|
Rexides posted:Sacrificing your old, toxic customers in order to get more new ones must be a new concept really. It really, really isn't. The difference was the OGL. In 99% of other cases, you don't sacrifice the old customers because they no longer have a product. They'll complain then continue buying your new product. This is how 3e was made - on 2e's dead body. But the OGL essentially destroyed WotC's IP and gave it out to anyone who wanted it, leading to the 3.x clones including Pathfinder. From a strict business perspective, the OGL was maybe the most monumental failure that it could've possibly been. There's a reason no other company - even the branch offs from WotC - have replicated it. The only one that goes along with it is Paizo, and they're legally obligated to. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Feb 14, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Man, yeah you are right, I completely forgot about the OGL. But my point still stands, it feels like they are trying to make classical business decisions in a completely new environment. You can't just tell your boss that the reason the new edition didn't get all the old customers on board is because you signed the rights to the previous edition away for free. Or rather, you can, but the reply will definitely be "well then, fix this".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Is this actually like, anywhere? Dudes love to say it did bad or well or whatever, but has anything that is not just nerd speculation out there? ProfessorCirno posted:There's a reason no other company - even the branch offs from WotC - have replicated it. The only one that goes along with it is Paizo, and they're legally obligated to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
The other real difficulty in estimating the success or failure of Fourth Edition is that 4E was the first edition available and purchased largely online. The industry standard for "public sales figures" is games store surveys, which don't take into account online sales. It's a curious conundrum; Wizards first encountered it when the Third Edition books were being carried in proper book megastores. They built better metrics for this sort of thing when they started selling Magic in big box stores. We can't really say that 4E was a resounding success or "beat" Pathfinder or whatever, but the really basic analysis of DDI numbers combined with the fact that the original run sold out incredibly quickly can tell us it certainly wasn't a failure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
goldjas posted:When 4E was actually releasing stuff it had a pretty huge amount of DDI subscribers and it's books always (by a pretty large margin) outsold Pathfinder and pretty much most other RPGs in most online retailers, so it's probably safe to say that while it was still being made it was at least outselling Pathfinder, by how much or whether or not it was enough by Hasbro's standards is pretty impossible to say. Long story short, given the minimum money we can attribute to 4E based on the information we do have, it seems 4E made mad bank in RPG terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Wotc also now has the dndclassics site to sell those older editions again. So they finally found a way to cash in on the old school gamers. That's gotta be one of their few sources of income right now with no new books on the shelves besides a handful of bad adventures in over a year. Even ddi will have dried up since they discontinued their digital magazines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Wotc also now has the dndclassics site to sell those older editions again. So they finally found a way to cash in on the old school gamers. That's gotta be one of their few sources of income right now with no new books on the shelves besides a handful of bad adventures in over a year. Even ddi will have dried up since they discontinued their digital magazines. ahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahah
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
The ultimate beauty of Next is that whether it's a rousing success or a colossal failure that poisons the brand for yea unto the seventh generation it completely and utterly doesn't matter to WotC from a financial standpoint because Magic: the Gathering makes hundreds of millions of dollars. Really, if you look at it from the perspective of "does this project have the potential to harm the company if it doesn't do well?" Mike Mearls has the safest job in gaming because even if he delivers a mediocre product it's highly unlikely that it'll wind up tarring him for eternity or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The ultimate beauty of Next is that whether it's a rousing success or a colossal failure that poisons the brand for yea unto the seventh generation it completely and utterly doesn't matter to WotC from a financial standpoint because Magic: the Gathering makes hundreds of millions of dollars. Really, if you look at it from the perspective of "does this project have the potential to harm the company if it doesn't do well?" Mike Mearls has the safest job in gaming because even if he delivers a mediocre product it's highly unlikely that it'll wind up tarring him for eternity or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if Next doesn't do super hot (especially if DDI doesn't exist/attract the same level of subscribers) that they simply don't make a 7th DnD. It's probably both cheaper and more profitable to pump out books and I'd assume some eventual free to play phone MMO than it is to design a whole new system and books that sell to a very niche audience. Obviously they could have taken a different approach with Next that would have expanded the boundaries of where DnD tabletop can reach but that didn't happen so I doubt Hasbro will gamble on the 7th doing that right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
It's been said before, but the story that I read out of "D&D Next" is the Fourth Edition was D&D's chance to be a Big New Thing again. It's less that it failed (it clearly didn't) and more that it failed to make more than single percentage points of Magic's revenue. So, they've got a half-dozen guys working on the project now and it's going to be D&D as gently caress because these guys know D&D, and meanwhile they are going to pump millions of dollars into TCGs because those are loving money on wheels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:There's a reason no other company - even the branch offs from WotC - have replicated it. The only one that goes along with it is Paizo, and they're legally obligated to. I'd hardly describe Evil Hat as a failure - and Fate's OGL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I'd hardly describe Evil Hat as a failure - and Fate's OGL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
New Rule of Three. First answer is interesting, since it confirms you lose your buff spells if you take damage. That's a seriously big deal for caster balance. "Additionally, since concentration can be broken by taking damage or being otherwise incapacitated, there’s the risk of not getting the most out of using a high-level spell slot for a concentration spell, which we think helps balance some more powerful spells (and also produces some good tension as opponents try and disrupt the spellcaster in order to shake off a powerful effect). Concentration, as a rule, is really helping keep a handle on some of the most powerful spellcasting effects and is one of the most effective effect-stacking mechanisms we have." E: Also, take a shot. 4e mentioned in a complimentary light. 2. Would it be possible to have a feat that would allow spellcasters to maintain concentration on two or more spells at a time? We considered it, but ultimately decided that such a feat (or class feature) is bad for the game, largely due to the unintended consequences it would produce. Every time we design a spell that requires concentration, we design and develop it knowing that it won’t be stacking with other concentration spells. With that primary safeguard gone, there would be far too many unpredictable combinations of spells that were never intended to function together. 3. Do main villain type monsters have ways to shrug off completely debilitating effects? Yes. We’re still pursuing the legendary monster/lair mechanics that Mike previewed in Legends & Lore a while back. Additionally, we’ve tweaked some of the more debilitating effects to either allow multiple saves to end the spell (either end-of-turn saves, saves when the creature takes damage, and so forth), or we've made the spell function slightly differently so that they are not encounter-enders; for example, polymorph now breaks if the creature is reduced to 0 hit points in its new form, similar to how the druid’s Wild Shape works, making it so that if you polymorphthe fire giant it’s more useful as a control technique than a pure encounter-ender. Additionally, some creatures may simply be immune to certain effects, depending on the monster. We’re definitely treating villain-type monsters in this regard much like we did Solo monsters in 4th Edition, and we're taking a lot of what we learned in the development of those monsters over the years and applying them to the monsters in the next edition. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I think the greater damage of the OGL is that it effectively put the meat and potatoes themes and concepts of Dungeons and Dragons into the public domain. Prior to that 3rd party supplements had "Evil Elves" and "Crazy Dwarves," but suddenly everyone had access to "proper" proprietary D&D names. It's an immeasurably poor decision from a branding perspective - I don't think any of the stupid poo poo that constantly happens in this hobby can compare to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
The OGL was intentionally designed so Dancey could steal D&D if he ever left the company, so any theoretical benefit it had as a business strategy was purely secondary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Even still I assume that someone had to look at what he was doing, utterly fail to recognize its implications, and then sign off on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Evil Hat does and they're no longer legally obliged to do so. neonchameleon posted:I'd hardly describe Evil Hat as a failure - and Fate's OGL. Evil Hat's business model is also different from - and much smaller then - WotC's. Fate, likewise, is also a different style of game. They may both be in the same hobby, but business wise, the rules are different. Asimo posted:The OGL was intentionally designed so Dancey could steal D&D if he ever left the company, so any theoretical benefit it had as a business strategy was purely secondary. While it is funny that Dancey just so happened to end up in the company benefiting from his decision the most, I think it's far more likely that this was just yet another one of his eternal gently caress ups that happen literally every singly place he works at (I'm not joking incidentally, find a single former company or position he's worked at that didn't end with him leaving after a catastrophe), that's been spun into a awesome masterminded idea to free D&D forever. The OGL to at least some degree was put in place to try and use social pressure to kill non-D&D games and lash everyone to the d20. With no small number of 3.x fans, it's succeeded in just that; count how many Pathfinder fans refuse to play non-d20 games and desperately try to play everything in Pathfunder. It was never made to FREE D&D TO THE MASSES - it was if anything the opposite, intended to draw people in to the srd and d20, and then choke the endless line of supplements into the treadmill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Asimo posted:The OGL was intentionally designed so Dancey could steal D&D if he ever left the company, so any theoretical benefit it had as a business strategy was purely secondary. So much slander of open licenses here on an internet forum that runs on a stack of open software.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:So much slander of open licenses here on an internet forum that runs on a stack of open software. So... you're saying the OGL and, say, open forums software are the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
So, just for clarity's sake, what's the difference between the licenses used by D&D/d20 and FATE Core? I mean, besides FATE being a bit less "setting assumed" in its writing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:So much slander of open licenses here on an internet forum that runs on a stack of open software. ProfessorCirno posted:While it is funny that Dancey just so happened to end up in the company benefiting from his decision the most, I think it's far more likely that this was just yet another one of his eternal gently caress ups that happen literally every singly place he works at (I'm not joking incidentally, find a single former company or position he's worked at that didn't end with him leaving after a catastrophe), that's been spun into a awesome masterminded idea to free D&D forever. The OGL to at least some degree was put in place to try and use social pressure to kill non-D&D games and lash everyone to the d20. With no small number of 3.x fans, it's succeeded in just that; count how many Pathfinder fans refuse to play non-d20 games and desperately try to play everything in Pathfunder. It was never made to FREE D&D TO THE MASSES - it was if anything the opposite, intended to draw people in to the srd and d20, and then choke the endless line of supplements into the treadmill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Is the OGL the real problem here, or is it the SRD? As for Evil Hat, Fate Core is both OGL and CC...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:So... you're saying the OGL and, say, open forums software are the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Asimo posted:There's a significant bit of difference between a software/mechanics license and an intellectual property license, and the OGL basically gave away both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
FAR too many people in these discussions equate WotC with D&D only. It's easy to forget when grogging out about whatever, that WotC's main revenue stream is Magic, and it kills D&D times like, a million.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:No. The OGL is a license just as the GPL or BSD is a license. The "software" in this case is d20. Releasing a game system under a copyleft license is analogous to releasing software under a copyleft license. This type of licensing has its advantages and disadvantages to various parties, but I would think that you, as a direct beneficiary of a stack of open software from the PHP and MySQL that back vBulletin to the Webkit or Gecko that does layout in your browser, would appreciate that open licenses allow works and their derivatives to spread and improve at a much faster rate than otherwise. If your goal is to make mind-boggling amounts of money, you don't go open source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
The OGL screwed D&D as a brand forever, and not just old D&D. When the GSL was first revealed, there were people asserting that you could just as easily copy Fourth Edition with only minor changes. You can't copyright mechanics and all of the "flavor" (legally "presentation") of the game is already out there for the taking, so Wizards would have a hell of a time making a case. For a similar issue, note that nearly every TCG uses some sort of "tapping" mechanic: bowing, kneeling, exhausting, whatever. But as long as you don't call it tapping or use the tap symbol, you're pretty much good. Hell, Wizards has the goddamned patent for TCGs, but it's essentially unenforceable with current case law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Ego Trip posted:If your goal is to make mind-boggling amounts of money, you don't go open source. That is absolutely true. But, since I'm assuming that the vast majority around here are players and GMs rather than publishers, we appreciate the fact that, whether or not the owner of an open game IP implodes, we can go on sharing our characters, encounters, adventures and modules not to mention other derivative works such as supplements and source books, even publishing and selling such things, and be completely within the law and the rights granted by the open license - AND the originator still retains ownership and copyright of the original work (it does not become public domain as some people have suggested).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:As those who follow kickstarters know, the keys to things that fall under "Product Identity" such as rust monsters were never "given away".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER. quote:As for the tactical melee fighters & simplistic casters, I will posit the following. Where the hell has this game been, Mearls?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Is the OGL the real problem here, or is it the SRD? Essentially the SRD, but you can't really have one without the other. SRD opened up access to the product identity names like Drow and Derro. Paolomania posted:As those who follow kickstarters know, the keys to things that fall under "Product Identity" such as rust monsters were never "given away". I still maintain that WotC couldn't have done dick about Rusty if he'd come with a "joke" tag with the D20 logo and a disclaimer that he is Not a complete product. You must own the PHB, DMG, and MM1 to enjoy this plush stuffed toy. It seriously didn't take much to bring a product into compliance with the OGL as a derivative work of the SRD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:2. Would it be possible to have a feat that would allow spellcasters to maintain concentration on two or more spells at a time? And if a party brings more than one wizard?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:And if a party brings more than one wizard? That's not a thing. Now you're just making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:And if a party brings more than one wizard? Rodney did respond to that in the article comments... " No. When I talk about combining effects, I mean on a single spellcaster. If two spellcasters combine their efforts together to achieve an overlapping effect, that's OK. Concentration on a spell isn't a license for the spell to be broken if it combines with another spellcaster's spells, it's something that lets us know that a single spellcaster can't get away with stacking them up."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:New Rule of Three. Man that is not a thing. Unless they changed a rule after it left open playtesting or they assumed it worked one way when it didn't but I never saw any mention of losing concentration when you get damaged. Of course they don't say if there is a check to try and maintain the spell or if a single point of damage means any concentration spell you were maintaining goes away. That is a kind of balance, but really more of a really stupid balance. There is already the restriction of only one Concentration spell at a time which is fine and helps reign in the super buffing but this goes too far the other way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I feel cautiously optimistic about Next for the first time in probably a year. Is it possible that we weren't playing a beta at all up until this point and were in fact just playing a dummy game designed so they could bounce questions off of us? I mean that would make sense; the point of the open playtest was to garner general feedback about D&D's history and how we feel about different parts interacting. I never really felt like I was 'playtesting' anything, it was more like a marketing focus group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Man that is not a thing. Unless they changed a rule after it left open playtesting or they assumed it worked one way when it didn't but I never saw any mention of losing concentration when you get damaged. Of course they don't say if there is a check to try and maintain the spell or if a single point of damage means any concentration spell you were maintaining goes away. That is a kind of balance, but really more of a really stupid balance. There is already the restriction of only one Concentration spell at a time which is fine and helps reign in the super buffing but this goes too far the other way. Whether or not it's too punitive remains to be seen, but absent any actual play experience with it, I'd err on the side of over-nerfing casters. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I don't think that's necessarily a problem... It's good for all PCs to be able to contribute. This does not jive. quote:We considered it, but ultimately decided that such a feat (or class feature) is bad for the game, largely due to the unintended consequences it would produce. Every time we design a spell that requires concentration, we design and develop it knowing that it won’t be stacking with other concentration spells. With that primary safeguard gone, there would be far too many unpredictable combinations of spells that were never intended to function together. They are using the design as-is to help themselves design concentration spells with the safeguard that more than one will never be active at a given time, but they're also leaving an avenue open for more than one to be active at a given time. Have-your-cake-and-eat-it doesn't really work as a design feature, and if the game allows a situation like this to develop they absolutely should design for it for their own stated reasons: Too many unpredictable combos that were never intended to function together. And that's really the key part: unpredictable. This is a predictable situation. This is something they could address. They're deliberately choosing to design as if it didn't, and are then ignoring the consequences of what will happen when it does as a feature. That's nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I think publishing with the OGL can work, but it's light years better for a company like Evil Hat than for WotC. Evil Hat doesn't have to worry about shareholders, doesn't need to bring in millions of dollars, and isn't reliant on getting people to buy a steady stream of new stuff. WotC did the d20/OGL thing hoping to push other games out of the market, and hoping to get other publishers to cover the things that they found less profitable, and in the long term was pretty significantly hurt by not anticipating how people would actually use it in real life. Evil Hat meanwhile is using the OGL in a way that's a lot more optimum for what it actually does, and has a business model that's not dependent on getting people to totally abandon older stuff. Though he's talking about the music industry and not games, Trent Reznor's little write up on how to make it as a small band from a few years ago pretty much gives this same advice. You aren't going to make money selling CDs unless you're a big name band. You'll make money at shows. The CD is a loss leader to get people to come to the shows, buy t-shirts, buttons, etc. if you are viewing what you do as a financial model. If the goal is to get people to hear your music, then giving it away is exactly what you want to do. Same with games. If you want to have any chance as a new person designing a game, you're probably putting a small-to-non-existant price tag on it. I'd never have played Fate if the rules weren't up for free. (and speaking of free, if you like good rap, De La Soul are giving away all their albums for free today, so enjoy!) The problem with this as far as RPGs go is that they simply don't have the kind of secondary swag that a band has. I'll never buy a D&D t-shirt or pay to go to a big fancy D&D tournament. The finances involved in producing a print run of "Elves that Spoilers Below is Interested In" is way higher than stamping a ton of buttons or printing t-shirts with the band's logo on them. Ain't no way my little garage band is going to sellout U2 level stadiums, but because this is Hasbro, the big league gaming company, they don't think small. With the OGL, no one had to "graduate" to 4e the way they did from 2e to 3e. 3e products keep coming out at an alarming rate. Fate will probably never have this problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:This does not jive. Is it possible that a target (including yourself) just can't be subject to more than one concentration spell at a time? It's ham-fisted but it's an easy fix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:56
|
|