be misremember it. Regardless, people play "Midnight," not "a D&D game set in Midnight."

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;445472You are right that those new games probably took away sales from WotC, but that was the same situation before the OGL. There were always games tackling different genres (some not even competing with the default dungeon-type fantasy, like CoC), using different rules (sometimes quite similar to D&D, like Palladium), ultimately competing for gamers dollars.

Yes, but WotC didn't create that situation. It didn't hand them a copy of their toys and say, "Go nuts." Moreover, pre-OGL, there was still the "I gotta learn a whole new system" hurdle to overcome.

WotC's goal was to increase their market share by getting more people to play the D&D system and purchase, eventually, their D&D products. But what actually happened, because of how third party publishers used d20, was that more people played the system, but didn't buy WotC's products.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;445472But that might have been a German phenomenon.

No, but a) you named almost all of the products of that type (there was also d20 CoC), b) they didn't exactly have a huge mind share and market share to begin with, and c) they weren't exactly awesome translations.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;445495WotC's goal was to increase their market share by getting more people to play the D&D system and purchase, eventually, their D&D products. But what actually happened, because of how third party publishers used d20, was that more people played the system, but didn't buy WotC's products.

Originally, I believe there was more to it than it. I think WOTC originally intended true "open source" development with WOTC able to roll good ideas from the open content of third party publishers into future versions of WOTC D&D. Later on, after management changes, WOTC gave up on this idea for reasons I never have been able to figure out -- as by doing so they gave up a major advantage to them of publishing D&D under the OGL.

And there is a lot of third party open content under the OGL that they could have drawn from -- with no licensing costs. The OGL is a two-way street but WOTC elected to ignore the part of that street with free material coming their way. By doing this, they lost one of the two primary advantages of the OGL to them.  The loss of this advantage wasn't the fault of the OGL, it was the fault of their own decision(s).  

And yes, I know 90% of the third party open content was dreck, but the 10% that wasn't was still hundreds of pages of material.

Quote from: RandallS;445502Originally, I believe there was more to it than it. I think WOTC originally intended true "open source" development with WOTC able to roll good ideas from the open content of third party publishers into future versions of WOTC D&D. Later on, after management changes, WOTC gave up on this idea for reasons I never have been able to figure out -- as by doing so they gave up a major advantage to them of publishing D&D under the OGL.

This is exactly what kept me, for the most part, out of publishing for d20 or OGL. Let's say that I'm a small publisher that can afford to print 1-3,000 copies of a new game... and further, let's say, it's an unexpected runaway hit, selling out within the first month of release...

Now as I'm gearing up for a second limited (by my budget) print run, WOTC creates a similar supplement, only they do a print run of 20,000 and distribute it.

Those $$$ that would have went to my RPG darling publication are suddenly channeled into the new WOTC release that has the best features of my phenomenal new game, and the "official" support from the largest RPG publisher.

You would think it would be better to release the game as an Independent or Indie game release... however consider this from the U.S. copyright office:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Making games is an unprofitable activity simply because the game creators do not derive the benefits of protection enjoyed by *all* the other creators.

Reference:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Quote from: GameDaddy;445527Making games is an unprofitable activity simply because the game creators do not derive the benefits of protection enjoyed by *all* the other creators.

Copyright was NEVER intended to protect ideas, only a specific incarnation of an idea. If you have a new and unique game idea, you can always PATENT it. Patents were intended to protect new and unique ideas (for much more limited times than copyrights).

Big business strives for the perfect "diddle" (as Edgar Allen Poe termed the science), but thermodynamics -- among other laws -- tend to impose less than ideal efficiency.

As Elliot Wilen pointed out, the market is inconveniently made up of human beings who have desires other than maximizing other people's profits. Thus, it is sometimes necessary actually to compete on grounds of value delivered.

It is a curious logic that considers that just because WotC has managed to make a fair bit of money from D&D for a few years, its methods are therefore perpetually the best. It is taken as an article of faith that nothing else could possibly be better, and that the old hands who are not imitating WotC just don't know their business.

Never mind that WotC has been making much more money, and for longer, with Magic: The Gathering. Never mind how that departs from the "edition churn" business model. Never mind the history not only of TSR but of so many companies and products in the hobby game industry's past half-century.

Quote from: RandallSAnd yes, I know 90% of the third party open content was dreck

That's just Sturgeon's Second Law in action.

I never got too many bad ones, since I only bought products that looked particularly interesting, or came from publishers with a proven track record (mainly Necromancer Games and Swords&Sorcery Studios in my case). Mongoose and Fast Forward Entertainment never looked promising in the first place; it was clear from the outset that the first was mass producing mediocrity and the second was run by the gaming scene's longest-lived hack. A lot of other product families had those alarm bells - basically most everything promising "12 new prestige classes" or "60 new feats". If people were more careful with their purchases instead of rushing in headfirst to build their "collection", they could have avoided a whole lot of disappointment.