• Don't link to the video of the Christchurch shooting, or repost links to the shooter's manifesto.

[Rumours] Is Wizards planning on pulling their Open Game License?

Old Geezer

New member
Banned
#41
Since this is a rumour thread, one theory I've heard is that WotC/Hasbro is pulling in the D&D licenses so that they can sell the brand (only the video game license is currently outstanding along with a few minor branding licenses).

Anyone able to debunk?
It is logically impossible to prove a negative.
 

Old Geezer

New member
Banned
#42
In the vast majority of businesses, the current management really prefers not to be bound to its predecessors' decisions. Reorganizations, for instance, are the new team's way of saying "it's us in charge now," marking out the business space like so many dogs peeing on the bushes for others to sniff.
My dear, I would be honored if you would consent to accept this "Flawless Analogy" point.


In some fields it's actually routine for work in progress that was approved by the old team to get canceled or subverted regardless of its merits--this happens in Hollywood, particularly when it comes to the marketing of films produced under prior administrations. Even when they're not that petty, a lot of managers hate the thought of being stuck doing something only because others they've replaced liked it.
Exactly. That's why "The Addams Family" was cancelled back in the 60s, despite being in the top of the Neilsons; its champion had left.

The simple existence of the OGL and the various SRDs imposes some obligations on WotC management--decisions to make about what to add or hold back, resources to commit to applying those decisions, an archive to keep and check, and so on.

Somewhere there may be management that really likes dealing with that sort of thing, but I've never encountered it. A decision to use either a new licensing scheme or none at all would let current management exercise more complete control over their products, and it wouldn't be particularly surprising--or innately evil or anything--if they went that way.
Plume, for the win.
 

Chiaroscuro

Teetotalitarianist
Validated User
#43
Their underlying premise for the d20 system - that it's unprofitable to do adventures and other (as Krusty put it) piddly crap they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole - hasn't changed, has it?
WotC has started to put out adventures, in fact, and some of their employees have made noises online about this being a result of 3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility under the SRD by doing stuff that's not profitable enough for a big company. Presumably that's because following the 3.5 meltdown there were a lot fewer adventure publishers, and eventually they decided they needed to bite the bullet and do some of their own. It'd be kind of ironic if that decision lead to them deciding that Dungeon was too good a value to be allowed to compete, and therefore decided not to re-up with Paizo as some have speculated.

Of course we can't know, since the only people with inside information are either under NDA or are PR people.
 

committed hero

nude lamia mech
Validated User
#44
WotC has started to put out adventures, in fact, and some of their employees have made noises online about this being a result of 3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility under the SRD by doing stuff that's not profitable enough for a big company. Presumably that's because following the 3.5 meltdown there were a lot fewer adventure publishers, and eventually they decided they needed to bite the bullet and do some of their own. It'd be kind of ironic if that decision lead to them deciding that Dungeon was too good a value to be allowed to compete, and therefore decided not to re-up with Paizo as some have speculated.

Of course we can't know, since the only people with inside information are either under NDA or are PR people.
Yep, I agree with your post, although WotC's adventures still tend to be on the large side. Plus it looks like there's no intention to support d20 Modern, which is all I really care about.
 
Last edited:
#45
WotC has started to put out adventures, in fact, and some of their employees have made noises online about this being a result of 3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility under the SRD by doing stuff that's not profitable enough for a big company.

Naw. Between Dungeon Magazine, Goodman Games, Necro, Kenzer, Green Ronin, Paradigm, and some others who all have regular lines of adventures, as well as tons of one-offs and trickles of adventures from other Pubs and ePubs, there has never been a lack of adventures for D&D/d20 games.


Presumably that's because following the 3.5 meltdown there were a lot fewer adventure publishers, (. . .)

Relatively few publishers disappeared specifically when WotC switched to 3.5 and tons of new publishers continued to enter the marketplace. Many who dropped would likely have dropped anyway and perhaps just used the timing of 3.5 as a final straw.


(. . .) and eventually they decided they needed to bite the bullet and do some of their own. It'd be kind of ironic if that decision lead to them deciding that Dungeon was too good a value to be allowed to compete, and therefore decided not to re-up with Paizo as some have speculated.

More likely they had some inkling they were planning to pull the licensing from Paizo some time ago and got the engines started on their own line of adventures because they know *some* customers won't buy products without the official logo. Although Kenzer still has that option, without Dungeon Magazine a lot of customers would look to WotC-only for that support.


Of course we can't know, since the only people with inside information are either under NDA or are PR people.

:) I guess that my theories cannot be officially confirmed. :)
 

Turjan

Registered User
Validated User
#46
WotC has started to put out adventures, in fact, and some of their employees have made noises online about this being a result of 3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility under the SRD by doing stuff that's not profitable enough for a big company. Presumably that's because following the 3.5 meltdown there were a lot fewer adventure publishers, and eventually they decided they needed to bite the bullet and do some of their own.
When I read that the first time, I immediately thought that statement was bullshit. Except you read "3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility under the SRD by doing stuff that's not profitable enough for a big company" as meaning "WotC customers not buying anything with an explicit D&D logo on the cover".
 

Chiaroscuro

Teetotalitarianist
Validated User
#47
When I read that the first time, I immediately thought that statement was bullshit. Except you read "3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility under the SRD by doing stuff that's not profitable enough for a big company" as meaning "WotC customers not buying anything with an explicit D&D logo on the cover".
No, I mean that I read a comment on ENworld where a WotC staffer commented that WotC was getting into making adventures because the third party producers weren't making as many as Wizards had expected. Is that the truth? Hell, I dunno, though I see no reason for him to have been dishonest about it. It certainly is the case that they didn't put out a whole lot of them after the initial adventure path, and that getting others to make the unprofitable adventures was an explicit selling point of the SRD. And that they're now putting out several big adventures spanning several levels.

I note also that the mega-adventures have nice synergy with their CMG, because they can put some of the common badguys in the minis sets that come out around the same time, and hope that people buy a bunch of boosters hoping to get a few Strahd zombies to use in Castle Ravenloft or Hobgolin Talons of Tiamat for use in Red Hand of Doom.
 
#48
No, I mean that I read a comment on ENworld where a WotC staffer commented that WotC was getting into making adventures because the third party producers weren't making as many as Wizards had expected. Is that the truth? Hell, I dunno, though I see no reason for him to have been dishonest about it.

An alternative being that whoever made the statement was simply wrong, though I am not sure such a statement was made in quite that way. A link would be nice. I get the feeling that this is either out of context or has been misunderstood.


It certainly is the case that they didn't put out a whole lot of them after the initial adventure path, and that getting others to make the unprofitable adventures was an explicit selling point of the SRD. And that they're now putting out several big adventures spanning several levels.

They are also running out of things to put in their release schedule. In the early days of 3.x, there was nearly no limit to the number of books they could do in support of the core rules. When that began to become exhausted, 3.5 came along and even many of the books that had been done were reworked into new upgraded books. They now have to gage whether it is more profitable to put out a mini-setting/adventure or a source book with a narrow focus.


I note also that the mega-adventures have nice synergy with their CMG, because they can put some of the common badguys in the minis sets that come out around the same time, and hope that people buy a bunch of boosters hoping to get a few Strahd zombies to use in Castle Ravenloft or Hobgolin Talons of Tiamat for use in Red Hand of Doom.

The tie ins to their mini line is certainly an insentive to put out adventures.
 

Turjan

Registered User
Validated User
#49
No, I mean that I read a comment on ENworld where a WotC staffer commented that WotC was getting into making adventures because the third party producers weren't making as many as Wizards had expected. Is that the truth? Hell, I dunno, though I see no reason for him to have been dishonest about it.
The way it was said, it left the impression that 3rd party companies didn't produce enough adventures. Which is wrong. Both, Necromancer Games and Goodman Games, had a strong adventure output during the time the statement was made.

On the other hand, "3rd parties not living up to their expected responsibility" doesn't really mean they didn't produce enough. It just means that a certain expectation of WotC was not met. I guess they expected people to buy 3rd party stuff. Instead, their customers were calling for "original D&D" adventures. This means that, IMHO, this is actually more a statement about WotC's own customers than about 3rd party vendors.

There is no dishonesty involved. It's just a clever way of expressing the state of affairs without blaming your customers, plus to give an explanation for a sudden 180 degree change in publishing policy without having to say that you don't know what else to put into the publication slots.
 

Asmodai

Warrior Kobold
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#50
It is logically impossible to prove a negative.
I suppose you're a fervent believer in UFO's then. After no one has proved they don't exist.

I didn't ask for mathematical proof, I was curious if anyone had information relating to the credibility of the rumour. :)
 
Top Bottom