# Why doesn't WotC license older editions?



## Kzach (Feb 16, 2009)

I have nothing against older editions or other game systems. I have nothing against published worlds or modules. In fact, I'm pretty ambivalent about the entire industry.

I just thought that needed to be said before I continue.

I'm curious as to why WotC doesn't just make up some sort of OGL or GSL or whatever acronym fits, to allow third parties, or perhaps just one third-party, to publish for profit, things for older editions.

WotC could get a small slice of the pie for doing literally nothing but allowing it to happen. It'd make a lot of people happy that they have continued 'official' support. And it'd probably go a long way towards mitigating the hate, not to mention dialling down edition wars.

Or would it?

Is there something I'm missing that would make this a bad idea? I mean, someone like Dragonsfoot, for instance, could lobby to be the only third-party producer of 1e material, Diaglo could get the OD&D rights, and someone, surely, would want to take up the mantle of 2e. Wouldn't that go a long way towards making people happy(er)?


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 16, 2009)

Look to the simplest answer.

Competition.

You don't want older editions competing with your current flagship.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 16, 2009)

Because if the licensing fees were low enough for any other company to be interested, they wouldn't be worthwhile for WotC to risk competing with themselves.

It's the same reason, as much as many of us miss the "Red Box," that it's not in WotC's interest to publish a full, level 1st to 30th "Basic" game. Anything that's D&D but not 4E competes with 4E. Doesn't matter how different it seems the markets would be, there are going to be some people who overlap, and then WotC finds itself in the position of trying to market two products that don't work together to one person--or allowing someone _else_ to market one of those two products to that hypothetical person.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 16, 2009)

They have on at least one occastion - AD&D was licensed by Kenzer Co. for Hackmaster.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 16, 2009)

But let's face some realities. People are generally 'stuck' in their edition of preference and aren't about to buy 4e anyway. It's not like WotC would be losing any money or competing with themselves. Each edition is different enough that it really constitutes a wholly different system.

And any new players are generally going to be fairly open-minded about editions. Some will stick with what they know, whilst others will explore. It would help open up the hobby to even more people, which can only be a good thing for WotC.

There really isn't any competition to be had between the editions. They're hitting different niches of the same market. And those who don't care about edition would just buy anything that catches their fancy, which again isn't going to hurt WotC sales.

I really don't see any downside for WotC. If anything, it would expand the hobby and make a lot of people happy. You can't buy that kind of PR.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 16, 2009)

Kzach said:


> But let's face some realities. People are generally 'stuck' in their edition of preference and aren't about to buy 4e anyway. It's not like WotC would be losing any money or competing with themselves.




You might think that, but you'd be wrong.

While what you say is true of _some_ people, there are quite a few who move on to new editions because that's what the market does, even if they'd prefer an older edition. And even if that's only a small percentage of the market, it's a small percentage of a _small_ market.

It costs X dollars, minimum, to produce a halfway decent book. That's the case whether you're marketing to the _entire_ market, or only a portion of the market. That split would more than counteract any small additional income--and it _would_ be _small_, in WotC terms--to be found marketing to the followers of previous editions.



> Each edition is different enough that it really constitutes a wholly different system.




Not to everyone. For a lot of people, D&D is D&D.



> And any new players are generally going to be fairly open-minded about editions.




That's exactly the problem. It's _bad_ for WotC if new players have multiple D&Ds to choose from. It means that WotC is then forced to support multiple D&Ds in order to support the new gamers, and the cost of supporting multiple games is prohibitive if they're both aimed at the same _general_ audience: The fantasy-focused RPGer.



> Some will stick with what they know, whilst others will explore. It would help open up the hobby to even more people, which can only be a good thing for WotC.




Not if those new gamers don't buy into WotC's main line it's not.



> There really isn't any competition to be had between the editions. They're hitting different niches of the same market.




Except they're not--something TSR learned the hard way back in the day.

WotC can produce X number of products, maximum. Therefore, it is better for them to aim any given product at the largest part of the market possible.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 16, 2009)

'Conceding defeat' might not be the best PR move ever.

It could be just the most gloriously perfect ammunition, for some folks to go 'a-ha!', 'told you so!', and the like. Maybe even second best only to 4e outright failing.

On a more serious(?) note, there is already abundant support in the form of communities, magazines, new and existing products, house rules and variants collections and so forth, for *every* prior edition of D&D, as far as I'm aware.

In other words, licensing would be kinda redundant at this stage.


----------



## Wik (Feb 16, 2009)

Yeah.  Considering the presence of OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy... would really licensing an "official" version be worth it?  I can already publish a 1e adventure, after all!  

I'd like to see an OSRIC for 2nd edition, but I'm not greedy.  I like what's currently available.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 16, 2009)

It all comes down to competition. Why would WotC invite comparison unless they were forced to... like with the OGL?


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 16, 2009)

Why would this idea even be necessary? The previous editions' books don't disappear when a new edition is published. I played AD&D1 for another half decade after it was out of print and AD&D2 was the current edition. I'm now playing D&D3 while D&D4 is the current edition.

If I wanted to pick up AD&D1 again, I'd just pull the books off my shelf and start playing. I don't need anything new published.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit


----------



## Glyfair (Feb 16, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Is there something I'm missing that would make this a bad idea? I mean, someone like Dragonsfoot, for instance, could lobby to be the only third-party producer of 1e material, Diaglo could get the OD&D rights, and someone, surely, would want to take up the mantle of 2e. Wouldn't that go a long way towards making people happy(er)?



Honestly, you probably would see the same fragmentation, especially if they were allowed to publish "core books."  You have those that would like to advance the systems in some fashion (in different and lesser directions than later editions of D&D) and those who want to stay with the original (who have the official PDFs online).  

Also, remember that at one point WotC allowed companies to create "official" support for discontinued campaign worlds.  At this point, these have all ended (for various reasons).



Caliban said:


> They have on at least one occastion - AD&D was licensed by Kenzer Co. for Hackmaster.



And by some accounts and theories, WotC was forced into that to a avoid a lawsuit from Kenzer (dealing with reproducing KoDT in the digital Dragon Compendium).


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 16, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> And by some accounts and theories, WotC was forced into that to a avoid a lawsuit from Kenzer (dealing with reproducing KoDT in the digital Dragon Compendium).




So all we have to do to get licenses for older editions is to blackmail WOTC (or maybe even Hasbro)?  How are we gonna do it?  

Are we gonna get Mike Mearls drunk and take compromising pictures?
Hack into the WOTC computer systems and hold it for ransom?
Dig up a deep dark secret of a Hasbro executive?
Threaten to flag their Youtube videos?


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 16, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Why would this idea even be necessary? The previous editions' books don't disappear when a new edition is published. I played AD&D1 for another half decade after it was out of print and AD&D2 was the current edition.




It's only necessary for publishers. In order to publish _new_ content for AD&D (i.e., content specifically branded with the AD&D name), you need a license.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2009)

There is already a current running older license.

And DRAGON ROOTS says it is printing under that and the GSL, with permission from WotC. Check it out


----------



## Reynard (Feb 16, 2009)

Kzach said:


> But let's face some realities. People are generally 'stuck' in their edition of preference and aren't about to buy 4e anyway. It's not like WotC would be losing any money or competing with themselves. Each edition is different enough that it really constitutes a wholly different system.




I prefer 1E. I own every core set for every edition (4E included) and use them all to some degree or another (I play in a 4E game, but won't run it; I use my 2E MM for everything buts stats; my 1E DMG is my bible; the domain and war machine rules from the RC/BECMI are a staple; my next campaign is going to be 3.5)


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 16, 2009)

darjr said:


> There is already a current running older license.
> 
> And DRAGON ROOTS says it is printing under that and the GSL, with permission from WotC. Check it out




Well, as the Dragon Roots representative notes: 



> Actually, we at Dragon Roots have a _special agreement_ with WOTC




As he goes onto mention, this agreement allows them to publish in a manner unrestrained by either the OGL or the GSL. That is, they are _not_ publishing under the default written terms of either existing license but, rather, as the representative notes, they have a _special agreement_ in place with WotC.  

This special agreement _may_ be a formal license, though it may just as easily be a 'gentleman's agreement' or other arrangement. Even if it _is_ a formal license, it's clearly not one that everybody has access to or an agreement that has anything with older editions of D&D (as far as I can tell), which is what we were discussing.  

If Dragon Roots _is_ using the AD&D trademark and brand name for promotion and advertising (which, AFAICT, they're not), it _might_ be because they have permission to do so via their special agreement (in fact, I would hope so, as using somebody else's trademark in that capacity without permission is typically infringement). 

If that's the case then, yes, it would appear that WotC has freely granted at least one licence to use the AD&D name/system. That doesn't appear to be the case, though.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2009)

Gentleman's agreement or not, it is a license.

If you look at the OP you'll clearly see it also asks why couldn't there be even JUST ONE 3rd party publisher with a license for older editions.

Anyway, it's not my point to counter anyone in this thread. I thought it was an interesting development, and a possible crack in the wall for others.

I get that the OP probably meant editions older than 3e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> You might think that, but you'd be wrong.
> <*many good points*>




I was going to trot out things I learned getting my JD and MBA, but you summed it up pretty well.

I'll just add, it is workable, but the main benefits to Hasbro/WotC would be a (small) revenue stream and a little bit of corporate goodwill.

IOW, its probably not worth it in the long run.

If, OTOH, 4Ed or one of the successor editions flops, you may see WotC republish one of the older editions (the "New Coke" scenario).


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 16, 2009)

darjr said:


> Gentleman's agreement or not, it is a license.




Yes, but it doesn't appear to be a license for _D&D_, only an agreement that allows for the simultaneous production of OGL content and GSL content. I don't see that Dragon Roots is using the D&D brand anywhere.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 16, 2009)

I see two questions here (IMO):

1) _Will_ WotC license their older properties?

2) _Should_ WotC license their older properties?

My own answers are:

1) For the most part, no.  They are wanting to avoid lessening demand for their new 4E brand.

2) Answer 1: Yes.  They sold product to customers who, in good faith, presumed that WotC would continue to support those products, at least minimally.

2) Answer 2: Yes.  The reduction in demain to 4E would be small, and the benefit to the community large.

2) Answer 3: No.  WotC does not have the resources to manage (even) licensing the content to third parties.

2) Answer 4: No.  That would reduce demand for 4E.

(IMO) The answer is really 2.4.  (Side note: _In my mind_, WotC is not acting as a producer in good faith because they do not adopt answer 2.1.)


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 16, 2009)

While I understand why WotC might not want to create competition for it's current edition by licensing out the previous editions, I thought I'd note that WotC does still sell it's previous editions, at least in PDF format: 

EN World PDF Store - Wizards of the Coast - - RPG PDF downloads


----------



## CardinalXimenes (Feb 16, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> 2) Answer 1: Yes.  They sold product to customers who, in good faith, presumed that WotC would continue to support those products, at least minimally.



I have a hard time imagining that any 1E or 2E purchaser could, in good faith, presume that a company that didn't even own the license at the time would provide official support for the next 20-30 years.

In the case of 3.x, I'd also find it peculiar for a customer to think that official edition support would be ongoing, when it was not the case with any prior edition.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> 2) Answer 1: Yes.  They sold product to customers who, in good faith, presumed that WotC would continue to support those products, at least minimally.




If they were presuming that, they were being unreasonable.  WotC (and TSR, for that matter) never made any promise that they'd support their games in perpetuity.


----------



## malraux (Feb 16, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> While I understand why WotC might not want to create competition for it's current edition by licensing out the previous editions, I thought I'd note that WotC does still sell it's previous editions, at least in PDF format:
> 
> EN World PDF Store - Wizards of the Coast - - RPG PDF downloads




I am surprised that 3e products are still priced at full price, while even 4e products are at some sort of discount.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Yes, but it doesn't appear to be a license for _D&D_, only an agreement that allows for the simultaneous production of OGL content and GSL content. I don't see that Dragon Roots is using the D&D brand anywhere.




You'll have to take that up with DR and WotC. The GSL is a license to the brand. If DR is GSL, they have that license to the brand. If they choose not to use the brand, well, like I said, you'll have to ask them.

I do get that it specifically isn't a license to older editions of the game.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 16, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> So all we have to do to get licenses for older editions is to blackmail WOTC (or maybe even Hasbro)?  How are we gonna do it?
> 
> Are we gonna get Mike Mearls drunk and take compromising pictures?
> Hack into the WOTC computer systems and hold it for ransom?
> ...




I think I found the idea for a short Leverage inspired d20M or True20 game.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 16, 2009)

Caliban said:


> They have on at least one occastion - AD&D was licensed by Kenzer Co. for Hackmaster.




Only as part of an out of court settlement over the re-publishing of somebody else's intellectual property.



I still have my Dragon Magazine CD-Rom set.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 16, 2009)

malraux said:


> I am surprised that 3e products are still priced at full price, while even 4e products are at some sort of discount.




And I'm now surprised to see that the 3e and 3.5e PHB, MM and DMG PDFs are apparently MIA...


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Umbran said:


> If they were presuming that, they were being unreasonable.  WotC (and TSR, for that matter) never made any promise that they'd support their games in perpetuity.




They don't have to ... I'm presuming it.  That's the standard that I as a consumer require of WotC for me to consider them to be acting in good faith.

But, I'm not suggesting that they provide the same degree of support.  Simply allowing sales of support material might be sufficient.  I tend to require providing some way for the publication of supporting material.

I will note that a lot of the 3.5E web content is still available, so there is _some_ support.

Now, _forbidding_ others from providing support, through the 4E GSL, that to me is major _bad_ faith.

If I may make an analogy: When you buy a car, a part of the value that you might be looking for is a healthy supply of parts and the ability to get service through a network of dealers.

If your manufacturer goes out of business, then you will expect that to be disrupted.

When new models are produced, you expect the available support and parts to be lessened, but not to disappear.

But, what if when a new model were produced, the manufacturer required the dealers to wholly cease to provide spare parts for the older model?  And, the manufacturer required that any third party parts sellers to cease sales of any earlier parts, before being included in the new parts supply chain?


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 16, 2009)

On the thread topic as a whole, I think it's not necessary. The OGL has already allowed hobbyists to take up the banner of previous editions of D&D and produce new content. I just purchased an honest-to-goodness OD&D (1974) adventure... a compatible product, anyway... from Brave Halfling. Granted, it seemed like they must have been selling it at about cost, but that's fine. It's a hobby.

However, on this one point:



Mouseferatu said:


> It's _bad_ for WotC if new players have multiple D&Ds to choose from. It means that WotC is then forced to support multiple D&Ds in order to support the new gamers, and the cost of supporting multiple games is prohibitive if they're both aimed at the same _general_ audience: The fantasy-focused RPGer.




I strongly disagree. At the peak of D&D's popularity you 2-3 separate versions of D&D available (Classic and AD&D 1e, and at times the OD&D OCE box).

I'm not against WOTC. But they seem to be going the Games Workshop route: you don't play role playing games, you play D&D (just like GW games aren't "wargames", they're "the Games Workshop hobby"). And when a new edition comes out, the old stuff is cast away and forgotten (though WOTC does sell old PDFs, which is excellent of them). Each edition, the game changes significantly and you have to rebuy a lot of stuff, including all new books. The magazine is not a hobby magazine but a house organ. And the whole thing becomes more narrow and self-referential... a universe of private IP rather than something expansive.

If you look through old stuff from SR / Dragon, you'll see that it was not always thus. There was stuff for other companies' games, stuff for multiple editions of the D&D game, stuff for other TSR products, all kinds of crazy stuff. You even had articles like the famous "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery" for combining D&D with your WWII miniatures (which of course you have... at least you surely have Germans!).

It seems like the prevailing idea at WOTC is that D&D (4E here) is a very specific type of game. It does one thing and that is what you do with it. Everyone will play it basically the same way. D&D is a thing unto itself and has no external concerns.

And I suppose that leads to some people thinking that you shouldn't even really question it (4E), because there's no non-immanent standpoint from which to do so. You either accept it or you don't. Don't like something about the game? Then it isn't for you, etc.

And the inevitable business model repeats itself: churn out a billion products in the hopes that your hardcores buy basically every one, then reboot a few years later and start anew. I think that snake always ends up swallowing its own tail.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> They don't have to ... I'm presuming it.  That's the standard that I as a consumer require of WotC for me to consider them to be acting in good faith.
> 
> But, I'm not suggesting that they provide the same degree of support.  Simply allowing sales of support material might be sufficient.  I tend to require providing some way for the publication of supporting material.
> 
> ...





I think you are wrong.  Car manufacturers support supplies and parts for a while after they discontinue a model, but it isn't indefinite.  At some point, they end that support as well.  All companies eventually end all support for discontinued products.  You can vary the amount of time they continue support, but you cannot really expect indefinite support for discontinued products.


----------



## Glyfair (Feb 16, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> But, what if when a new model were produced, the manufacturer required the dealers to wholly cease to provide spare parts for the older model?  And, the manufacturer required that any third party parts sellers to cease sales of any earlier parts, before being included in the new parts supply chain?



But that's not what happened.  "Dealers" can provide spare parts (I honestly don't see what a dealer is in this analogy, it would have been WotC stores, I assume the FLGS, etc).

The third party parts sellers can provide parts, even when being in the new supply chain, but have to have them labeled as part of a different line.

Sure, it has restrictions, but not as many as you put on there.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 16, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> If you look through old stuff from SR / Dragon, you'll see that it was not always thus. There was stuff for other companies' games, stuff for multiple editions of the D&D game, stuff for other TSR products, all kinds of crazy stuff. You even had articles like the famous "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery" for combining D&D with your WWII miniatures (which of course you have... at least you surely have Germans!).




  Something to note, related to this:

  The last published article in DRAGON for AD&D 1E was in DRAGON #169, May 1991--_two years_ after 2nd Edition's launch. That's a significant difference from WotC's model of a complete and total changeover when a new edition hits.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 16, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> They don't have to ... I'm presuming it.  That's the standard that I as a consumer require of WotC for me to consider them to be acting in good faith.




I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your personal presumptions are neither binding nor, in this case, reasonable.

When you buy a book from a company, that is the _end_ of any legal _or moral_ obligation between you and the company. You paid for a product, and you received that product. As long as said product is complete and not rendered somehow unusable through internal error, the company owes you nothing more, and you have the right to expect nothing more. If the company _advertises forthcoming books, then "good faith" means they produce what they said they would produce. It does not mean they produce anything they didn't say they would produce.

Anything else--including continued support beyond what's advertised--is gravy. You might have expected it, but that doesn't mean the company is acting in bad faith, in any reasonable definition of the term, not to provide it.

And the "spare parts" for cars metaphor is faulty. If you can't get parts for the car, it stops working. The game doesn't stop working without extended support; it works exactly as well as it did the day you bought it. Further support beyond what's promised/advertised is the equivalent of demanding upgrades from the dealer--and not essential upgrades, but cosmetic ones, because you're bored of the car only doing what it did when you purchased it. And that's an entirely different thing--and something that few dealers or mechanics ever guarantee.



Korgoth said:



			I strongly disagree. At the peak of D&D's popularity you 2-3 separate versions of D&D available (Classic and AD&D 1e, and at times the OD&D OCE box).
		
Click to expand...



It might have been the peak of popularity--I've heard otherwise, regarding total numbers of gamers, but we won't get into "dueling anecdotes" --but was it the peak of profitability? I would argue that it was not. TSR was woefully mismanaged, and people from WotC and TSR both have said in so many words that part of what drove TSR into the ground--not all of it, by any means, but a large part of it--was them trying to market too many variant lines to the gaming audience. Campaign settings are usually trotted forth as the primary culprit, but the existence of multiple simultaneous "branches" of D&D was certainly involved.

Again, I'd love it if this wasn't the case. I'd like a full-fledged, complete BECMI-equivalent game for 4E. But it's not likely to happen, and as much as I might wish otherwise, there are good reasons for that._


----------



## mhensley (Feb 16, 2009)

I'm glad that they haven't.  Because now we have OGL versions of most older editions that are completely out of their control.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2009)

The car part analogy falls apart in other ways.

If you want to make an AD&D compatible part, you can, as long as you don't violate copyright or trademarks, your golden.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 16, 2009)

I find it funny how people feel that companies always have disproportionate moral obligations to their clients, while never considering they should have some form of moral obligation to said providers. Everyone is always out to get us and we should exploit every single legal loophole we can find to get what we want is a sad mentality.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 16, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your personal presumptions are neither binding nor, in this case, reasonable.




I never said they were binding.  But, WotC's failure to meet them has left then with 80% less revenue from me over the past year (and looking forward).  And, they chill any goodwill that I can provide in WotC's benefit (in this case, simply word of mouth endorsement.)

Let's say you bring out your ball to play.  After a while, you are loosing, and take your ball home.  It's your ball, and that's your right to do.  Then the next day, you bring out your ball again, and I choose not to play with you.  I'm allowed to do that, too.  I think I'm reasonable to tell you that you cannot expect me to play with you if you just take your ball home when you start loosing.



> When you buy a book from a company, that is the _end_ of any legal _or moral_ obligation between you and the company. You paid for a product, and you received that product. As long as said product is complete and not rendered somehow unusable through internal error, the company owes you nothing more, and you have the right to expect nothing more. If the company _advertises forthcoming books, then "good faith" means they produce what they said they would produce. It does not mean they produce anything they didn't say they would produce.
> 
> Anything else--including continued support beyond what's advertised--is gravy. You might have expected it, but that doesn't mean the company is acting in bad faith, in any reasonable definition of the term, not to provide it.
> _



_

I'll have to disagree.  There are a lot of intangibles that a company has no legal requirement to provide, but nevertheless will have an impact on the standing of that company, and generally whether they will be a successful company.




			And the "spare parts" for cars metaphor is faulty. If you can't get parts for the car, it stops working. The game doesn't stop working without extended support; it works exactly as well as it did the day you bought it. Further support beyond what's promised/advertised is the equivalent of demanding upgrades from the dealer--and not essential upgrades, but cosmetic ones, because you're bored of the car only doing what it did when you purchased it. And that's an entirely different thing--and something that few dealers or mechanics ever guarantee.
		
Click to expand...



I think that is a too narrow view of what constitutes "the game".  "The game" includes a community, and that may very well stop working (for the version of the game that I prefer to play).  Also, the game requires a particular collaborative effort between me and the product.  That is inherent in the game being (in one of it's forms) a role playing game.  If my creative input to the game is chilled, then the game also may very well stop working._


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> Let's say you bring out your ball to play.  After a while, you are loosing, and take your ball home.  It's your ball, and that's your right to do.  Then the next day, you bring out your ball again, and I choose not to play with you.  I'm allowed to do that, too.  I think I'm reasonable to tell you that you cannot expect me to play with you if you just take your ball home when you start loosing.




Interesting.  Question - does the fact that (at least as far as I am aware) no other game company provides such support for older games keep you from buying their products, too?   White Wolf isn't licensing the original World Of Darkness games, for example.  Do you similarly shun all their products?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 16, 2009)

*Re: TSR, Profitability, and "Dueling Product Lines"*

I suspect that the separate AD&D and D&D lines were not a significant factor in TSR's financial problems.  I think things like "warehouses full of Dragon Dice" and similar poor business decisions (over-production of this or that product, too many resources squandered on failed lines like Buck Rodgers, etc) were the real source of the problem.  

Without access to the actual data, it's all guesswork, though.

*Re: WotC supporting older editions*

First, I think it's awesome that WotC sells PDFs of some of the old stuff.  I wish some of the scans were better, and I wish that more were available (e.g. where are the 1981 Basic & Expert books?), but I'm grateful they are legally available at all.

Second, I'd love to see some of the older books in print -- even on a print-on-demand basis.

Beyond that, though, I don't particular care about "support" (i.e. new modules, adventures, and supplements) from WotC for older editions.  Frankly, I think the hobbyist community is more "in tune" with the preferences of those who play out-of-print D&D (especially the older TSR editions), and can provide better material than WotC would.


----------



## rogueattorney (Feb 17, 2009)

TSR ran the D&D and AD&D lines side by side from 1977 to 1993.  TSR didn't go under until 1997, after they had consolidated the lines.  I suspect TSR's problems had more to do with producing too many hyper-specialized products (all the source books for all the campaign worlds) instead of focusing on general use products (core rules, the Basic set)

"Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense.  Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out.  Quite to the contrary, there's usually a synergistic relationship between sales of new CDs and a performer's back catalog.  Same is true of author's books, movie sequels, television shows, and toy lines.  

The truth is, companies don't stop producing an older product until the return they get on producing it no longer makes it worthwhile.  I would presume WotC is operating under that kind of reasoning when they do not produce new support for the older versions of the game.

Thus WotC doesn't see the profitability in supporting the older game beyond licensing out the .pdf's.  

As for D&D being D&D...  Maybe WotC should test that theory by slapping "D&D" on a Monopoly box, call it 5th edition, and see if it sells...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 17, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> "Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense.




No, actually it exists.



> Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out.  Quite to the contrary, there's usually a synergistic relationship between sales of new CDs and a performer's back catalog.  Same is true of author's books, movie sequels, television shows, and toy lines.




That synergy- though extant- is short-lived in all but the top recording artists.  Most of the time, an artists' back catalog is only fully available- if ever- in the few months surrounding a hot release, and the lesser titles get phased out quickly.  Within a year of even the hottest album, most of an artist's back catalog is effectively non-existent.

Even the greats go through periods of non-publication.  Typically, even the bulk of albums by bands like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin are only produced for a part of the year and released in pulses (this manipulation of supply helps keep prices stable).  Exceptions exist, of course- albums like "Thriller" or "Dark Side of the Moon," for example.

The same goes for writers.  Take a popular writer with a huge back catalog like Asimov or Niven: most of their back catalog is out of print most of the time.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 17, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> "Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense.  Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out.  Quite to the contrary, there's usually a synergistic relationship between sales of new CDs and a performer's back catalog.  Same is true of author's books, movie sequels, television shows, and toy lines.




This would stand if any of your examples actually dealt with a product that has a limited consumer base, or if any of the products mentioned above actually formed competing lines (maybe toys do).


----------



## Reynard (Feb 17, 2009)

I just wish they had put out 30 year anniversary editions of the AD&D books.  That would have been all kinds of awesome.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> "Competing with yourself" is economic nonsense.  Record companies don't pull their back catalog when they put a new CD out.




Ah, but you see, CDs are dirt cheap to burn, even in small quantities.  Doing them in small batches when they seem needed does not cut into the profit margin much.

On the other hand, for books, small print runs have notably smaller profit margins.  A book publisher is far better served by having large print runs of a small number of books, rather than many smaller print runs of a large number of books.

This is where they can start competing with themselves, and lose out - if they can consolidate most (if not all) of their market on a small number of books, they win.  If they split that market on a larger number of books, they make less per book.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 17, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> TSR ran the D&D and AD&D lines side by side from 1977 to 1993.



This isn't quite correct. TSR also published _The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game_ in 1994 and even after WotC took over, the _Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Game_ in 1999. Both of those were distinctly D&D products rather than AD&D products. The 1999 set even says "After you've mastered the adventurers in this game, you'll be ready to try the AD&D game." Although to be fair, the 1999 set seems to use a hybrid set of rules that is somewhere between the original D&D rules and the AD&D rules, so it is definitely an outlier in the D&D family of products.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 17, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> It might have been the peak of popularity--I've heard otherwise, regarding total numbers of gamers, but we won't get into "dueling anecdotes" --but was it the peak of _profitability_? I would argue that it was not. TSR was woefully mismanaged, and people from WotC and TSR both have said in so many words that part of what drove TSR into the ground--not all of it, by any means, but a large part of it--was them trying to market too many variant lines to the gaming audience. Campaign settings are usually trotted forth as the primary culprit, but the existence of multiple simultaneous "branches" of D&D was *certainly* involved.




Emphasis added. I respect your disagreement, but I call outright shenanigans on your "certainly". The existence of multiple simultaneous branches of D&D (basically, two) was certainly not "certainly involved". It was, at best, arguably involved. I disagree that it was involved at all.


----------



## Knightfall (Feb 17, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> First, I think it's awesome that WotC sells PDFs of some of the old stuff.  I wish some of the scans were better, and I wish that more were available (e.g. where are the 1981 Basic & Expert books?), but I'm grateful they are legally available at all.
> 
> Second, I'd love to see some of the older books in print -- even on a print-on-demand basis.



It is good that WotC offers PDF versions of older books. They don't have to do that, which is why I try not to villify them when voicing my displeasure for 4e. It's true, I don't like 4e or the DDI model but that simply means that I'm no longer D&D's target audience. I can live with that.

As for your second point, it would be an interesting experiment for WotC to make certain older books available on Lulu.com or another web site that allows for POD books. I'm certain that there would be MANY older edition books that people would be willing to buy through a POD model.

However, I don't think it would be feasible. The PDF scans that WotC provides on RPGNow aren't of high quality. I don't think those scanned products would "print well," which means that WotC would have to devote time, money, and staff to laying out the older books to print "properly" as POD books.

And as mentioned on another thread, WotC doesn't have a complete library of all D&D products ever produced.

Now, perhaps older edition D&D fans could work in conjunction with WotC to help re-layout those older D&D products for a POD model that could work but it would have to be done so that WotC doesn't have to tap its own internal resources too much while being ensured a reasonable profit from the POD book sales.

Personally, I think it would be highly profitable for WotC to do so but the fans would have to be willing to help and be willing to pay a premium for a POD OD&D/1e/2e/3e book through a site such as Lulu.com.

If it's going to cost WotC time and money then it isn't going to happen.

*So the question becomes, are there D&D fans out there willing to help WotC re-layout older edition books without being paid for it?*

(Fans would get a credit in the revised book, however.)


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 17, 2009)

So, setting aside issues of brand strategy and competing with onesself, here's a little insight into licensing:

On a hassle scale of 1 to 10 (1 = low hassle; 10 = highest reasonable level of hassle) for the license granter, here are a few examples of licenses:


Licensing T-shirts for your cool IP: 1
Action figures: 4
A movie: 9
A roleplaying game (if you're an IP company like, say, Paramount, who cares about how your characters and continuity are portrayed but don't know or care about game content): 13
A roleplaying game (if you're a game company that actually cares about the game content): 17

The first item on the list will earn the licensor (typically) around 10% of the licensee's sales.

The last item on the list will earn the licensor (typically) around 10% of the licensee's sales.

[As an aside, this is why _so many_ licensed RPGs come out months or years late. The licensor grants the license expecting a hassle factor of 2 or 3, and is then handed a manuscript with a hassle factor of 13. Surprise! Instead of taking the contractual 2 weeks to approve it, they spend two months _just figuring out how to approve it_.]

The licensing fees generated by any RPG (or setting) that isn't the current edition of D&D just can't come close to the revenue needed to justify the effort of handling its approvals. So unless there's a strong strategic imperative, the licensor can spend its time in more productive ways.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 17, 2009)

An interesting insight Mr Ryan. Thanks


----------



## an_idol_mind (Feb 17, 2009)

I'd love it if WotC continued to support 3rd edition, but it's totally unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to. That doesn't make them an evil company - it makes them competent.

As to citing the fact that TSR used to print 1st and 2nd edition simultaneously or that they had the basic D&D game going on at the same time, it boggles my mind that people would hold up anything TSR did as good business. Sure, the company didn't fall apart completely until the 1997, but bad business managment had defined TSR since at least the mid-80s. If anything, I would argue that their business strategies probably kept the game from being an even bigger hit that it was during the 80s.

Regarding the analogies to the record companies, car companies, et cetera, that's comparing apples to atom bombs. The fact is, there is no example in the RPG industry or related industries of a company simultaneously supporting multiple editions and pulling it off with any sort of business success. To expect WotC to support a dead edition for a game or to hand someone else their intellectual property and empower them as a direct competitor is unrealistic at best.

Finally, I don't see the point in longing for an official license from WotC when many dead editions currently have support in some form thanks to the OGL. BECMI has Labyrinth Lord, 1st edition has OSRIC, and 3rd edition has Pathfinder (albeit modified and updated). That's more support than any old edition of any RPG has ever received right there.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 17, 2009)

i'm still waiting for OD&D(1974) products to enter the market again.

nothing new since 1979.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 17, 2009)

diaglo said:


> i'm still waiting for OD&D(1974) products to enter the market again.
> 
> nothing new since 1979.



Would a supplement or other product for Swords & Wizardry (the OD&D clone) suffice?

I'm guessing no, but. . . it's a tad more likely to actually happen, is all.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 17, 2009)

diaglo said:


> i'm still waiting for OD&D(1974) products to enter the market again.
> 
> nothing new since 1979.




Have you checked out Ruins of Ramat from Brave Halfling Publishing?

The print copy is $5 including shipping, and comes with the PDF version. It is digest size like the original books.

And have you checked out Geoff McKinney's Supplement V: Carcosa?

There are new products coming out.


----------



## RFisher (Feb 18, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> Look to the simplest answer.
> 
> Competition.
> 
> You don't want older editions competing with your current flagship.




I don’t believe anyone at Wizards actually thinks licensed AD&D or classic D&D products would have a noticeable affect on 4e sales.



Knightfall said:


> *So the question becomes, are there D&D fans out there willing to help WotC re-layout older edition books without being paid for it?*




They have been offered fan-created PDFs of the 1981 Basic and Expert sets. The fan in question asked for no credit or compensation. He just wanted to see that hole in their PDF line-up filled.

Seeing what the fans have produced—the Dragonfoot products, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Fight On, etc.—I have no doubt there are people willing to volunteer their time.

But the original poster was really asking about licensing third parties to create _new_ material compatible with the older editions.



CharlesRyan said:


> The licensing fees generated by any RPG (or setting) that isn't the current edition of D&D just can't come close to the revenue needed to justify the effort of handling its approvals. So unless there's a strong strategic imperative, the licensor can spend its time in more productive ways.




I completely understand this. Licensing (the old fashioned way—not the copyleftish ways) is a hassle all around and generally not worth it for anyone involved. There has to be _really_ good reasons to justify it.

I don’t know anything about the current GSL strategy.

The thing I can’t really understand is why they were willing to put 3e out under the OGL but none of the earlier editions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2009)

diaglo said:


> i'm still waiting for OD&D(1974) products to enter the market again.
> 
> nothing new since 1979.




Find some new players to game with, ones completely unfamiliar with OD&D, and run a campaign for them.

Then there will be something new since 1979...new _players!_

Of course, you might have to deal with:

"OMG!  This game is older than me!"

"LOL!"

"I_ know!"_


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 18, 2009)

I just wish they'd finish filling in some of the gaps in the PDF lineup. I'd like to be able to get GAZ10 _The Orcs of Thar_ without shelling out $40+ for it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2009)

RFisher said:


> The thing I can’t really understand is why they were willing to put 3e out under the OGL but none of the earlier editions.




Turn the question around - why should they have done so?

With 3e, they had a hope that sales of 3rd party products would help drive sales of their core books.  They had a specific reason to try the OGL.

They were no longer producing core books for the earlier editions.  So putting them out under the OGL would not get them any sales, or any revenue whatsoever.  Why should they go through the trouble?  They had nothing at all to gain.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 18, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Find some new players to game with, ones completely unfamiliar with OD&D, and run a campaign for them.
> 
> Then there will be something new since 1979...new _players!_
> 
> ...




true dat.
i have been creating new players since 1979.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2009)

diaglo said:


> i have been creating new players since 1979.




May I introduce Dr. Diaglo Franenstein....


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 18, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Emphasis added. I respect your disagreement, but I call outright shenanigans on your "certainly". The existence of multiple simultaneous branches of D&D (basically, two) was certainly not "certainly involved". It was, at best, arguably involved. I disagree that it was involved at all.



Especially since the demise of TSR came much, much later.

I agree with you and RA. There is little or no evidence that having two lines of D&D products was detrimental to the brand. Quite the contrary, the early 80's were arguably the period in which the brand enjoyed the highest success.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 18, 2009)

I imagine the following conversation...

Scott Rouse: Hey guess what? I'll have 50 spare hours over the next year to do whatever I want with! How should I spend them?
Mike Mearls: That's great! You can finally create licenses for all the older editions!
Scott Rouse: Or we could play through some of the 4th Edition Dungeon Crawl Classics. To ummm, research the compitition!
Mike Mearls: Yes, we need to keep taps on other companies to ensure that they understand 4th Edition. Not because it would nice to play through adventures we never seen before. 
Scott Rouse: Of course! Now's let round up some people so we can "conduct some resarch."
Mike Mearls: Done and done.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Why would this idea even be necessary? The previous editions' books don't disappear when a new edition is published. I played AD&D1 for another half decade after it was out of print and AD&D2 was the current edition. I'm now playing D&D3 while D&D4 is the current edition.
> 
> If I wanted to pick up AD&D1 again, I'd just pull the books off my shelf and start playing. I don't need anything new published.
> 
> ...




Exactly!

In one of the brick and mortar stores I frequent, last friday night, I saw one small group playing 1st edition, one group playing 3rd edition, and one group playing Mutants and Masterminds.  This was friday and not one group playing 4th edition?  

I don't need it to be licensed as I have all the books I need, and groups willing to play them.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 19, 2009)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the comments but it seems that we have a different understanding of licensing.

To my mind, WotC would just create an OGL for older editions and put in a clause that you have to pay X per annum for publishing rights or whatever and for WotC, that'd be the end of any effort.

Aside from policing it, there'd be no real cost associated with it and whatever cost there was would surely be offset by the royalties they'd get.

As for why, not everyone has access to older editions. Just because a bunch of old farts have crusty old copies that smell of dust and silverfish, doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Why not expand the hobby and introduce new players to the grand old traditions? The older systems are just a different way of having the same fun. And new people to the hobby would be seen as a good thing, wouldn't it?


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> That's exactly the problem. It's _bad_ for WotC if new players have multiple D&Ds to choose from. It means that WotC is then forced to support multiple D&Ds in order to support the new gamers, and the cost of supporting multiple games is prohibitive if they're both aimed at the same _general_ audience: The fantasy-focused RPGer.




He did say "license", not "publish".

All I know is, I can't buy WOTC 3.5e books new, and I've been looking hard for Pathfinder as a substitute (my FLGS says Beta is sold out and the real version is a few weeks away).  I bought a copy of Pathfinder Beta (OGL version of D&D with some minor tweaks, IMHO -- really what 4e should have been, IMHO) and passed it on already.  When a new player joins my game in May, will he buy a 3.5 PHB used, a Pathfinder book since it's likely close enough, or borrow a 3.5 PHB from someone else?

I dunno, but WOTC isn't getting a dime from my games, which are still growing in number of 3.5 players.  How much that bothers them is up to them.




Mouseferatu said:


> WotC can produce X number of products, maximum. Therefore, it is better for them to aim any given product at the largest part of the market possible.




Telling the printer to run off more copies, or licensing it out, is not a strain on any publisher.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 19, 2009)

tomBitonti said:


> I see two questions here (IMO):
> 1) _Will_ WotC license their older properties?
> 2) _Should_ WotC license their older properties?




Good analysis.  My answers are:
1) Up to WotC.
2) Up to WotC.

Like I said, I'd like to be able to buy the 3.5e PHB from them, and the other core books would be nice too.

For older books, perhaps "collector's edition" OD&D, AD&D, and 2nd Edition stuff would find a market, or perhaps not.  I'd buy OD&D if it were in print.

The other questions (not actually asked here) is about settings.  I'd love it if they released Greyhawk to a good home, namely Paizo, or Paizo and Troll Lords.  Not sure if either would pay much for it now, since they've found their own ways around that lack.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The last published article in DRAGON for AD&D 1E was in DRAGON #169, May 1991--_two years_ after 2nd Edition's launch. That's a significant difference from WotC's model of a complete and total changeover when a new edition hits.




The bigger difference is that AD&D and 2nd Edition were roughly compatible -- I bought 2nd Edition adventures, Dungeon, and a few rule books even though I only ran AD&D from 1981-2001.

2e -> 3e was a bigger change, but there was some effort at backward compatibity.  I remember getting and using a conversion guide, and having the players convert all the PC's using that guide.

For 3e -> 4e, I'm not aware of a conversion guide, the rules seem completely incompatible, and so far as I can tell, the intention was to shut down your old campaign (what was that 3.5 book, the book of how to kill off your campaign world?) and start over.  I'm never going to do that, so WotC's non-backwards-compatibility has turned me into a former customer.

Of course, one FLGS owner I know says all versions of D&D, from AD&D through 4e, are more or less compatible, and he runs 4e with unchanged AD&D modules.  I'm thinking that can't work too well . . . 

BTW, I just checked out the PDF list and it's awesome that WotC is selling all that it is.  I might need to pick up some old stuff.


----------



## darjr (Feb 19, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> ...he runs 4e with unchanged AD&D modules.  I'm thinking that can't work too well . . .




I was reading a 7th level goodman games 3.5 adventure, the Iron Overlord one. It's not AD&D but the same principles might apply. And besides the below, putting together level appropriate combat encounters based on the fluff is fairly easy and strait forward in 4e. You could almost do it on the fly.

Well, I noticed that the hit points and attack bonuses and damage ranges from that 7th level adventure fell into the 1st level 4e range, right out of the module. If you were to do a couple minor things, like take their fort save bonus, add it to ten, to get their fort defense, it would probably work out just fine.

I'd have to try it, and it'd be 1st level 4e characters in a 7th level 3.5 adventure, but it seems close enough that whats left to swag would be minor. I think I could do it on the fly.

So I looked at other 7th level adventures, and any of the good ones seemed to work out as well. Note that I didn't look really close or in great detail.

I've not done anything indepth mind, nor tried it in play, nor seen if it scales for higher levels.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 19, 2009)

an_idol_mind said:


> I'd love it if WotC continued to support 3rd edition, but it's totally unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to. That doesn't make them an evil company - it makes them competent.
> 
> As to citing the fact that TSR used to print 1st and 2nd edition simultaneously or that they had the basic D&D game going on at the same time, it boggles my mind that people would hold up anything TSR did as good business. Sure, the company didn't fall apart completely until the 1997, but bad business managment had defined TSR since at least the mid-80s. If anything, I would argue that their business strategies probably kept the game from being an even bigger hit that it was during the 80s.
> 
> ...




There is an example of companies that do just this: video game copanies.  Valve, for example, still sells Half Life on the shelves and through digital distribution, even though there's Half Life 2 and newer games.  They license the engine and allow professional mods using the engine.

It makes a lot of sense for PnP RPGs, in fact, because ultimately what is an RPG but a game engine ready for your modding?


----------



## an_idol_mind (Feb 19, 2009)

Reynard said:


> There is an example of companies that do just this: video game copanies. Valve, for example, still sells Half Life on the shelves and through digital distribution, even though there's Half Life 2 and newer games. They license the engine and allow professional mods using the engine.




I would again argue that it's different, though. First of all, video games require a lot less time for the player. I can play through a whole video game in a week or two of casual gaming, then move onto the next one. During that time, I can only have one or two table top sessions. Essentially, I can play through both Half-Life and Half-Life 2 in the same month, but the odds of me using material for two separate editions of D&D is much less likely.

It makes much more sense for a publisher of a PC game to provide support for older games due to the restraints of technology. A lot of people don't have the hardware to play Half-Life 2; dropping all support for the original is essentially cutting those people out as customers. RPGs, however, all have the same requirements. In the case of D&D, all you need is the core three books to play any given edition. People who stick to older games aren't doing it out of necessit; they're doing it out of preference.

Even if the cost to license old editions is relatively inexpensive to WotC, businesses don't tend to do stuff like that unless there is significant profit involved. They can put together a license, but keeping the status quo and focusing solely on 4th edition will make them much more money. For them to license out the game in a way that would make it worth their while, the cost would likely be too much for 3rd party publishers to justify. Basically, even if the licensing out of older editions seems like a good idea, there would have to be a huge bottom line for it to make any sort of decent business sense to WotC.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 19, 2009)

Reynard said:


> There is an example of companies that do just this: video game copanies.  Valve, for example, still sells Half Life on the shelves and through digital distribution, even though there's Half Life 2 and newer games.  They license the engine and allow professional mods using the engine.
> 
> It makes a lot of sense for PnP RPGs, in fact, because ultimately what is an RPG but a game engine ready for your modding?




Comparing video games and RPG's seems like an apt comparison to me.

Video games often come out for multiple consoles/operating systems: e.g., for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, with a later version coming out for PC.  Or PC games sometimes eventually come out for Mac if they are highly successful.  And PC games inevitably run for many different flavors of Windows, like XP, Vista, or 2000.

I believe how the video game console maker gets their money is licensing fees from 3rd party game companies: like $1 per copy of a game made for its console.  They also make some first party games for their own system, to try to make a killer app that makes their console special (e.g., Halo).

Some of this went on in the d20/OGL era: I have a dual stat'd Harn/3e game, and there were Troll Lords games published for d20/C&C.

What's interesting with the 4e GSL is that WotC is saying you can't make a game that can run on other "operating systems".  I dunno if it's only anti-3e, or anti-all other game systems, but if it's the latter -- "if you want to work with the big dog with the dominant market share, you can't work with the little guys like Pathfinder, C&C, etc." that's really uncool and fishy.

The other interesting software analogy is backwards compatibility.  I've seen a demo that Windows Vista can run Visicalc, an ancient DOS spreadsheet program (Diaglo may use it for character sheets!).  And I know Apple OS X has a built-in emulator to run OS 9 (and much earlier) applications, even though the chip and the OS are completely different now.

Obviously, that's more complicated with books, but still . . . some effort at backwards compatibility would have been nice.  The official WotC view seems to be: "toss out your old campaign, your old characters, and all your old books -- you need to upgrade or get out, because our new ideas are so great that everything old is useless".

The car analogy doesn't work for me as well . . .


----------



## Squizzle (Feb 19, 2009)

The more accurate video game analogy isn't the software, it's the hardware: "Why doesn't Sony let other companies build PS2s, if they're focusing on the PS3? The other companies could even improve on the PS2!"

The answer is that creating your own competition and diluting brand definition is tremendously dumb.


----------



## tenkar (Feb 19, 2009)

Squizzle said:


> The more accurate video game analogy isn't the software, it's the hardware: "Why doesn't Sony let other companies build PS2s, if they're focusing on the PS3? The other companies could even improve on the PS2!"
> 
> The answer is that creating your own competition and diluting brand definition is tremendously dumb.




Yep, that is why WotC doesn't want another half dozen branded versions of D&D out in the market.

The car analogy doesn't work because RPGs don't need an official channel of parts to keep them running.  All you need are players and a DM and one copy of the original rules or a suitable clone and your imagination.  

It seems the original poster wants "official" products released for the older D&D lines.  There is no need of this.  It would be cost prohibitive for any company to license the trademark to create a competitor for D&D 4e.  As for licensing the rules, run with OGL and have fun.  Judging by the number of quality clones for the earlier editions I can't understand why ANY publisher would want to go and license the earlier editions when the OGL can be tweaked for free..

Games never die.  As long as someone is playing them they live.  The publication may cease but the game goes on.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 19, 2009)

an_idol_mind said:


> ... People who stick to older games aren't doing it out of necessity; they're doing it out of preference. ...




And licensing previous editions would allow you to still sell to, and make money off of, those with that preference.  You aren't making money off of these people anyways, with licensing you can.  Makes sense to me.  It doesn't cost you (the license holder) anything.  The expenses would all be on those who buy the license and print the material.  How is this not a win-win?  Nobody seems to have put forth an argument yet that counters that? (And _competing against yourself_ *is not a logical argument* - the people who would buy these products aren't buying your current products anyways.)


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 19, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> And licensing previous editions would allow you to still sell to, and make money off of, those with that preference.  You aren't making money off of these people anyways, with licensing you can.  Makes sense to me.  It doesn't cost you (the license holder) anything.  The expenses would all be on those who buy the license and print the material.  How is this not a win-win?  Nobody seems to have put forth an argument yet that counters that? (And _competing against yourself_ *is not a logical argument* - the people who would buy these products aren't buying your current products anyways.)




I think it is a logical argument.  Despite you underlining and bolding it.

Eventually, most people switch.  Maybe it is because they cannot find new players to play with and the old players drop off.  Maybe it is because they long for new material.  Maybe it is because the people they do like play a newer edition.  Whatever the reason, eventually most people do switch, despite a few stragglers here and there.

As for not costing anything, that is unrealistic.  Here is just a small part of what happens when you license this sort of stuff, off the top of my head:

1) Come up with guidelines for what parts of the brand they cannot use because they are in important IP use elsewhere and their use by someone else would dilute that brand. This requires a line by line review of the material in question.
2) Come up with guidelines for what is appropriate use of the part you are allowed to use.  This is mostly a line by line review.
3) Come up with the license agreement itself.  This is a lawyer's time.
4) Monitor the use by others.  This is a line by line review of everyone else's stuff.
5) Account for uses of others.  There is accounting overhead involved here.

Licensing is not free for the licensor.  There is a lot of legal and accounting cost involved.  It is not "Step 1 permit use, Step 2 collect money".


----------



## malraux (Feb 19, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> And licensing previous editions would allow you to still sell to, and make money off of, those with that preference.  You aren't making money off of these people anyways, with licensing you can.  Makes sense to me.  It doesn't cost you (the license holder) anything.  The expenses would all be on those who buy the license and print the material.  How is this not a win-win?  Nobody seems to have put forth an argument yet that counters that? (And _competing against yourself_ *is not a logical argument* - the people who would buy these products aren't buying your current products anyways.)




Some would.

Moreover, it does cost something.  At a minimum, it costs WotC something to employ a person to handle all the paperwork, legal approval, content review, etc that the license would require.  That's not free.  And its not like WotC has legal and content reviews just twiddling their thumbs.  Unless you mean something like the OGL, in which case I'd point you to the ogl.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 20, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I think it is a logical argument. Despite you underlining and bolding it.
> 
> Eventually, most people switch. Maybe it is because they cannot find new players to play with and the old players drop off. Maybe it is because they long for new material. Maybe it is because the people they do like play a newer edition. Whatever the reason, eventually most people do switch, despite a few stragglers here and there.
> 
> ...




Using the premise that it's "competing against yourself" is not a logical argument.  Most of your argument was that it isn't cost effective (as Malraux basically said also).  That is a valid, logical argument.  But, the argument that one is competing against themself isn't valid if those people (i.e. your "stragglers") aren't going to buy your products anyways.  You are targeting, marketing to, and selling to, those very stragglers you are talking about.  This is not competing against yourself.  It's selling a desired product to a niche market that you would otherwise not have as a customer.  I can understand not doing that if it isn't cost effective, but _*it is not competing against yourself*_.  No matter how many times this is said, it's not going to make it true.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 20, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> Using the premise that it's "competing against yourself" is not a logical argument.  Most of your argument was that it isn't cost effective (as Malraux basically said also).  That is a valid, logical argument.  But, the argument that one is competing against themself isn't valid if those people (i.e. your "stragglers") aren't going to buy your products anyways.  You are targeting, marketing to, and selling to, those very stragglers you are talking about.  This is not competing against yourself.  It's selling a desired product to a niche market that you would otherwise not have as a customer.  I can understand not doing that if it isn't cost effective, but _*it is not competing against yourself*_.  No matter how many times this is said, it's not going to make it true.




The first part of my response was a direct response to your "competing against yourself" issue.

As I explained, people eventually switch over time, if there is no competing new content for the edition they like.  If you give them that competing content, those people will not switch. And sometimes it takes many years for their group to drift away and for them to realize they cannot replace the group with new people unless they play the only supported edition.

The "stragglers" comment you took out of context.  I said a few stragglers, but most end up switching because of lack of support for their preferred edition.  And it takes a long time of lacking support for some to switch, but those who do switch because of the long lack of support would be lost customers to WOTC if those people got the support.

Hence, it is competing against themselves to license the material.  And therefore, it's a logical argument, again despite you underlining, bolding, and italicizing it.  Maybe you should try all caps and a bigger font, and that will feel more persuasive to you?


----------



## malraux (Feb 20, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> Using the premise that it's "competing against yourself" is not a logical argument.  Most of your argument was that it isn't cost effective (as Malraux basically said also).  That is a valid, logical argument.  But, the argument that one is competing against themself isn't valid if those people (i.e. your "stragglers") aren't going to buy your products anyways.  You are targeting, marketing to, and selling to, those very stragglers you are talking about.  This is not competing against yourself.  It's selling a desired product to a niche market that you would otherwise not have as a customer.  I can understand not doing that if it isn't cost effective, but _*it is not competing against yourself*_.  No matter how many times this is said, it's not going to make it true.




What if the market for licensed old systems is half people who will only buy old stuff, half people who would prefer to buy the old system if licensed but will buy the new stuff made by WotC otherwise?  In that case, they would be competing against themselves.


----------



## Glyfair (Feb 20, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> But, the argument that one is competing against themself isn't valid if those people (i.e. your "stragglers") aren't going to buy your products anyways.



That makes sense, if this license *ONLY* serves those who "aren't going to buy your products."  If the license serves some who prefer a system that is "supported," but prefer to stick to an older system (as long as it has support) then that competition shows up again.

The reality is that a lot of roleplayers want to play a system that is actively supported.  The way the RPG market has behaved over the years shows that behavior.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 20, 2009)

I guess I can see this from both sides a bit now.  If a company purely looks at this from the angle of what is best for making money, then it could be viewed as competing with themself.  If however, a company has the philosophy that goodwill with it's fanbase is good in the long run, they may not see it as self-competition (maybe they should remember that eventually, they will want to make another edition, and some alienated fans may never come back even for that - of course that may be completely incosequential to their bottom line).

I definitely understand that most businesses would see this as not cost-effective.  I'm pretty sure that even if Scott wanted to do exactly this, he has neither the time or personel to accomplish it, and almost assuredly no approval from higher up.

As a fan and customer, I find this disapointing.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 20, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Eventually, most people switch.  Maybe it is because they cannot find new players to play with and the old players drop off.




For what it's worth, I never ran 2nd Edition (played it for a few months), and stopped buying D&D materials at all from 1991-1999, while I played other games or AD&D instead.  My friends did likewise.  That's a lot of money TSR missed out on, with what in retrospect was a pretty minor edition change.

It's a small hobby, and losing ~45% of the fan base to the edition change (as the polls here have shown and as seems consistent with the lack of D&D interest I see at my 3 FLGS's), even if that % decreases over time (as I suspect it will), has to be bad for business after the initial core books profits pop.

And it's really sad for WotC that the recession came along just when 4e should have been in a huge growth spurt . . . that probably slows down the move to the new edition, just because people don't want to spend money on anything now.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 20, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> As a fan and customer, I find this disapointing.




I don't find it disappointing.  Hasbro/WotC do what they think is best for them, and their opinion on what that is their own to have.

However, I'd be super psyched if they did something like letting Paizo publish the 3.5e core books and use the Greyhawk setting, or just keeping the core books in print themselves.  For reasons point out, that may or may not be in their economic best interest.  Even they might not know until they try it.

As for goodwill, kudos to WotC for putting so much old stuff on the PDF market.  I like my books physical, but it's nice to know I can pick up "Border Watch" on PDF or get the original booklets on PDF if I'm ever curious.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 20, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> I don't find it disappointing. Hasbro/WotC do what they think is best for them, and their opinion on what that is their own to have.
> 
> However, I'd be super psyched if they did something like letting Paizo publish the 3.5e core books and use the Greyhawk setting, or just keeping the core books in print themselves. For reasons point out, that may or may not be in their economic best interest. Even they might not know until they try it.
> 
> As for goodwill, kudos to WotC for putting so much old stuff on the PDF market. I like my books physical, but it's nice to know I can pick up "Border Watch" on PDF or get the original booklets on PDF if I'm ever curious.




Man, I'd be super psyched over that also.  However, I am disapointed that they haven't or don't.  Not that I feel any ill will towards WoTC for not doing it, but I'm disapointed anyways.

But yeah, I'm glad they leave those old pdf's out there also.  Maybe that's another reason why they don't feel a need to license said product lines.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 21, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> For what it's worth, I never ran 2nd Edition (played it for a few months), and stopped buying D&D materials at all from 1991-1999, while I played other games or AD&D instead.  My friends did likewise.  That's a lot of money TSR missed out on, with what in retrospect was a pretty minor edition change.
> 
> It's a small hobby, and losing ~45% of the fan base to the edition change (as the polls here have shown and as seems consistent with the lack of D&D interest I see at my 3 FLGS's), even if that % decreases over time (as I suspect it will), has to be bad for business after the initial core books profits pop.
> 
> And it's really sad for WotC that the recession came along just when 4e should have been in a huge growth spurt . . . that probably slows down the move to the new edition, just because people don't want to spend money on anything now.




We do not have any good reason to think they lost ~45% of the fanbase.  You citing internet polls here and your instincts from your own game store is...well...about as inaccurate as me asking a random person on the street what they think your salary is.  I'll get an answer, and the answer will have very little basis in reality.

I wish this meme would stop being promulgated here.  In no other aspect of society would any of us take an internet poll seriously (which always attracts the disgruntled more than the content, because the answers come from people who had to affirmatively take the poll seeking to voice an opinion, and content people tend to not want to seek something out to voice their opinion as often), or think our own store down the block checked a handful of times is representative of the entire nation or worldwide sales.  

Why people take it seriously here I do not know.  I know it's because "it's the best evidence we have", but that is not true.  

We have the amazon listings (which ended ranking it better than 3.5 did) and we have at least one statement from a WOTC employee saying sales were extremely strong and they were forced into a second and third printing much earlier than expected.  

And while that is far from perfect data, it is at least more credible data, as opposed to an internet poll here or attendance a handful of times at your game store.

In other words, we have no clue at all how well the game is doing relative to prior games, and the best actual data we have shows it did well at least during the initial release.  Beyond that, it's just personal opinion, which tends to strongly correlate to how well you like the game.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 21, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> We have the amazon listings (which ended ranking it better than 3.5 did) and we have at least one statement from a WOTC employee saying sales were extremely strong and they were forced into a second and third printing much earlier than expected.




About Amazon: I'm talking what market share of D&D players are buying/playing 4e.  I don't see how Amazon can answer that.

About WotC: Their layoffs don't seem well aligned with the idea of extremely strong sales.



Mistwell said:


> And while that is far from perfect data, it is at least more credible data, as opposed to an internet poll here or attendance a handful of times at your game store.




About 10 polls here, all with the same answers, and my observations are not just from "my FLGS", it's 6 different FLGS' in 2 countries.  Here are my FLGS field study observations:

Suburban Seattle data:
- 1 FLGS on the fence, fully supportive of Pathfinder and 4e. Carrying the full line of Pathfinder (including Pathfinder Beta, which is a variant on 3e rules sold under OGL) and full line of 4e.  Many tables of games, but no one's ever playing D&D of any flavor when I come in.
- 1 FLGS neutral and uninterested in edition wars.  Carries AD&D onwards, including Pathfinder adventures but not Beta.  More 3e than 4e books, still, but the owner says I should try 4e (he's the guy who said all editions are compatible).  Hosted games here are CCG games, but the only time I ever saw D&D played here was on official game days (they only have one table, usually in use for CCG's).
- 1 FLGS strongly 4e, with all 3e material is on 40-75% closeout sales, but does have Pathfinder adventures.  Several tables of gaming going on here, none of it D&D.   This is the place (Genesis Games & Gizmo's) that sold the books at the Seattle Game Day intro for 4e that the authors were at all, so it's a pretty major shop.

Singapore data:
- 1 FLGS carrying all 4e.  I'm told this place is the center of the gaming community in the country.
- 1 FLGS with most 3e, most 4e, and a little Pathfinder
- 1 FLGS dumping its 3e books for 50% off, no 4e

What percentage adoption is that commercial reality showing?  It's pretty consistent in the Southwest and Northeast Pacific: the biggest deal places in both countries are strongly in favor of 4e, but the little guys are hedging their bets -- or dropping all D&D, in the case of one store.  So are the EnWorld 45% 3e/55% 4e split, or the general idea that 4e is leaving a lot of people behind, all that far-fetched?  I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.



Mistwell said:


> it's just personal opinion, which tends to strongly correlate to how well you like the game.




That's true.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 21, 2009)

'Eventually, most people switch'? Ah, yet another insupportable claim.



			
				haakon1 said:
			
		

> That's true.



Oh, and how.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 21, 2009)

One thing that confuses me about this thread is that I was under the impression there was a certain resentment towards WotC for not publishing or licensing older editions. The vitriol expressed by certain parties had some validation under that assumption.

But if there is an active fan population that aren't interested in WotC publishing or licensing older material and people are happy playing with what materials they have available, then what reason is there for the hate?


----------



## tenkar (Feb 21, 2009)

Kzach said:


> One thing that confuses me about this thread is that I was under the impression there was a certain resentment towards WotC for not publishing or licensing older editions. The vitriol expressed by certain parties had some validation under that assumption.
> 
> But if there is an active fan population that aren't interested in WotC publishing or licensing older material and people are happy playing with what materials they have available, then what reason is there for the hate?




The OGL allows publishers to create books for all earlier editions of D&D.  So why should WotC waste limited resources publishing for discontinued lines when there are small publishers that can fill that niche using the OGL?

There is no need to license anything... the OGL is the license.  I think the majority of the gamers that have stuck with older editions recognize this.

As for the hate, there is always hate for "The Man" or "The CORP".


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 22, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> About WotC: Their layoffs don't seem well aligned with the idea of extremely strong sales.




  Judging from history, WotC's layoffs have little or nothing to do with D&D sales. They were laying off people semi-regularly in the early 3E years, after all, which seem to have been a peak for the game. And in the days before they bought TSR, they were somewhat infamous for regular layoffs, IIRC.
  I think it's more a corporate culture thing, really, especially noting that the layoffs tended to pick up again after the TSR logo was replaced with the WotC logo. 




> I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.




  Could we settle for 'suspicious of online reactions'?  I suspect they haven't gotten nearly the conversion of the hardcore fanbase that they would have liked, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the larger success of the game--it's possible that they've made up for it with the creation of new fans. 

  And FWIW, I'm really rather indifferent to the two Great Powers in the D&D Edition War--both 4E and 3E have enough elements that rub me the wrong way that I'm not truly satisfied with either, although there are certainly a lot of things I like about both. Give me a D&D: Saga Edition or something that combines the 'plug and play' of 4E, the flexibility and breadth of 3E, and the spirit of 2E, and I'm there.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 22, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Give me a D&D: Saga Edition or something that combines the 'plug and play' of 4E, the flexibility and breadth of 3E, and the spirit of 2E, and I'm there.




Well, I can't help you with the plug and play of 4e, but I find core 3e with some UA variants  and a couple of houserules along with limiting a lot of WOTC supplements captures the spirit of 2e for me.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 22, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.




Nope.

WotC only has to sell more books now than at the end of 3e to have gained customers.

And for what it's worth, I totally think they are selling more now than at then last year of 3e, even before 4e was announced. The product cycle was complete, and those who wanted 3e PH, DMG and MM had bought them.

All else was investing in diminishing returns.

So there's no "pollyanna" in thinking that WotC has gained customers by releasing 4e.

/M


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> About Amazon: I'm talking what market share of D&D players are buying/playing 4e.  I don't see how Amazon can answer that.




If initial sales at Amazon for 4e were stronger than initial sales at Amazon for 3.5e (which they were), you can draw some useful data from that.  It's not a full answer to your question, but it is a partial answer based on something objective.



> About WotC: Their layoffs don't seem well aligned with the idea of extremely strong sales.




They had similar layoffs after 3e, and after 3.5e, and both of those layoffs were during better economic times.  So, unless you are saying those also had weak sales, I do not see how that is relevant to your point.



> About 10 polls here, all with the same answers,




It would not matter if it were a thousand polls.  Of course they result in the same answers.  That doesn't make them more accurate however.  As I said, they are internet polls, which are inherently unreliable.  They are self-selecting for responders, and disgruntled people are more likely to answer an internet poll they seek out than happy people who do not feel the same level of urge (on average) to seek out such a poll and express their opinion.  Do I *really* need to explain that internet polls are not accurate? Do I really need to point to all the articles on the topic, and how internet polls can never be relied on?



> and my observations are not just from "my FLGS", it's 6 different FLGS' in 2 countries.




Which represents, what, .00000000001% of FLGS hours?  Come on now, you know you cannot personally present your visits as representative.  They are not.  Heck, even if you OWNED 6 stores around the world, it would still not be representative of the world's game sales.  It's too big a set of data for your samples to be meaningful in any way. Heck, I am not even sure the bulk of WOTC products are even sold through FLGS anymore!



> What percentage adoption is that commercial reality showing?  It's pretty consistent in the Southwest and Northeast Pacific: the biggest deal places in both countries are strongly in favor of 4e, but the little guys are hedging their bets -- or dropping all D&D, in the case of one store.  So are the EnWorld 45% 3e/55% 4e split, or the general idea that 4e is leaving a lot of people behind, all that far-fetched?  I think you've got to be pollyanna to think WotC hasn't lost significant numbers of customers.




You have no actual data to go on.  You've taken the classic hasty generalization position, and then accuse me of being pollyanna? 

I am not saying you are wrong or right, I am saying you have no basis for knowing if you are correct or not, nor do I beyond those two relatively minor actual data points (Amazon, and the WOTC employee statement regarding reprintings).  You have pretended that your non-data is actual representative information based on your personal opinion.  It's silly.  It's not something you would appreciate if someone else did that sort of thing in some other aspect of life. 

We have no idea if they gained or lost customers.  You going around claiming internet polls and your 6 visits to different game stores is some kind of proof of ~45% loss in customers is ridiculous.  Have a little respect for your fellow peers here, be completely honest with them, and just say it's your guess that they lost a lot of customers but you do not have anything firm to back that up.  Lets put an end to claims of hard numbers that are actually based on internet polls and your store visits.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm not here to dispute sales numbers, but I think it is important to look at Amazon and the book trade numbers because FLGS numbers only tell a part of the story. They generally speak to a subset of the hardcore gamers who choose to shop at specialized hobby retailers. It's also important to know what casual gamers and those who do not shop at specialized hobby retailers are buying and playing if you want an overall view of the market.

- "Hasn't Shopped at a Game Store since 1998" Spikey


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 23, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Have a little respect for your fellow peers here, be completely honest with them



Good advice.

So, got any proof that 'eventually, most people switch' yet?

Nah, didn't think so.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Good advice.
> 
> So, got any proof that 'eventually, most people switch' yet?



It's simplistic to say people "switch" anything.  But how many people out there still listen to 8-tracks and play 1E D&D?  Individuals may not switch en masse, but the continued evolution of tastes to new things as older ones fade out is pretty much fact.  As the years pass on and 3.5E gets farther in the rearview, I'm pretty sure the number of 3.5 players will fade as a subset of all D&D players.  So while you and I may not switch to 4E (not for lack of trying on my part, but without f2f games it's a little hard), but there are new kids just learning to play D&D and they'll most likely be picking the newest books.

It's just a fact of life.

All that said, I'm not sure you can hold Amazon sales comparison between 3.5 and 4.  So much has changed with how we shop in the world, with the internet becoming a much vaster market share of sales in general than they were, even in 2003.  It's an interesting point to compare, but the raw numbers won't say much.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Feb 23, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> About 10 polls here, all with the same answers...



Internet board surveys are worse than worthless. They're misleading. They are a self-selecting sample of a minority of board dwellers who just happen to feel strongly enough about whatever the survey is about to actually take part in it. Depending what site you go to and how you word the survey, you could get a survey that shows that most of the RPGers want to be fire engines.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 23, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> And licensing previous editions would allow you to still sell to, and make money off of, those [who play earlier editions by] preference.  You aren't making money off of these people anyways, with licensing you can. [. . .] (And _competing against yourself_ *is not a logical argument* - the people who would buy these products aren't buying your current products anyways.)




This makes sense, but only if you assume that people clearly choose to play the current or an older edition. Since I didn't make that point very clearly, allow me to illustrate:

Out of ten hypothetical D&D players, let's say 8 play 4E and 2 play older editions.​
In this scenario, your point makes sense: WotC isn't monetizing 2 of those players anyway, so why not license the older editions and make some more money out of them?

Thing is, the real situation may be more like this:

Out of ten hypothetical D&D player, 5 prefer to play 4e and 2 prefer older editions. The remaining 3 play 4E, because that's what their group plays, or because they like playing the currently supported edition, or because they've just got into D&D and that's what they see on the shelves. Or whatever.​
So WotC licenses older editions, and some of those 3 players end up playing 3.5 or OD&D or whatever, instead of 4E. And WotC loses money directly because it makes a lot less on licensing, and loses indirectly because the marketplace is fragmented and player networks are weaker.

Under this scenario, the money made through licensing almost certainly does not cover the money lost on 4E. And the concept of competing against yourself is absolutely a rational concern.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 23, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> So, got any proof that 'eventually, most people switch' yet?



Isn't that what happened as the game went from OD&D --> AD&D --> 2e --> 3e --> 3.5e?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Nope.
> 
> WotC only has to sell more books now than at the end of 3e to have gained customers.
> 
> ...




I would say that they generated more sales on launch than what was going on for a couple of years on regular basis. The rest should be the same more or less. But if they did not do the investment for 4e their sales of 3e would critically drop after a certain point -this risk was so real that only the exact moment or timing was the unknown variable.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> It's just a fact of life.




Regarding the things you are talking about I would want to specify here and say it's just a fact of consumerism.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 23, 2009)

I think we can all be pretty certain that WotC will neither license nor sell older editions of D&D.  Even if "self competition" weren't the issue, there'd be issues of controlling and maintatining aspects of the IP and the "definition" of D&D.

More likely, if 4E seems to be less of what consumers want (say, if Pathfinder does well or 3.x remains viable and noticable for a log period of time, at the same time that 4E underperforms) then 5E will be more of a "return to the roots" of the game -- whatever that means to the design department at the time.

I personally believe WotC grossly underestimated the enjoyment and investment most D&D groups get out of the game between combats or otherwise "action" encounters.  I think they relied on self selecting, biased samples of players to survey -- RPGA members, in particular -- and I think they misjudged the typical D&D group when assuming that a homogenized playstyle was desirable. So, i think we'll see 5E in far fewer than the 8 years it took for 4E.  But, again, that's all opinion and conjecture.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 23, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I think we can all be pretty certain that WotC will neither license nor sell older editions of D&D.




we can still hope.

diaglo "keeping the OD&D(1974) dream alive since 1979" Ooi


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 26, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> If initial sales at Amazon for 4e were stronger than initial sales at Amazon for 3.5e (which they were), you can draw some useful data from that.  It's not a full answer to your question, but it is a partial answer based on something objective.




My theory: there are more computers, internet users, and Amazon customers in 2008 than in 2000.  Therefore, I don't know if you observation is significant or not.



Mistwell said:


> It would not matter if it were a thousand polls. Of course they result in the same answers.  That doesn't make them more accurate however.  As I said, they are internet polls, which are inherently unreliable.  They are self-selecting for responders, and disgruntled people are more likely to answer an internet poll they seek out than happy people who do not feel the same level of urge (on average) to seek out such a poll and express their opinion.  Do I *really* need to explain that internet polls are not accurate? Do I really need to point to all the articles on the topic, and how internet polls can never be relied on?




I understand that self-selecting polls are inaccurate.  (That all internet polling is less accurate than all phone polling is not proven -- one of the more accurate polls in the Presidential election was an internet poll and the internet betting on political results is quite reliable.)  However, the reason self-selecting polling is inaccurate is because it (might) give a disproportionate weighting to people who care more about the subject, and given the level of passion around the edition change on both sides, I doubt 4e fans were disproportionately wilting lillies who didn't want their voices counted.  And there's no denying this is the most popular D&D site on the internet.  So dismissing that 45% of the hundreds of people who completed the polls, care most about D&D (bothering to be here), and are thought-leaders in the peer groups (well, if you believe the poll that ~80% of the people here are DM's) don't like the product, that just seems silly to me.

Clearly, a LOT of D&D customers don't like 4e and aren't buying it.  Whether "a lot" is 15% or 75% you can dispute, but it's a significant number.

If your point is "the real number may not be 45%, it might be something very different", fair enough.  But given a lack of any other data, I'll GUESS it's probably somewhere in that general vicinity.



Mistwell said:


> Which represents, what, .00000000001% of FLGS hours? Come on now, you know you cannot personally present your visits as representative.  They are not.




You said my opinion was wrong because my observations were from "my FLGS", implying that my N was 1 and that it was a self-selected sample of only stores I agree with.  I corrected that: my sample size was 6, not 1; it included one store that sold the books at WotC's 4e launch party so clearly is not a partisan anti-4e or anti-WotC store, and it included 100% of the D&D stores known to EnWorld players in 1 country where I'd never been to a game store before (Singapore).  I submit that's not an entirely worthless sample set.  My observation from that data set is, I think, non-controversial: significant numbers of stores have not converted fully to 4e.

If you think that's not the case, what's your observation about FLGS conversion to 4e?




Mistwell said:


> You have no actual data to go on.  You've taken the classic hasty generalization position, and then accuse me of being pollyanna?
> 
> I am not saying you are wrong or right, I am saying you have no basis for knowing if you are correct or not, nor do I beyond those two relatively minor actual data points (Amazon, and the WOTC employee statement regarding reprintings).  You have pretended that your non-data is actual representative information based on your personal opinion.  It's silly.  It's not something you would appreciate if someone else did that sort of thing in some other aspect of life.
> 
> We have no idea if they gained or lost customers.  You going around claiming internet polls and your 6 visits to different game stores is some kind of proof of ~45% loss in customers is ridiculous.  Have a little respect for your fellow peers here, be completely honest with them, and just say it's your guess that they lost a lot of customers but you do not have anything firm to back that up.  Lets put an end to claims of hard numbers that are actually based on internet polls and your store visits.




I think I've been clear as to my sources/observations all along; if not, that wasn't my intent.  Disagreeing with my opinion and criticizing my sources/observations is one thing.  Saying I'm dishonest and don't respect my fellow gamers is another.  I understand emotions get out of control easily in internet discussions, but I'm trying hard to be civil, so I'd appreciate the same from you.  If I've been unclear or have come across as insulting to you and you're reacting to that, I apologize -- let's both drop it.  We should undoubtably stop this conversation anyhow, for two reasons:

1) The poll argument is kinda pointless.  It's just plain true that self-selecting polls are inaccurate.  How inaccurate these particular polls are is the question, and we'll never settle it.  I admit the 45% is just a guess . . . but directionally, I don't see why it would be completely wrong.

2) IMHO, most of this comes down to "I don't like 3e" and "you like 4e".  That's not going to change, so there's no point arguing around the point and pretending it's about something else.

As long as you admit 4e has been rejected by a significant number of D&D customers, and there's no particular basis for the theory (which may not even have been yours, I don't remember) that "everyone will convert eventually", I happy to walk away and agree the details are unknown to us.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 26, 2009)

Doc_Klueless said:


> Depending what site you go to and how you word the survey, you could get a survey that shows that most of the RPGers want to be fire engines.




Yes, if it was a joke survey, you could get that result here, perhaps.

But I see no reason why polls of people who care about D&D about what edition they prefer/are playing/have purchased would yield completely nonsensical results.

There's a difference between "has an unknown, possibly large margin of error" and "is completely wrong".

You do realize a random poll of 1000 people is able to predict the voting behavior of 100 million people within +/-4%, right?

Several hundred people out of the few hundred thousand who play D&D seems like a large sample to me.  So the question becomes: it is a sample that represents trends in opinions about editions.  That answer, we'll never know.  It could be that the views of the passionate online geeky community that is EnWorld reflect the views of the mass of geeks playing D&D.  Or, it could be that because we're more passionate about the game, our views are skewed -- it's quite possible that the average gamer doesn't doesn't care what edition it is.  It's quite possible that the average EnWorld doesn't care either.  But among people who care much about D&D and have an opinion, why guess the polling is all wrong?  Occam's Razor says it's probably not all wrong.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 26, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> Several hundred people out of the few hundred thousand who play D&D seems like a large sample to me.




I'd say it's a good sample.  Especially since the large majority of people on forums like this are mainly DM's.  Since DM's are the one's who organize and run games, their preferences are crucial to the success of any rpg.  For example- I don't like 4e so I don't run it.  This has a much larger effect than just the loss of my business.  It also means that my four players (all in their early 20's and WoW players so that makes them wotc's target market), who don't frequent rpg forums, aren't exposed to and have no interest in buying 4e products either.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 26, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> Y
> You do realize a random poll of 1000 people is able to predict the voting behavior of 100 million people within +/-4%, right?




Right. After the statistical analysis guys do their thing, I think.

So yes, a random poll of 1000 people will predict the opinion of a much larger population. But that poll has to be a lot more secure than the polls here at EN World.

Otherwise the "+/- 4%" turns into "+/-30% or so give or take and hope that no one played the numbers to prove a point".

EN World polls are not as statistically valid as properly conducted polls. They are indicative of something, sure, but putting them on the same level as a professionally conducted poll with high quality statistical analysts crunching the numbers is giving EN World polls too much credence.

/M


----------



## kitsune9 (Feb 26, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> Look to the simplest answer.
> 
> Competition.
> 
> You don't want older editions competing with your current flagship.




Xyxox said it right. Competition. It would fragment their market even more if there were more than one official edition out there.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Feb 26, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> My theory: there are more computers, internet users, and Amazon customers in 2008 than in 2000.  Therefore, I don't know if you observation is significant or not.




According to Internet World Stat News there was a 106% increase in Internet usage in the US from 2000 to 2005.  This data is pretty well supported by data360.org which show a similar increase up to 2008.  If we say that the number of D&D players today is equal to the number playing back in 2000 (in relation to the population), then sales online should also have increased similarly.  Of course, if there are less or more people playing D&D, then this will also be reflected in the sales numbers.  There are, of course, also a large number of other factors that will impact on the number of sales.  And this is just looking at the number of _Internet_ users over that period - we have absoluetly no way of knowing whether Amazon's D&D customer base in anyway reflects the general increase in Internet usage (it could be a far greater increase for all we know).

Making a direct comparison between numbers of sales on Amazon between editions is completely flawed - likewise using it to argue the success or otherwise of one edition over another.


----------



## RogerWilco (Jul 17, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I personally believe WotC grossly underestimated the enjoyment and investment most D&D groups get out of the game between combats or otherwise "action" encounters.  I think they relied on self selecting, biased samples of players to survey -- RPGA members, in particular -- and I think they misjudged the typical D&D group when assuming that a homogenized playstyle was desirable. So, i think we'll see 5E in far fewer than the 8 years it took for 4E.  But, again, that's all opinion and conjecture.



I have to agree with this, already in the move from 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 edition we noticed that the options for "out of combat" encounters has dwindled, certainly what spells can do (take Polymorph). It's a big reason I'm not so interested in 4e.

One of my big gripes with how WotC handled the transition from 3.5 to 4 was that way they pulled the plug on E-Tools and PCGen support a year before 4e was released and while they were still selling and publishing new books for 3.5e.

As to the analogy with car parts, it's known that there have been lawsuits if 3rd party manufacturers can make after market parts for cars, especially after they go out of production and the manufacturer no longer provides parts themselves.
I would buy a lot of 2e books if I could (no big second hand market here in Europe), I played it a lot, but with borrowed books as in 1999-2003 getting them was already near impossible, only our DM had a full set. It's why when we switched to 3.5 (skipped 3.0 mostly), I bought all books I could (I have over a meter on my shelve).
I would hope that WotC would licence the older editions out, I think the amount of competition with their own 4e would be minimal. If they'd find that they are selling more 3.5e then 4e that way, I think that would also send a pretty strong message. I'm not talking new books, just existing ones either reprints or PDF, preferably both in a nice bundle.
If 4e is good, then people will buy it, if they are afraid that people will buy 3.5e instead then they need to improve 4e.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jul 17, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> Look to the simplest answer.
> 
> Competition.
> 
> You don't want older editions competing with your current flagship.




This sums up my response.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 17, 2009)

OK, what Necromancer cast Resurrect Dead Thread in here?


----------



## Reynard (Jul 17, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> OK, what Necromancer cast Resurrect Dead Thread in here?




Looks like a relatively new user who must have been reading deep in threads past.  I think we should give him a pass before we start with the holy water.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jul 18, 2009)

Is this thread vulnerable to radiant damage?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 18, 2009)

I think it's because no one would buy them. Or not enough to be profitable. Everyone who wants a copy of the 1e rules either already owns them or can easily acquire a second hand copy. If 3e was making decent money for WotC there would never have been a 4e.


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 18, 2009)

I think it's too late for WOTC to license older editions.

Smaller guys have already moved in, and have acted way too fast for the behemoth to follow. They'd have to compete with established names on the niche market, since their own IP is already committed to the current brand of D&D.

It would cause brand dilution for them, and waste resources.

Beseides, if anyone is NOT playing 4e now, it's probably for pretty serious taste reasons, such as writing style and fun of the product, and convincing them to change is not going to work overnight.

So, while they are doing their 4e stuff, let's have fun with our 3pp products.

Huzzah !!!


----------



## Reynard (Jul 18, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> If 3e was making decent money for WotC there would never have been a 4e.




I think the issue is that "decent money" has a different meaning when applied to a WotC owned by Hasbro than it did for an independent WotC.

I also find it interesting that you are implying that 4E was primarily a cash grab.


----------



## qstor (Jul 19, 2009)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned OSRIC in the thread. 

Mike


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 20, 2009)

Wow. I remember that thread. It began as "why doesn´t Wotc license an older edition i like" and turned into "let me prove to you that 4e fails on different levels." Let´s see how long it takes until the necroed thread goes down the same route.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 20, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Wow. I remember that thread. It began as "why doesn´t Wotc license an older edition i like" and turned into "let me prove to you that 4e fails on different levels." Let´s see how long it takes until the necroed thread goes down the same route.




Reynard already inferred someone else's comment about 4e being a cash grab.  It's already begun.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 20, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Reynard already inferred someone else's comment about 4e being a cash grab.  It's already begun.




Yes, yes I did. If you go back and read the original comment, you can easily se why.

However, in the interest of actually engaging in real discussion, let's think of it this way: is a "cash grab" the only reason to make a new edition? Doug seems to think so.  Me? I'm not so sure.  There may be other motivations.

But, if we're going to talk "cash grabs" as motivation for anything a company does, we have to wonder, then, why we didn't see an expensive, slip-cased collectors edition of AD&D 1E at the 30th anniversary of said game a couple years back.  It certainly would have sold, especially if it was essentially "untouched" with the original covers. It probably could have commanded $100 to $150 for the set, with a limited print run (and then be going for $300+ on ebay shortly thereafter). Those number, of course, are right out of my gazebo, but the point is that WotC could have done it and made a profit for very limited work.

So, why not?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 20, 2009)

Reprinting 1e can do nothing but make money for WOTC.  Problem is, it won't make MUCH money.  Suppose it costs $100 to reprint 1e (I'm keeping the numbers small to make the math easier) and WOTC makes $110.  That's a 10% return for minimal effort.  I personally think they'd make much more money off 1e.  Nothing compared to 4e, surely, but a sale is a sale.Take the old 1e books, reprint them, ship them off to a distributor.  Players of older editions will be VERY happy, some players who have never played or even heard of 1e will inevitably pick it up, even if they never play the game.  4e players might pick it up in addition to 4e, I doubt many 4e players will suddenly drop 4e and play 1e exclusively.  The old school players will be happy and not so down on WOTC because they feel like they've been left behind.  Happy customers are return customers.  It's a win/win situation.  I really don't see a resurgence of AD&D competing with 4e at all.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 20, 2009)

Reynard said:


> Yes, yes I did. If you go back and read the original comment, you can easily se why.
> 
> However, in the interest of actually engaging in real discussion, let's think of it this way: is a "cash grab" the only reason to make a new edition? Doug seems to think so.  Me? I'm not so sure.  There may be other motivations.




Maybe your definition of "cash grab" and mine are different.

Doug said "If 3e was making *decent money* for WotC there would never have been a 4e." (emphasis added).

I do not view saying "decent money" as the same as "cash grab".  "Cash grab" implies to me taking a lot of quick money for very short term gain.  Slowly making decent money from something does not equate with making a "cash grab" to me.  So, why did you infer "cash grab" into what Doug said?


----------



## Maggan (Jul 20, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Nothing compared to 4e, surely, but a sale is a sale.




The problem with this is that if WotC spends 100 dollars to make 110 dollars by reprinting AD&D, they could instead have spent 100 dollars and made 115 by printing more D&D4e books, given the market conditions currently in place.

A sale is a sale, but if one sale brings in 10 dollar profit, and the other 15 dollars, for the same amount of money spent, then WotC will go for the 15 dollars.

IMO and all that.

/M


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 20, 2009)

Maggan said:


> The problem with this is that if WotC spends 100 dollars to make 110 dollars by reprinting AD&D, they could instead have spent 100 dollars and made 115 by printing more D&D4e books, given the market conditions currently in place.
> 
> A sale is a sale, but if one sale brings in 10 dollar profit, and the other 15 dollars, for the same amount of money spent, then WotC will go for the 15 dollars.
> 
> ...




Sure, but why can't they do both?  Very few people will buy 1e INSTEAD OF 4e.  Some will buy both, some will buy only 1e, but most of those will probably not buy 4e anyway.  And 4e is still there for those who only want 4e.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 20, 2009)

Reynard said:


> But, if we're going to talk "cash grabs" as motivation for anything a company does, we have to wonder, then, why we didn't see an expensive, slip-cased collectors edition of AD&D 1E at the 30th anniversary of said game a couple years back.  It certainly would have sold, especially if it was essentially "untouched" with the original covers. It probably could have commanded $100 to $150 for the set, with a limited print run (and then be going for $300+ on ebay shortly thereafter). Those number, of course, are right out of my gazebo, but the point is that WotC could have done it and made a profit for very limited work.
> 
> So, why not?




At a guess, printing books today is not done the way it was years ago. WotC might not have (good) electronic files (PDFs or Quark or whatever their layout software is) of the 1e books to ship to a printer to have new books printed, and they might not be able to find a printer that could handle (at a reasonable cost) any old camera-ready copies WotC might have (if they have any at all). IIRC, the PDFs they did of the 1e books were all scans they OCRd and corrected; they couldn't send those to a printer. Thus, reprinting the books might not be a quick or easy process at all.

I believe SJGames has said one reason all their old books (GURPS, Car Wars, Ogre, etc.) weren't quickly available as PDFs is that they don't *have* electronic copies of all of the books. Some never had them; some had all copies lost (mislaid, damaged backup media, etc.), and some they had, but they weren't compatible with modern software & not easily converted. Thus, some of the books have to be recreated or scanned & OCR'd, which takes a while (especially to do right -- some of the old AD&D PDFs were terrible scans). WotC might be in the same situation with older TSR material.

And that's besides the entirely feasible prospect that they (WotC) just didn't want to (or didn't think to) make 'em available, or didn't think it would be sufficiently profitable (especially if it was a considerable effort).


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 20, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Sure, but why can't they do both?




That's easy; they don't have unlimited money to print books. It would take time and effort (see my previous post as to why it might be a significant amount) to reprint old material; that time and effort (which is to say, money) would have to come from somewhere, and would probably take away from another project. If that other project would make them *more* money for the same investment, they will logically go with the other project. 

Green Ronin hasn't reprinted Ultimate Power, despite a seemingly decent demand (to judge from the number of "why can't I get UP" threads on various message boards), because they are spending the cash it would take to print a full-color hardcover like UP on other expensive-to-print games. WotC has much bigger budgets than GR, but they aren't unlimited; ultimately, it's a zero-sum game -- publishing one thing means there are other things you can't publish.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 21, 2009)

I still wonder how many people bought the special collector's PHB and how much profit that WOTC made on them.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 21, 2009)

If only there were some kind of electronic software that could allow people to buy the book without you having to physically print it.  Instead, they could just...I dunno, download it.  All the profit and none of the costs!

Man, that would be super awesome.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 21, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If only there were some kind of electronic software that could allow people to buy the book without you having to physically print it.  Instead, they could just...I dunno, download it.  All the profit and none of the costs!




Well, there are problems with that, which have been mentioned above.  Namely, that for older material, there's no electronic copy available so they'd have to pay the cost of making one.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 21, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, there are problems with that, which have been mentioned above.  Namely, that for older material, there's no electronic copy available so they'd have to pay the cost of making one.




I think he's referring to the Great WotC PDF Purge. 

WotC did have e-copies of a lot (I'm not sure how close to "all" they were, though) of their older things. Most of them were scans, and some were pretty horrible scans (the scanned books were in bad condition in some cases, other scans were just sloppily done, etc.), but they did have them. Presumably, they still do have them -- they just aren't sharing any more. 

(Perhaps they need more Barney?)


----------



## billd91 (Jul 21, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I think he's referring to the Great WotC PDF Purge.
> 
> WotC did have e-copies of a lot (I'm not sure how close to "all" they were, though) of their older things. Most of them were scans, and some were pretty horrible scans (the scanned books were in bad condition in some cases, other scans were just sloppily done, etc.), but they did have them. Presumably, they still do have them -- they just aren't sharing any more.




Given that the primary costs of having PDF scans of old editions has been paid (initial development and printing, PDF creation), the mind does boggle that they are not trying to leverage that asset into generating income.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 21, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I think he's referring to the Great WotC PDF Purge.




Perhaps, but I wanted to avoid that particular minefield.

Anyway, certainly for a while they did offer some older material(and they still have things available for free!), but stopped using it as a business, for reasons they've made clear, even if there is still argumentation going on over their decision.   But were the 1st edition core books ever done that way?

I don't recall that being the case.  So we're stuck with the costs of conversion having to be less than the potential profits, which would have to be more than spending the money elsewhere.   Not to mention the costs of operating the service, which would apply even if they did in fact have PDFs available.

But they did say they were looking at alternatives when they did leave the PDF market, so maybe one day they will find something that's sufficiently profitable for them.  Dunno, haven't even seen anybody mention the progress of the lawsuits lately.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 21, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I believe SJGames has said one reason all their old books (GURPS, Car Wars, Ogre, etc.) weren't quickly available as PDFs is that they don't *have* electronic copies of all of the books. Some never had them; *some had all copies lost* (mislaid, damaged backup media, etc.), and some they had, but they weren't compatible with modern software & not easily converted.




Some were never returned by the Secret Service...


----------



## darjr (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm a huge fan of the 4e. And the Basic/Expert, and AD&D. I was just about to purchase the whole set of OD&D little three books and all the supplements just before they were yanked.

I don't think I'm all that interested in the licensing of older stuff, but the PDF's of older stuff should come back.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 21, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Sure, but why can't they do both?




My theory is that they have limited resources for developing D&D, and chose to put the money they have to work where it gives them the best return.

Or in other words, they only have a metaphorical 100 dollars to spend, and have to choose which game to spend them on. So the money goes to the game that brings in the metaphorical extra 5 dollars.

At least, that's what I think, but I've been wrong about this stuff before. 

/M


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 22, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> But were the 1st edition core books ever done that way?
> 
> I don't recall that being the case.



Yes, they were. I purchased all of them.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 22, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Yes, they were. I purchased all of them.




How good is the quality, especially compared to the 4E versions?  What did they cost?

The question of "How many copies did they sell" is one I doubt we'll ever get the figures to answer though.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 22, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> How good is the quality, especially compared to the 4E versions?



Well, the comparison would be somewhat unfair... the 4e versions are OEF, while the AD&D books are scans. In any event, the 1e PDFs aren't of great quality: the scans don't have an high resolution, the OCR is incomplete (especially for the tables) and the PHB has a blotch on one page.



> What did they cost?



I bought them ages ago from a long defunct place called SVGames... I think that I paid them $4 each.



> The question of "How many copies did they sell" is one I doubt we'll ever get the figures to answer though.



Yeah... even though I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is not that many.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 22, 2009)

> If only there were some kind of electronic software that could allow people to buy the book without you having to physically print it. Instead, they could just...I dunno, download it. All the profit and none of the costs!
> 
> Man, that would be super awesome.




In the 5e thread I go into exactly this kind of scenario in some pretty deep detail.

The marginal costs of doing anything online are so incredibly low that the only reason this can't be done is because management isn't agile enough to envision how it could work.

Thankfully, I already did most of the work for them. 

WotC, I expect that my check for doing the work of your management team is in the mail.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 22, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Well, the comparison would be somewhat unfair...




Not at all, the problem of getting good versions is an important consideration.  Sounds like they'd still have to work on it, and at 4 bucks a pop, I don't know if they'd be making any real money on it.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 22, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Not at all, the problem of getting good versions is an important consideration.  Sounds like they'd still have to work on it, and at 4 bucks a pop, I don't know if they'd be making any real money on it.



I see what you mean, but many (myself included) would be content with just the old PDF being available again. The work on those files has already been done.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 22, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I bought them ages ago from a long defunct place called SVGames... I think that I paid them $4 each.




Didn't Paizo have some connection to SVGames? Shared some owners or something?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 22, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I see what you mean, but many (myself included) would be content with just the old PDF being available again. The work on those files has already been done.




Perhaps, but what would Wizards of the Coast get from that? 

From your description of the quality, I'm not imagining them getting much in the way of praise or customers from it.   

Sure, you might say "Well, they could have just kept the status quo" but I don't think it was enough to entice them.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 23, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Perhaps, but what would Wizards of the Coast get from that?
> 
> From your description of the quality, I'm not imagining them getting much in the way of praise or customers from it.
> 
> Sure, you might say "Well, they could have just kept the status quo" but I don't think it was enough to entice them.




They'd get $4 a pop.

You're essentially asking "Ok, so WotC doesn't have to put in any effort whatsoever, and people pay them.  But what does WotC get out of it?"


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 23, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They'd get $4 a pop.
> 
> You're essentially asking "Ok, so WotC doesn't have to put in any effort whatsoever, and people pay them.  But what does WotC get out of it?"




There's a reason why I said the last line of my post:

Sure, you might say "Well, they could have just kept the status quo" but I don't think it was enough to entice them.

Why did I say this?   Because I feel it's quite possible for Wizards of the Coast to not be gaining anything meaningful from the files being available.  This could include profit.  They may simply not have enough customers of those books for them to overcome the costs of having the files available.  Which are not zero.

There's no reason to assume that they would be getting four bucks of pure profit from sales of this material.  At the least, the vendor would take a cut to pay for its operations(servers only seem free, they really aren't), and I do think Wizards would have to do some accounting on their end.  How much would they be getting from each sale?  Well, as far as I know, we don't know, but heck, let's handwave it as four bucks.  Now how many sales would they have?   How many would it take before WoTC was impressed with the amount of money coming in?   Believe it or not, there is such a thing as not enough profit for a corporation.  Want to handwave some figure?  Let's try 1,000. For me, 4,000 bucks in money would be quite a lot, by a year, or a month.  How much is that to Wizards?   Well, they have sales revenues over 100 million, so not so much I think.

So yeah, I'm left still wondering, what does Wizards really get out of it?   What entices them to keep the sales available?

This is something they'd have to answer, though, as I doubt any of us have the insider picture to say.  Well, except for the WoTC employees who are probably under orders not to reply on these kinds of things.  Corporate inscrutability and all that.  But perhaps with their future plans for digital publishing, we'll find out.  Or maybe their lawsuit will feature some information, depending on what the defendants lawyers do.  I do recall some mention of RIAA figures coming out in a music-sharing lawsuit.


----------



## darjr (Jul 23, 2009)

Posting just to add that there is a customer support angle to putting out the PDF's.

It's a non trivial thing as well, I've been surrounded by customer support most of my career and those poor folks put up with a ton, and work a ton. It isn't free or cheap. Even a few hours a week or month or even a year of customer support for all those PDF's could crater any profit.

Even so. I suspect and guess, that the PDF's were worth it. I also wish they would come back... even if just for the older versions.

The licensing can, imho, be covered by the OGL.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 23, 2009)

darjr said:


> Even so. I suspect and guess, that the PDF's were worth it. I also wish they would come back... even if just for the older versions.




Well, maybe in the future, when they've decided to go with whatever other options they're considering, they'll come back.  If not, it's only a few more decades till they slip into the public domain!   



> The licensing can, imho, be covered by the OGL.




Wizards has already left the OGL behind though, so I suspect that in their opinion, it can't.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 24, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> Didn't Paizo have some connection to SVGames? Shared some owners or something?



I don't know. And now that I think about it, I'm remembering that the first PDFs that I bought (PHB, UA and DMG) were directly from Wizards, in 2001 before they licensed the sale to SVGames. The price for UA was $5 and for the PHB and the DMG it was $6. One year later, I bough the rest of the 1e manuals from SVGames, but the price was $5, not $4.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 24, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> So yeah, I'm left still wondering, what does Wizards really get out of it?   What entices them to keep the sales available?




Your entire post is still missing the point.

It doesn't matter if the .pdfs sell very little.  *There's still a gain*.  There's a gain in profit, there's a gain in customer satisfaction, and there's a gain in public image.

The problem is, you're asking "why keep the status quo?"  That's a pointless question.  You keep it because _it's the status quo.  It's working_.

The question is never "Why should we NOT change?"  The question is, "Why should we change this.  Why should we remove the .pdfs.  What do we gain from this.  What do we lose."  As Kamikaze Banana likes to quote from Jurassic Park, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they _should."_

Wizards decided to change it.  They lost customer satisfaction, they lost profit, and they lost public image.  They gained *nothing*.  Piracy is still rife, and has perhaps even grown.  The lawsuits only made them look petty to a lot of people.  And here's the thing - yes, to a lot of people, the lawsuits made them look good.  _But these were people who already supported WotC_.  They lost favor in people they had, and gained favor in people who already gave it to them.  Once again, *the change did not in any way, shape, or form, benefit WotC.*


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 24, 2009)

Double post.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 24, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Once again, *the change did not in any way, shape, or form, benefit WotC.*




For you, maybe not.  For Wizards?  Their answer may be entirely different.  

Since I don't see them revealing their internal affairs any time soon, I suspect there's no real way to know.   Unless you want to try to buy-out Hasbro?   

Me, I know what happens when you keep doing the same old things because you think they were working for you, and if you want, I'm sure we can come up with a movie quote to illustrate it.   After all, for every wise old saying, there's another equally wise and old saying to contradict it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 24, 2009)

Well, to be fair, WotC might have an advantage to it that we haven't seen. 
[sblock=example
For instance, say Hasbro wants to keep greater control of IP it owns. After all, as the creators of Transformers and GI Joe, they have some lucrative possibilities in the things that they make (which ultimately benefits in high-profit-margin plastic toys). Company-wide, Hasbro is enforcing a greater IP control.

WotC gets the memo, and they start thinking "where can we get greater control of our IP?" This might have been part of the 4e's GSL debacle right out the gate, but to the point here, they see piracy of their products. Specifically, they see same-day piracy of their PDF products.

Some suit somewhere has a freak out. "THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!" he ('cuz it's probably a He) booms from his office with a window and a wooden desk. "We might not be able to stop piracy, but we don't have to do anything to enable it! How much do we make off of our PDF's anyway?"

The accountant shrugs. "Not much." After all, they're charging full cover price for the new titles on PDF files. It's a very, very tiny market. Older stuff probably sells more at $4 per pop, but even that probably isn't much of a blip on the radar. And the pressure's on, man! They need to protect IP! They need to stop piracy! IT IS COMMANDED!

"Kill the PDFs!" says the under-suit actually charged with making the hard decisions. "No one will care, and we need to control this better! We will please our user base in some other way."

Viola! 

Of course, this is still borked, and at a very high level, but management making idiot decisions is nothing new (see also: Gleemax). WotC gained something out of it, I suppose. They can say: "We don't like pirates! Rargh!" and have some evidence to back it up. As far as that gets 'em, I guess.
[/sblock]
That's mostly rampant speculation, but it's not hard to see how various other high-level folk might be made happy by what is, in reality, a dumb decision, in a way that we're not really privy to. 

HOWEVER, in the interest of keeping conversation fairly non-insane, I do have to point out that this...



			
				Bumbles said:
			
		

> ProfessorCirno said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




...makes 100% no sense.  Prof C is arguing that WotC didn't benefit from this decision at all. Saying "Well, maybe WotC didn't benefit from this decision at all _for you_" is like saying "Maybe 2+2=5 _for you_, but their answer may be entirely different!" Maybe WotC did get a benefit from it, but whether they did or not doesn't really depend on Prof C's perspective. It's not a subjective thing (though it could be, and probably is, something we don't have complete knowledge on). Either they did and we don't know about it, or they didn't and there's nothing to know, so Prof C is basically right.

But appealing to stuff we can't possibly know is generally not a good argument. "Maybe there's a good reason that we just don't know!" Sure. Totally possible. If you can't think of what that reason might be, though, you're basically taking it on trust and faith, and that's not a _reason_. That's saying: "I don't need a reason, because I believe that they're smarter than me when it comes to their own business." Totally a valid position to take, probably true, but it doesn't give anyone else a reason to agree with you. It's kind of like telling an atheist to just have faith and believe in God because God has a Plan. That's not a reason to believe, though that is a reason not to _need_ a reason to believe. "I have faith that WotC made this decision knowing the benefits and the costs, and that they made the decision because it benefits them" is not a benefit, but it's a reason not to need to see a benefit to believe there is one.

*big breath*

And I think that WotC thought there was one in the removal of PDF's. I'm not convinced they were right (though I'm convinced that at least the suits are convinced that they were right). The whole "You get $4 and have a marginal cost of effectively nil on books you don't publish anymore anyway and so are otherwise just sitting on" is a good case for putting pack at least PDFs of earlier editions.

And WotC has, IIRC, mentioned making older-edition stuff available somehow again. I'm sure it's not a priority, and maybe they haven't figured it out, and won't until 2030 or whatever, but making the older stuff available is something they see a virtue in. So the PDF yoinking wasn't about keeping older stuff off the market, at any rate.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 24, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, to be fair, WotC might have an advantage to it that we haven't seen.




And so I wonder why you think what I said makes 100% no sense.  You seem to have understood what I said well enough.  You may not agree, but you seem to have gotten it.  



> That's saying: "I don't need a reason, because I believe that they're smarter than me when it comes to their own business." Totally a valid position to take, probably true, but it doesn't give anyone else a reason to agree with you.




That's ok, I realize that I'm not going to convince anybody because I know so little.  Believe it or not, I'd like to know more.  But I realize that there are times when ignorance is a weakness, and when you can think something's a bad idea even if it has negative effects, yet to the person involved, it's really not so bad to them.  

Believe it or not, there are folks who don't pick up small change off the street.  

Ah well, listening to Hasbro's earnings report in the hopes of them mentioning something related to the PDF issue, but I'm not hearing much so far.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 24, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> Didn't Paizo have some connection to SVGames? Shared some owners or something?




iirc it was Jim Butler who produced the scans.
originally he had proposed it to TSR/WotC. and back then were all ears.
they had them free as downloads on their site from ~1997 on... H1 was one of the first ones.

then as the project expanded and he promised free pdfs on CD if you donated your modules and books (which were destroyed in the process and not returned) it got moved.

SVGames took up the mantle for a while. but didn't have much business luck.
Paizo and a few others picked it up from there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 24, 2009)

Bumbles said:
			
		

> And so I wonder why you think what I said makes 100% no sense. You seem to have understood what I said well enough. You may not agree, but you seem to have gotten it.




Probably just a weird structure thing then. You seemed to be saying that whether or not WotC had a benefit was subjective. Glad we understand each other then! 



			
				Bumbles said:
			
		

> But I realize that there are times when ignorance is a weakness, and when you can think something's a bad idea even if it has negative effects, yet to the person involved, it's really not so bad to them.




The big question in my mind is whether or not WotC is deluding themselves into thinking that it was a good idea.

The piracy thing has a history of making companies do _insane_ things that are also horrible business decisions. The companies don't believe these to be horrible business decisions, or at all insane. Many companies -- especially bigger ones -- have a long and storied history of doing things that are really dumb just because of some short-term gain. Mostly, this is a normal human trait magnified on a grand scale and given an absurd level of free reign.  

So it's possible with this PDF issue that WotC is patting themselves on the back for doing something exceptionally dumb, but they just don't know it, or can't see it, or refuse to see it because that would mean big changes that the management isn't flexible enough to handle. 

I don't know a lot of good reasons to dismiss someone who wants to give you $4 for a copy of something you've got sitting in your closet. "Piracy!" isn't a good reason, but it's the only reason people can think of for WotC doing this, and the only real reason they've given. If people are missing the real point, they certainly chose the wrong red herring to give the public when explaining themselves!


----------



## winddomino (Jul 24, 2009)

While what you say is true of _some_ people, there are quite a few who move on to new editions because that's what the market does, even if they'd prefer an older edition. And even if that's only a small percentage of the market, it's a small percentage of a _small_ market.

It costs X dollars, minimum, to produce a halfway decent book. That's the case whether you're marketing to the _entire_ market, or only a portion of the market. That split would more than counteract any small additional income--and it _would_ be _small_, in WotC terms--to be found marketing to the followers of previous editions.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 24, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Probably just a weird structure thing then. You seemed to be saying that whether or not WotC had a benefit was subjective. Glad we understand each other then!




Yep, you seem to have understood what I was saying.   



> The big question in my mind is whether or not WotC is deluding themselves into thinking that it was a good idea.




Certainly a valid question, but I don't know how we can answer it.

And as I recall some postings on the piracy issue, it doesn't just make customers act crazy, it makes some of the pirates behave in a crazy fashion.  

Insanity.  It's breaking out all over!


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 24, 2009)

diaglo said:


> then as the project expanded and he promised free pdfs on CD if you donated your modules and books (which were destroyed in the process and not returned) it got moved.



That part was really ridiculous: give away your OOP book in exchange for a $5 PDF... yeah, right...


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> That part was really ridiculous: give away your OOP book in exchange for a $5 PDF... yeah, right...




Oh, I don't know about that. There are people with multiple copies of things that wouldn't mind sparing one...


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 24, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Oh, I don't know about that. There are people with multiple copies of things that wouldn't mind sparing one...



The problem is that by the time that request was put forth, common items had already been scanned and they were asking for rare and collectible books.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 24, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> The problem is that by the time that request was put forth, common items had already been scanned and they were asking for rare and collectible books.




yeah. it was the rares they didn't have.


i think that was around late 2000/ early 2001.

i remember posting something on Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page saying "they can have my books when they pry them from my cold dead fingers"


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 24, 2009)

Reminds me of reading about one of the big comic book companies (I think it was DC), deciding to reprint some of their early comics, and having to destroy their archival copies to get some clean scans.

Worth it to them?   Apparently so as they did it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 24, 2009)

winddomino said:


> It costs X dollars, minimum, to produce a halfway decent book. That's the case whether you're marketing to the _entire_ market, or only a portion of the market. That split would more than counteract any small additional income--and it _would_ be _small_, in WotC terms--to be found marketing to the followers of previous editions.



Also, I believe there is a lower per unit cost for larger print runs.


----------

