DnD-Gate.de
D&D / d20 => GSL, OGL und D20 und Ältere Editionen => Thema gestartet von: Zechi am 20. Juni 2009, 11:36:21
-
Was ganz interessantes von Necromancer Games:
Hey everyone.
I know its been a long time between updates for a lot of reasons and that can be frustrating. Sorry for that.
I'm still hopeful to do Pathfinder print products and perhaps a key 4E print product or two (a Tome 4E perhaps), but abiliity to product the 4E print stuff is proving to be difficult. Retailers are less than excited about 4E supplemental material. Distributors even less so. Print partners still less excited.
All you know my desire to support 4E and my many plans, some of which are even under way. Right now, the 4E PRINT plans dont look like they are going to happen.
I dont want this to turn into a "yeah Pathfinder, boo 4E" thread. Any such posts will be deleted. This is an update thread, not an edition wars thread.
Other than a key 4E product, such as a Tome 4E, I dont see Necro doing much in the way of print 4E products. That leaves us with the possibility of pdf products. That is not necessarily bad, but it would reflect a shift in our traditional product strategies and will require different analysis on how to go forward.
In large part this situation is due to the delay of an acceptable GSL. Not having one at launch created a huge slowdown of momentum as well as a retailer and distributor gap where distributors didnt have 3Ps plugged in to the product array for 4E. Now, having no 3P track record for 4E they are wary (and probably happy to have some of it go away). Had there been a GSL at launch I think we would have hit a few big products and gotten distributors on board for 3P products for 4E. But that didnt happen. Now I think we have a chasm we just cant cross with anything but a tiny selection of key 4E products, such as a Tome 4E. But that said, even the idea of a Tome 4E has been floated by those who matter and even for a product like that there is less than total enthusiasm.
All that said, we are exploring pdf and print on demand options.
It would be fair to say that I am frustrated by the path 4E and 3P support for 4E has taken and that we, essentially, had the ability taken from us to support 4E by the mishandling of the GSL. I say that while at the same time applauding Scott Rouse's tireless fight to get the GSL revised--which he did and did well. I just wish there were more people at Wizards who "got it" like Scott did and were on board. Its really too bad. 3E was truly a golden age of D&D, a revival of all that was great from the early years of the game. Its too bad that same feeling and fervor couldnt happen for 4E. Maybe I was naive to ever think it could, but I did think that.
All this means is likely no big 4E print products (maybe one or two at most) and perhaps only a few Pathfinder print products. We are still in contact with Paizo and have a good relationship there. We still have great connections for online and print on demand products and are working with OBS to achieve those things. Its just that our hoped for print lineup will likely not happen.
I know this means more waiting for all of you and I am sorry for that.
I hesitated to post this because some will say "Necro is folding." Thats not the case at all. We are just being forced by external factors to shift our product plans. I felt all of you were owed an update and an explanation about that.
Clark
Quelle (http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/10808)
-
Ausgelöst durch Orcus´ Posts, hier eine Stellungsnahme von Joe Goodman, Gründer und Besitzer von Goodman Games:
Hi everyone,
I really like gaming, game stores, and playing games, and it is for these reasons that I traditionally do not discuss the business side of the industry in public forums. In the 3E era I kept my head down and just focused on publishing good product. This worked out pretty well, and now many gamers perceive Goodman Games as one of the more successful RPG publishers. All this happened without "Joseph Goodman" being well known. You know who runs Malhavoc and Green Ronin and Necromancer and Paizo, but I routinely encounter fans who have no idea why Goodman Games has "Goodman" in the name. That's how I like it.
Now, eight years into the business, I feel compelled to write my first personal note on the business side of things. Welcome to "Joe Goodman's first commentary on the business." I write this primarily to portray what I consider to be the facts of certain elements of the business, particularly the success of fourth edition D&D.
First, a little background. I own Goodman Games but don't run it full time. Goodman Games has an outstanding staff who do most of the product development, run the tournaments, handle the shipping, etc. I personally have a full-time "business job" at a Fortune 50 company, where I manage a large staff running a billion-dollar division. Goodman Games is an extremely enjoyable outlet for my love of the hobby, but it's not how I pay my bills. I do it for fun because it is something I absolutely love to do. I wrote my first RPG at the age of 10, self-published my first work at 17, had my first professional contract at 18, had my first staff writer job at 21, and have been involved professionally in the gaming industry ever since.
I believe brick-and-mortar hobby stores are the lifeblood of the industry. This is for a couple of reasons. First, it is these stores that introduced me to the hobby, along with many other gamers. Sword of the Phoenix in Atlanta, GA was the store I shopped at for years. It was there that I discovered not just D&D, but also Ral Partha and Grenadier miniatures, Warhammer 40,000, Space Hulk, and many of the other games that I played obsessively as a child. Hobby stores are the single best way to introduce new gamers to the hobby. No online experience can match this.
Second, hobby game stores serve as community centers. It's not even "the best" game stores that do this; even the ones without gaming space have bulletin boards, well-connected staff, and affiliations with local cons. When you move to a new city or discover a new game, the hobby store is the best place to find new friends to play it with.
Third, speaking as a businessman, hobby stores are by far the largest market for games. The online market (including print, PDF, and POD) simply can't compete. As Goodman Games has matured into one of the standard stocklist items for typical game stores, I have seen my overall sales base grow steadily while online sales have dwindled. Online sales now make up a tiny fraction of Goodman Games sales. Yes, PDF sales are the fastest-growing sales segment, that is true, but the hobby market is HUGE compared to the online market - orders of magnitude larger. If you support retailers, they will support you, and that effort pays off tenfold. (There's a reason Wizards could pull their entire PDF backlist without blinking an eye. Those of us with good retail distribution are among the few observers to understand this.)
It is because of this belief in game stores, and my own personal retail experience, that I focus many of my product development and marketing efforts on strategies that benefit not just Goodman Games, but also retailers. These strategies have included Free RPG Day, a first of its kind in this industry; my annual May sale, which no other RPG publisher does; and the DCC spinner racks which I supplied to hundreds of retailers a couple years ago. These are the promotions consumers can see; there are many others, behind the scenes, that retailers have seen.
I mention these retailer promotions because they are feedback channels that don't exist for other publishers. There isn't another third-party RPG publisher that has shipped spinner racks to several hundred stores and gotten feedback on how it affected sales. There isn't another third-party RPG publisher who runs an annual sale through distributors. And so on. As a result of these efforts, I get feedback through a number of different channels. Sales numbers are a form of feedback. Personal conversations with retailers are a form of feedback. But direct retailer feedback is a significant feedback channel for me, and one that I believe is much more significant for me than for most other third-party publishers. Those of you who follow these forums have seen my Game Store Review Thread, and have a sense of just how frequently I visit stores.
It is based on these feedback channels that I evaluate the industry. These are my "senses," if you will. Goodman Games is not an imprint that publishes through other companies, multiple steps removed from distributors and even further removed from retailers. Goodman Games is not a company founded on online and subscription-based revenue streams. Goodman Games is a different sort of company from the rest. Goodman Games -- and Joseph Goodman -- are about as close as you can get to the pulse of retailers, within the third-party RPG publisher segment.
And now to the question at hand: How is 4E doing?
4E is doing well, very well. I'll define the parameters of "well" below. First, let's dispel a couple myths.
Myth #1: "We can publish the same book in 4E that we did for 3E, and use that as a yardstick for sales." Simply not true. Log on to dndinsider.com and you'll understand why. You have to understand Wizards' digital initiative (and its many ramifications) if you intend to publish 4E books at all. Sales of many categories have changed based on what the digital initiative provides customers free of charge. Sales of character record books in 3E and 4E are apples and oranges, not suitable for comparison, and there are other categories affected as well.
Myth #2: "Distributors do not support 4E." Simply not true. The pre-orders on Dungeon Crawl Classics #53, #54, and #55 were larger than anything I had seen in years. More recently, Level Up #1 sold out its first wave of distribution sales in under 48 hours, then sold out the second wave of distributor restocks a week later, and distributors continue to place huge restocks. There is significant distributor support for 4E.
Myth #3: "Retailers do not support 4E." Simply not true. This sort of claim is where the debate breaks down, because one gamer can say, "4E isn't selling at my local store," and it's hard to refute that. Store-by-store experiences do indeed vary widely, and the truth is that there are many individual stores where 4E isn't selling well. It is these stores, and gamers who trumpet these stores, that have led to many claims regarding 4E not selling. What can I say to refute that? I will rely on my credibility regarding direct retailer feedback.
I've personally visited 47 different game stores so far this year. Yes, 47 -- see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5197 for some details. Next time someone tells you "4E isn't selling at my local store," remind him that he's discussing 1 store. Aside from those personal visits, I've spoken on the phone with probably 100+ other game stores, gotten direct feedback via a Dungeon Crawl Classics sale (see list of stores in the download at http://www.goodman-games.com/dcc-sale-09.html ), sponsored another year of Free RPG Day (see list of stores at http://www.freerpgday.com/stores.htm ), and run two Worldwide D&D Game Day promotions involving every store participating in Worldwide D&D Game Day (see http://www.goodman-games.com/WWDDD5-23.html and http://www.goodman-games.com/WWDDD3-21.html ). There are hundreds of stores that participate in each of these events individually, probably thousands overall if you compile the various lists. Naysayers who post claims of "4E doesn't sell well at my local store" seem to omit these massive lists of supporting retailers.
Back to myth #3: "retailers do not support 4E." Simply not true. Why not? Because Joe Goodman says so, and I know more about game stores than you do. Show me someone with the same list of credentials regarding direct retailer feedback, and I'll back down. Until then, the statement stands.
With these myths dispelled, let's discuss the meaning of "doing well." First, some historical context. Before I founded Goodman Games, I wrote a book on the history of this industry. It was something of a research project that turned into a book. I was planning to start a game company, and I wanted to do it right, so I researched the history of the three primary publishing categories. Most of the gaming history that gets published these days is product-focused, with an emphasis on creators, artists, inspirations, and the like. My research was focused on the business strategies of the companies involved. For example, in the early 1980's when Games Workshop got the license to produce official D&D miniatures from TSR, they did absolutely nothing with it and effectively used it to shut down their competitors so they could launch their own fantasy miniatures line. Has anybody else here studied the retail locator lists in White Dwarf magazine over the 1980's? Cross-reference the independent hobby shops listed in the early 1980's against the addresses of the GW company shops listed in the late 1980's. It's fascinating; you can see the pattern of how GW opened shops in close proximity to their hobby accounts. If you ever want to learn actual TSR sales figures, do your homework and find all the lawsuits against them. It's all public record, and I've read it all. Dave Arneson sued TSR three times for unpaid royalties, and each of the court filings lists TSR sales figures for the years where he challenged.
All of this research (which I ultimately decided not to publish) forms the historical context for my opinion of D&D 4E. Dungeons & Dragons has had two, and exactly two, peak years. The first was 1982. The second was 2001. The mid-80's were a declining period, and the 90's were a trough. From a business perspective, the creatively-much-admired 1970's were really a low point for D&D. Fast growth, but very low sales volume compared to the years to come.
From 1974 to 2009 is 35 years. Or, roughly two generations. D&D has roughly one peak every generation. 35 years total, 2 of which were great, and the other 33 of which were "okay."
But what do people compare 4E to?
One of the two best sales years in the past 35 years of D&D. Not the other 33 years.
Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation.
Is 4E doing as well as D&D sales in the times of 1974-1981? 1983 through 2000? And approximately 2002 through 2008?
Yes.
So, is 4E doing well?
Yes. In the 35 year history of D&D, we stand at a high point. D&D is selling more copies, reaching more customers, supporting more game stores, than it has during most of its history.
Will 4E do as well as 3E?
Maybe. But frankly, who cares? That's like asking if 4E will do as well as AD&D did in 1982. Or as well as 2nd edition did. Or as well as the little white box. Anybody who's ever had a job where they're accountable for sales numbers -- and I've had a lot of these -- knows that there are some marketing events that simply hit the ball out of the park. 3E was one of those, and it will be hard to top for a generation to come. It was a once-in-a-generation feat, just as D&D sales in 1982 were a once-in-a-generation feat. For twenty years following 1982, D&D sales never recovered their peak. Twenty years. From the vantage point of 1983, was D&D dying? In 1983, you could have said that. The twenty-year decline was starting. But D&D went on to have another peak in 2001.
From where we stand now, at the very beginning of 4E, I see a long, strong run ahead of us. Just as in 1982, it may be another twenty years before the generational peak of 3E is reached again. Or it could be next year, when the economy improves. Just as in 1983, who can say?
In the meantime, there are thousands of game stores clamoring for 4E product. And I'll be here publishing it for a long time.
That's all from Joseph Goodman, signing off from business-oriented posts for another eight years.
_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
www.goodman-games.com
Quelle: http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6207&p=25324#p25324
-
Etwas späzter dann von Ryan Dancey:
it is hard to define peaks and valleys for D&D because it went through at least 3 different business models.
Model 1 was "a core game".
Model 2 was "a core game with campaign settings and a matrix of supplements"
Model 3 was "a core game with limited supplements and a small amount of campaign material."
The peak year for Model 1 was 1981, but '82 and '83 were both over 75% of that year's core book sales.
1987 marks the advent of Model 2, and 1988/89 marks the debut of 2E. In terms of gross revenue, TSR earned a lot more from '87 on than it had earned up to that point. Highlights of the Model 2 years included numerous NYT best selling novels and a line of best selling computer games. This period is also the Golden Age of tabletop RPGs, where more diversity flourished in the market in terms of successful gaming companies (that is, companies able to support themselves by sales of TRPG products, with staff dedicated to writing, editing, graphic design, art, and business functions). During this period the industry focused on world-building. Game design advances, such as they were, often turned out to be designer fancies, rather than things that actually advanced the state of the art in terms of tabletop utility.
Model 2 hit a peak right around 1992, both for TSR and the wider industry, and by mid-summer of 1993 it had lost about half its volume in terms of gross revenues. This steep decline was later blamed on the emergence of CCGs, but when we carefully examined the data we found that the rot started at the end of 1992, and the corresponding growth enjoyed by Games Workshop during this exact timeframe seems to put lie to the idea that CCG's somehow "sucked the oxyegen" out of the hobby gaming industry. Rather, we attributed the drop to simple fatigue - too much product was produced too fast by too many publishers, serving too few customers, and they simply burned out. Also, TSR's acquisition engine had ground to a near halt during this period as well, which choked off the supply of new incoming gamers that the industry had taken for granted for so many years. Those new gamers were almost certainly better served (in the short run) by CCGs, so the gap that the TRPG industry created for itself was ruthlessly (but accidentally) exploited to the hilt in 1993, 1994 and 1995 by the CCG publishers - until they too fell off a cliff at the end of 1996.
The key to the Model 2 years was that all though none of the individual campaign settings in TSR's matrix did extremely well, in combination, they did very large volumes.
This is the same time that the White Wolf games rose to become the strong #2 behind TSR, and TSR's market share, as a percentage, declined even though their volume and revenues were higher than before.
1993 to 1999 are really an interregnum caused by the financial failure of TSR which can only partly be blamed on the drop in TRPG sales. Perhaps if TSR had kept its eye on the ball better, had better management, and been able to resist the CCG temptation they could have weathered the storm, but they did not do those things and instead they basically died. After Wizards bought TSR in 1997 it took a couple of years to sort out the merger, research the root cause of the problem and start working to rehabilitate the business.
Model 3 is of course 3E, and to a lesser extent 3.5E (although 4E seems to be going backwards to more of a 3E model). The Model 3 era never generated as much revenue as the Model 2 era. In fact, it eerily mimicked the Model 1 era, but unfortunately not adjusted for inflation. On the other hand, it appeared to at least be sustainably profitable which is more than one can say for Model 2. I have no arguement with Matt's pick of 2001 as the high water mark, certainly both for Wizards and for the industry as a whole. What I don't know is how fast the end came, or how deep the trough was from Wizards perspective. The early launch of 3.5 probably helped in terms of susaining the 3E momentum, but I think they robbed Peter to pay Paul, ending up with a much shorter cycle for the 3E game than they would have if they had waited another 2 years for 3.5. Again, we'll never know so that's just speculation on my part.
As to 4E and how it relates, I almost don't think it matters. The forces that are tearing apart the tabletop RPG player networks are utterly outside of Wizards' control, and it's become a true apples v. oranges comparison which means its really not fair to speculate much, so I just won't.
RyanD
-
Nach den beiden Quotes, jetzt meine Meinung dazu:
Schade dass die Necros mehr oder weniger aufhören. Ich habe derren Abenteuer immer sehr gemocht, fand derren Regelmaterial (Tome of Horrors, etc.) immer sehr fade und oft substandard.
Desweiteren kann ich Clark Petersons Meinung wirklich nicht ganz verstehen: Ein Firma, die schon ein Jahr vor erscheinen der 4E kein Produkt mehr auf den Markt geworfen hat bzw auch eine Weile davor nicht mehr wirklich am Markt präsent war, wundert sich dass mögliche Publisher und Distributoren einen Neueinstieg in den 4E-Markt ablehnend gegenüberstehen? Nicht wirklich, oder?
Das man mit der GSL sowohl Leben als auch Arbeiten kann, beweisen andere Verlage schon seit Start der 4E. Ungeachtet was man persönlich von der Qualität der einzelnen Produkte hält, so sind Produkte von Goodman, Mongoose und einer handvoll anderer Verlage am Markt und verfügbar, ohne dass derren Rückgrat von der ach so mieserablen GSL zerbrochen wurde.
-
Der Chef von Goodman Games gibt interessante Hinweise zum Verkaufserfolg der 4E und weitere allgemeine Einblicke.
Fr, 14.6.09
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6207
Hi everyone,
I really like gaming, game stores, and playing games, and it is for these reasons that I traditionally do not discuss the business side of the industry in public forums. In the 3E era I kept my head down and just focused on publishing good product. This worked out pretty well, and now many gamers perceive Goodman Games as one of the more successful RPG publishers. All this happened without "Joseph Goodman" being well known. You know who runs Malhavoc and Green Ronin and Necromancer and Paizo, but I routinely encounter fans who have no idea why Goodman Games has "Goodman" in the name. That's how I like it.
Now, eight years into the business, I feel compelled to write my first personal note on the business side of things. Welcome to "Joe Goodman's first commentary on the business." I write this primarily to portray what I consider to be the facts of certain elements of the business, particularly the success of fourth edition D&D.
First, a little background. I own Goodman Games but don't run it full time. Goodman Games has an outstanding staff who do most of the product development, run the tournaments, handle the shipping, etc. I personally have a full-time "business job" at a Fortune 50 company, where I manage a large staff running a billion-dollar division. Goodman Games is an extremely enjoyable outlet for my love of the hobby, but it's not how I pay my bills. I do it for fun because it is something I absolutely love to do. I wrote my first RPG at the age of 10, self-published my first work at 17, had my first professional contract at 18, had my first staff writer job at 21, and have been involved professionally in the gaming industry ever since.
I believe brick-and-mortar hobby stores are the lifeblood of the industry. This is for a couple of reasons. First, it is these stores that introduced me to the hobby, along with many other gamers. Sword of the Phoenix in Atlanta, GA was the store I shopped at for years. It was there that I discovered not just D&D, but also Ral Partha and Grenadier miniatures, Warhammer 40,000, Space Hulk, and many of the other games that I played obsessively as a child. Hobby stores are the single best way to introduce new gamers to the hobby. No online experience can match this.
Second, hobby game stores serve as community centers. It's not even "the best" game stores that do this; even the ones without gaming space have bulletin boards, well-connected staff, and affiliations with local cons. When you move to a new city or discover a new game, the hobby store is the best place to find new friends to play it with.
Third, speaking as a businessman, hobby stores are by far the largest market for games. The online market (including print, PDF, and POD) simply can't compete. As Goodman Games has matured into one of the standard stocklist items for typical game stores, I have seen my overall sales base grow steadily while online sales have dwindled. Online sales now make up a tiny fraction of Goodman Games sales. Yes, PDF sales are the fastest-growing sales segment, that is true, but the hobby market is HUGE compared to the online market - orders of magnitude larger. If you support retailers, they will support you, and that effort pays off tenfold. (There's a reason Wizards could pull their entire PDF backlist without blinking an eye. Those of us with good retail distribution are among the few observers to understand this.)
It is because of this belief in game stores, and my own personal retail experience, that I focus many of my product development and marketing efforts on strategies that benefit not just Goodman Games, but also retailers. These strategies have included Free RPG Day, a first of its kind in this industry; my annual May sale, which no other RPG publisher does; and the DCC spinner racks which I supplied to hundreds of retailers a couple years ago. These are the promotions consumers can see; there are many others, behind the scenes, that retailers have seen.
I mention these retailer promotions because they are feedback channels that don't exist for other publishers. There isn't another third-party RPG publisher that has shipped spinner racks to several hundred stores and gotten feedback on how it affected sales. There isn't another third-party RPG publisher who runs an annual sale through distributors. And so on. As a result of these efforts, I get feedback through a number of different channels. Sales numbers are a form of feedback. Personal conversations with retailers are a form of feedback. But direct retailer feedback is a significant feedback channel for me, and one that I believe is much more significant for me than for most other third-party publishers. Those of you who follow these forums have seen my Game Store Review Thread, and have a sense of just how frequently I visit stores.
It is based on these feedback channels that I evaluate the industry. These are my "senses," if you will. Goodman Games is not an imprint that publishes through other companies, multiple steps removed from distributors and even further removed from retailers. Goodman Games is not a company founded on online and subscription-based revenue streams. Goodman Games is a different sort of company from the rest. Goodman Games -- and Joseph Goodman -- are about as close as you can get to the pulse of retailers, within the third-party RPG publisher segment.
And now to the question at hand: How is 4E doing?
4E is doing well, very well. I'll define the parameters of "well" below. First, let's dispel a couple myths.
Myth #1: "We can publish the same book in 4E that we did for 3E, and use that as a yardstick for sales." Simply not true. Log on to dndinsider.com and you'll understand why. You have to understand Wizards' digital initiative (and its many ramifications) if you intend to publish 4E books at all. Sales of many categories have changed based on what the digital initiative provides customers free of charge. Sales of character record books in 3E and 4E are apples and oranges, not suitable for comparison, and there are other categories affected as well.
Myth #2: "Distributors do not support 4E." Simply not true. The pre-orders on Dungeon Crawl Classics #53, #54, and #55 were larger than anything I had seen in years. More recently, Level Up #1 sold out its first wave of distribution sales in under 48 hours, then sold out the second wave of distributor restocks a week later, and distributors continue to place huge restocks. There is significant distributor support for 4E.
Myth #3: "Retailers do not support 4E." Simply not true. This sort of claim is where the debate breaks down, because one gamer can say, "4E isn't selling at my local store," and it's hard to refute that. Store-by-store experiences do indeed vary widely, and the truth is that there are many individual stores where 4E isn't selling well. It is these stores, and gamers who trumpet these stores, that have led to many claims regarding 4E not selling. What can I say to refute that? I will rely on my credibility regarding direct retailer feedback.
I've personally visited 47 different game stores so far this year. Yes, 47 -- see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5197 for some details. Next time someone tells you "4E isn't selling at my local store," remind him that he's discussing 1 store. Aside from those personal visits, I've spoken on the phone with probably 100+ other game stores, gotten direct feedback via a Dungeon Crawl Classics sale (see list of stores in the download at http://www.goodman-games.com/dcc-sale-09.html ), sponsored another year of Free RPG Day (see list of stores at http://www.freerpgday.com/stores.htm ), and run two Worldwide D&D Game Day promotions involving every store participating in Worldwide D&D Game Day (see http://www.goodman-games.com/WWDDD5-23.html and http://www.goodman-games.com/WWDDD3-21.html ). There are hundreds of stores that participate in each of these events individually, probably thousands overall if you compile the various lists. Naysayers who post claims of "4E doesn't sell well at my local store" seem to omit these massive lists of supporting retailers.
Back to myth #3: "retailers do not support 4E." Simply not true. Why not? Because Joe Goodman says so, and I know more about game stores than you do. Show me someone with the same list of credentials regarding direct retailer feedback, and I'll back down. Until then, the statement stands.
With these myths dispelled, let's discuss the meaning of "doing well." First, some historical context. Before I founded Goodman Games, I wrote a book on the history of this industry. It was something of a research project that turned into a book. I was planning to start a game company, and I wanted to do it right, so I researched the history of the three primary publishing categories. Most of the gaming history that gets published these days is product-focused, with an emphasis on creators, artists, inspirations, and the like. My research was focused on the business strategies of the companies involved. For example, in the early 1980's when Games Workshop got the license to produce official D&D miniatures from TSR, they did absolutely nothing with it and effectively used it to shut down their competitors so they could launch their own fantasy miniatures line. Has anybody else here studied the retail locator lists in White Dwarf magazine over the 1980's? Cross-reference the independent hobby shops listed in the early 1980's against the addresses of the GW company shops listed in the late 1980's. It's fascinating; you can see the pattern of how GW opened shops in close proximity to their hobby accounts. If you ever want to learn actual TSR sales figures, do your homework and find all the lawsuits against them. It's all public record, and I've read it all. Dave Arneson sued TSR three times for unpaid royalties, and each of the court filings lists TSR sales figures for the years where he challenged.
All of this research (which I ultimately decided not to publish) forms the historical context for my opinion of D&D 4E. Dungeons & Dragons has had two, and exactly two, peak years. The first was 1982. The second was 2001. The mid-80's were a declining period, and the 90's were a trough. From a business perspective, the creatively-much-admired 1970's were really a low point for D&D. Fast growth, but very low sales volume compared to the years to come.
From 1974 to 2009 is 35 years. Or, roughly two generations. D&D has roughly one peak every generation. 35 years total, 2 of which were great, and the other 33 of which were "okay."
But what do people compare 4E to?
One of the two best sales years in the past 35 years of D&D. Not the other 33 years.
Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation.
Is 4E doing as well as D&D sales in the times of 1974-1981? 1983 through 2000? And approximately 2002 through 2008?
Yes.
So, is 4E doing well?
Yes. In the 35 year history of D&D, we stand at a high point. D&D is selling more copies, reaching more customers, supporting more game stores, than it has during most of its history.
Will 4E do as well as 3E?
Maybe. But frankly, who cares? That's like asking if 4E will do as well as AD&D did in 1982. Or as well as 2nd edition did. Or as well as the little white box. Anybody who's ever had a job where they're accountable for sales numbers -- and I've had a lot of these -- knows that there are some marketing events that simply hit the ball out of the park. 3E was one of those, and it will be hard to top for a generation to come. It was a once-in-a-generation feat, just as D&D sales in 1982 were a once-in-a-generation feat. For twenty years following 1982, D&D sales never recovered their peak. Twenty years. From the vantage point of 1983, was D&D dying? In 1983, you could have said that. The twenty-year decline was starting. But D&D went on to have another peak in 2001.
From where we stand now, at the very beginning of 4E, I see a long, strong run ahead of us. Just as in 1982, it may be another twenty years before the generational peak of 3E is reached again. Or it could be next year, when the economy improves. Just as in 1983, who can say?
In the meantime, there are thousands of game stores clamoring for 4E product. And I'll be here publishing it for a long time.
That's all from Joseph Goodman, signing off from business-oriented posts for another eight years.
_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
Offenbar ist das Resultat folgendes: die 4E verkauft sich ganz gut, allerdings schlechter als die 3E, wobei einige mögliche Grunde aufgeführt werden.
-
Das hatten wir ier schon: http://forum.dnd-gate.de/index.php/topic,23230.0.html (http://forum.dnd-gate.de/index.php/topic,23230.0.html) :D
-
Ok, das hatte ich offenbar in diesem Zusammenhang übersehen.
-
Thema wegen Dopplung zusammengeführt.
-
Thema wegen Dopplung zusammengeführt.
War klar.... :-X
-
Hier (http://www.koboldquarterly.com/k/article1277.php) äußerst sich Joseph Goodman zu seinem obigen Statement in einem Interview mit Kobold Quarterly. Lesenswert!
An EL 20 Conversation with Joseph Goodman
by Jeremy L.C. Jones
Like many gamers, I first “met” Joseph Goodman, the owner of Goodman Games, through a Dungeon Crawl Classics module. For me, it was DCC #17: Legacy of the Savage Kings by Harley Stroh, which like all DDCs, begins with:
Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don’t waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren’t meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere.
Though I didn’t know it until recently, there is a whole lot of Joseph Goodman in this paragraph.
A couple of weeks ago, Goodman did something he doesn’t usually do—he directly addressed the business side of Goodman Games in a Goodman Games forum post.
“I really like gaming, game stores, and playing games,” said Goodman on June 19th, “and it is for these reasons that I traditionally do not discuss the business side of the industry in public forums.”
It was his love of games that prompted him to talk openly about the business, but it was his talk about the business that garnered a strong—often volatile—response from thousands of gamers across the internet. Responses to the content and style of Goodman’s post ranged from “thanks, Joe!” to “who does this guy think he is?”
Joseph Goodman is a businessman. By day he works in management for a Fortune 50 company.
He is also a long-time gamer.
“I wrote my first RPG at the age of 10, self-published my first work at 17, had my first professional contract at 18, had my first staff writer job at 21, and have been involved professionally in the gaming industry ever since,” said Goodman.
Seven years ago Goodman started Goodman Games, and he did using the same skills and strategies that he uses every day in his other job.
It was a joy chatting with the guy whose product line brought me back to D&D after many years away. And, just as it is a delight to discover that the most exciting encounters are more about thinking that hacking and slashing, it was a pleasure to hear that it is the love of a good challenge—in gaming and in business—that drives Joseph Goodman and Goodman Games.
Jones: First, I have to ask whether, as an experienced player of RPGs, you like the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons?
Goodman: Yes, it’s a fun game, but I personally prefer earlier editions of D&D. I’m not really the target market for 4E. I also recognize that my personal preferences are not the way to run a business. Goodman Games will always publish old-school products because that’s the most fun for me, but it’s 4E that pays the bills. Take the market for 1E and add a couple zeroes to get to the people who still play 3E, then add several more zeroes and you’re up to the 4E market.
When I changed the look of the Dungeon Crawl Classics brand, I was surprised at the intensity of the reaction. A number of the grognards seemed to take it as a personal betrayal. I am still honored and astounded at how attached they became to the original DCC look. There were many good reasons for changing the DCC look, most importantly that retailers needed a clear differentiation from the 3E DCC modules on their shelves and the 4E DCC modules on their shelves.
By now we’ve announced the Dungeon Alphabet, which includes art from Erol Otus, Jim Roslof, Jim Holloway, and Jeff Easley, with an introduction by Zeb Cook, and the licensing of 1E Dungeon Crawl Classics modules. There are more fun products like that on the way.
Jones: Can you outline the main points of your post in the Goodman Games forum for folks who haven’t read it yet or who might need as reminder?
Goodman: My post generated several thousand responses throughout the various message boards and blogs, so I hope this interview serves to address some of the concerns raised in them.
The main thrust of my post concerned sales of D&D 4E product. Speaking as a 4E licensee, I’m satisfied with the sales of my 4E products, and I wanted to share that fact. That’s the main point.
Jones: What buttons did your post push? Why such a spirited response from so many?
Goodman: Remember when the camera industry switched from film to digital a couple years ago? That seemed to push similar buttons to the 4E switch. Fans dislike it when you change their favorite hobby. This is a perfectly understandable reaction. I don’t fault anyone for disliking the change; that’s totally normal. But it’s important to distinguish one’s personal dislike from the macro issue of whether the new edition is selling well.
Jones: You are outlining your argument as a business man, do you suppose some of the heated responses are coming, in part, from a sort of language gap?
Goodman: That’s an interesting question, and I think it could be true. That’s part of the reason why I have avoided this kind of conversation for eight years. Discussing the business side of things definitely takes some of the gloss off the fun part of the hobby.
Jones: Why speak directly and publicly about the business now?
Goodman: Well, I’ve been tempted to do something like this repeatedly over the last year. The 4E launch certainly could have gone more smoothly from a couple perspectives, and the bumps on the road to 4E caused disappointment and heartache to a number of groups. Some of them have been very vocal about that fact. I generally consider my business dealings to be private affairs between me and my business partners, and I think it’s poor form to “kiss and tell” – whether results are positive or negative, I don’t expect my business partners to publicly discuss my arrangements with them, and I expect the same in return.
Unfortunately, some of the business partners to the 4E license have been very vocal in their disappointment with the affair. In contrast to that, my own personal experience has been a productive, positive, rewarding relationship with the same people and same company that others have publicly criticized. After hearing so much negativity, much of it very different from my own experience, I decided it was time to tell the other side of the story. I’m breaking my own rule by “kissing and telling,” but I think the situation warrants it.
Jones: Anything you’d change or rephrase about your post after having read the responses?
Goodman: Yes, definitely. In order to establish that my opinion on 4E sales was qualified, I listed my credentials. Some readers interpreted that as a sign of arrogance. If I were to rewrite the post I would have been a little less forceful about the credentials, and more clear that I was listing them simply to establish the basis for my opinion.
That said, credentials do matter. There really is an information gap between the general public and industry professionals, whether it’s related to sales numbers or things like Dave Trampier’s real location. That’s the point of credentials: to establish that I have access to information. Some readers may choose not to believe my claims, which is their prerogative.
As a side note, there are many other people in the industry who have more or different or better information than I do. I’m not the only one with credentials. As many readers noted, it is possible for my claims to be simultaneously true with other contrary claims from other publishers – each of our experiences is different.
Jones: Some people have said that you are merely trying to protect your company’s decision to convert to 4e.
Goodman: The internet audience that read my post is meaningful in a number of ways. I consider the message boards and blogs to be something like the think tanks and academic institutions that influence American politics. They are engaged in ongoing national debates about certain key issues which influence understanding of policy at the highest levels. But the average voter has an opinion that’s already formed from other sources, and is largely unaware of these debates. To that extent, I’m interested in the ongoing debate on 4E, and I myself follow a lot of the agenda items covered because they do sometimes reveal percolating trends or new perspectives.
But as far as influencing sales numbers, or in some way affecting my decision to convert to 4E, the online segment is not the channel I would be most focused on. There’s a reason I spend more time marketing my products in game stores than online.
So if I were desperate to protect my company’s decision to convert to 4E, online posts would be low on my list of strategies to drive more sales.
Jones: Why is 4e doing well? What is it about 4e itself that is selling well?
Goodman: Good question. You can answer this question in a thousand different ways, depending on your perspective as an active fan, a grognard, a retailer, a publisher, a creator, or someone else entirely. I can relate something of my own experience as well as that of many retailers I’ve spoken to, which is that 4E truly seems to be reaching a new audience.
Maps are more important. Stats are a totally different ballgame. You have to consider the digital side more. There are new graphics, new game play, and new support structures that are all intended to connect to a generation whose sense of mythology is influenced not by reading J. R. R. Tolkien and Robert E. Howard, but by viewing movies and playing video games several steps removed from that original source material.
I see that in the fact that Goodman Games has new customers who didn’t previously play D&D – which is exactly what 4E is supposed to be accomplishing.
Jones: A number of folks have suggested that sales figures are skewed by the fact that a good many people are buying 4e product but not playing them.
Goodman: People are definitely buying 4E and not playing it, just like they did in 3E. Readers of the Acaeum and my own forums will know I have voiced my concerns about this for years, well into the 3.0 and later 3.5 eras. This is nothing new.
Jones: How unique is Goodman Games’ experience compared to other companies who are perhaps having less success with 4e products?
Goodman: When asking this question it’s important to keep in mind the frame of reference for the speaker. The best sales period for 3E was August 2000 through roughly mid-2001. This was the time when most of the current third party publishers were established, and for many of them their frame of reference is colored by the staggering sales numbers of that period.
Goodman Games released its first product in November 2001, and that was a weird dinosaur game; it was not until September 2002 that Goodman Games released a core fantasy product. By then the 3.0 era was half over. Being a late entry to the scene, I missed the early sales boom, I didn’t get the retail penetration that came from the time when retailers had standing orders for “anything with a d20 logo,” and I missed out on a lot of the early relationships that forged between d20 publishers and other institutions (whether it was Wizards staff, the early third-party RPGA living campaigns, or distribution deals). For me, it was a long, slow climb.
I am not unique in this latecomer position, but when discussing perspectives on sales numbers, it’s important to understand the frame of reference of other companies. Most of the remaining d20 publishers released their first products in 2000 or early 2001. Their point of comparison is the single best sales period for D&D products in nearly 20 years.
My point of comparison is very different.
For a very long time, I’ve seen 4E as a chance to hit the “restart” button on the timing advantage possessed by companies founded in 2000. This seems to have happened. That is why Goodman Games was extremely aggressive about having product available at the very launch of 4E. Many d20 publishers credited their 3E success to great product or excellent game design or outstanding art or their own good business plans. Some of that is definitely true in every case – there’s a reason they still exist while other first movers have vanished – but an equally significant factor is simple timing.
All game designers know what “first mover advantage” is, and it’s true in the business world as well. Why has Goodman Games done well in the 4E era? For the exact same reason many other publishers did well in the 3E era: great product, excellent game design, outstanding art, good business plans – and first mover advantage. First mover advantage established a host of companies in 2000, and it has helped Goodman Games in 2008-2009.
Over the past several years, as many of the d20 publishers with brand recognition from the 2000-2001 period slowly went extinct, I offered to buy their companies and/or brands, solely because those brands would have value again when 4E relaunched. Without “kissing and telling,” I can tell you that there were several such deals under negotiation, and in every case the owners valued their companies based on their 2000-2001 sales figures, not a more reasonable time period. As a result, I considered the asking prices too high, and none of these deals went through. One of the companies simply disappeared, another transferred its IP then faded away, and a third still “exists” but hasn’t released a product in years. In every case, I believe that what the owners considered “insufficient” at the time now looks like a pretty good offer in retrospect. In these deals I encountered what I believe is still a pervasive opinion, which is that the sales figures of the 3E era are a reasonable predictor of future sales. They never were and never will be.
Jones: Did the handling of the GSL cause significant problems for third-party publishers who want (or would’ve wanted) to produce 4e products?
Goodman: Apparently. I’d been planning for a new edition of some kind for many years, so I had already worked out a general plan for whenever it happened. Some of the specifics and timing of 4E weren’t what I expected, but in general I was able to do most of the things I’d planned to. Based on what I’ve heard from other publishers, I had a better experience than most. The GSL rollout definitely wasn’t a smooth process, and even though I had a “better experience” it still caused a lot of problems. We had to make decisions on very short timelines, and the back-and-forth of the license required a lot of rework internally. I’m kind of a “glass half full” kind of guy, though, so I saw a way out of the maze.
I’m not the only one to find a silver lining. Pathfinder is a perfect example of “making lemonade out of lemons.” Paizo has also turned a potentially negative GSL experience into a very positive situation. When 3.5 launched, I remember publisher lamentations similar to what happened later with the GSL.
Matt Sprange of Mongoose Publishing commented at the time that he saw 3.5 as a gigantic opportunity. I would agree with him, and with Paizo’s attitude in response to the GSL situation. I respect businessmen who see the opportunities that come with any changing of the game rules.
I definitely wish the transition to 4E had gone smoother, but I was never concerned with 4E failing. This is, after all, a huge marketing push from a division of Hasbro on a brand with 95% recognition.
Jones: Yet there still seems to be a good bit of negativity surrounding 4e out there?
Goodman: What’s interesting is that the “negativity” exists on the internet, but not in stores. I visit a lot of game stores, and while there are definitely some for whom 4E isn’t moving, the vast majority of them are selling 4E. Between D&D delve nights, Worldwide D&D Game Day, RPGA nights, and Free RPG Day, my visits to game stores are consistently filled with conversations with store owners who are satisfied with 4E and lots of happy gamers who are enjoying the game. I grant that there is definitely a storm of negativity on many of the internet forums. But that’s not a reflection on the true market for D&D 4E.
My biggest challenge in marketing 4E right now is the exact opposite scenario – dealing with the excessively positive response to the RPGA under 4E. The RPGA is so strong now, with so many gamers playing RPGA events, that it’s limiting my ability to sell “unofficial” third party supplements. Endgame and Black Diamond Games are two high-volume game stores in California which should be selling a lot of my product. Instead they sell my 4E titles at a much lower ratio to their core book sales than smaller retailers. Why? Because they have enormous RPGA contingents who are gobbling up all the official 4E material. I’m currently strategizing product and marketing offers to deal with this unintended side effect of 4E success.
Jones: Earlier today my daughter and I went out to buy D&D minis. Our local game store has them for the suggested retail price and the local chain bookstore has them at 10% member discount. The bookstore also has a bigger selection… Aren’t I being silly if I go first to the game store, buy one box of minis, then to the bookstore and buy another… which is, I might add, exactly what I did! I guess that’s not really a question.
Goodman: The question in your example is, why did you go to the game store in the first place if you knew they charged more? You just explained why game stores will always prosper. They are fun.
I love visiting game stores. There is a sea of product that interests me. When I’m bored I go to a game store and browse. I invariably find something I’d overlooked before and want to try out. So, no, you’re not being silly. You’re doing what we all do with our favorite hobbies!
Jones: What if I don’t have a local game store? Is there anything wrong with shopping online?
Goodman: When I was a kid, I went on a family trip to visit my uncle in Florida. I wanted to buy the new Battlesystem supplement for D&D (their mass combat rules at the time) so my parents took me shopping in this small Florida town. The only place that sold D&D books was a craft store. I distinctly remember buying Battlesystem and Ral Partha miniatures in the same aisle as the knitting needles and yarn. D&D was shelved next to the yarn!
This is the legacy of D&D retailing: it’s an unusual product line that has been sold over the years at a very eclectic assortment of retail outlets. Use the Wizards of the Coast retail locator for many Midwestern cities and you’ll find coin stores and newsstands listed. In the last couple months, I’ve personally visited three sports collectibles stores that also sell D&D. One of the stores that participated in my recent DCC sale was a movie rental store.
If online sales have any impact on game sales, I see it in these marginal, low-volume accessory outlets. A local craft store that formerly sold a trickle of D&D product may find itself selling none because the six local gamers and the kid who occasionally visits his uncle are now buying online. In this case, shopping online probably offers a better assortment, better stock levels, and a better price, so it’s probably the better solution for that customer.
Many full line game stores offer products that aren’t available online, and this is where the selection difference comes into play. Frankly, I’m amazed how often I find collectible D&D products in stores or at cons which were never listed online. People online will pay up to triple the retail price for a mint copy of DCC #35: Gazetteer of the Known Realms, but just in the last couple weeks I’ve found three copies selling for regular retail price at game stores. I saw a copy of DCC #17.5: War of the Witch Queen, one of our rarest convention modules, at a store last week. I’ve answered probably 100 emails from collectors trying to find that module online, but there it was sitting on the shelf at a game store!
This isn’t to say that retail is better than online, but there genuinely is a different experience, and the selection in a good full-line game store really is astounding. It’s not always better organized, but it is often broader and deeper.
I wish we were all lucky enough to live near such stores.
Jones: Do you think PDF or electronic texts will ever replace actual, hold-them-in-your-hands paper products?
Goodman: Wasn’t the paperless office supposed to arrive by 1990? For many individual customers, electronic products will definitely replace physical books; everyone has a “laptop gamer” in their group. But for every laptop gamer there are a couple others who prefer hard copy. Electronic text definitely impacts print, but I don’t see a complete replacement ever happening.
The PDF argument is one of the reasons some online nay-sayers claim that “game stores are doomed.” Not quite. RPG’s typically make up 10% of a full line game store’s volume. In specialty shops (such as comic or collectibles stores), it’s even less. Even if the PDF market caused a 20% reduction in RPG sales for the typical game store (and, trust me, that is an extreme scenario – my PDF sales are much, much less than 20% of my print sales), the game store’s sales volume would drop 2%. That’s far from a doomsday scenario.
The other negative claim I hear bandied about concerning game stores is “poor management.” Have you ever been to my local Office Depot? The place is terrible – the copiers are always broken, the staff knows nothing about any of the product, and their UPS shipments mysteriously disappear. I had to rent a U-haul recently and the place was excruciatingly inefficient. Did you ever wonder why Taco Bell has that 1-800 customer service number posted outside the drive-through window? It’s not because they can rely on all their locations to be perfectly managed.
Game stores are no better or worse managed than any other retail institution. I don’t believe all Office Depot locations are terrible because my local branch is, but for some reason there are gamers who believe all game stores are terrible because their local one is. Frankly, I’ve been to a lot of phenomenal game stores, and that’s why I recently announced that I’ll donate $1,000 in RPG’s to America’s Favorite Game Store, as decided by online voting. There’s a thread on my forums where gamers are extolling the virtues of their favorite game store.
In my initial post I talked a little bit about my experience outside the gaming industry. To cite a specific example, I was in the luggage business when the FAA changed the maximum dimensions for carry-on baggage. As another example, I was in the cosmetics business when a major new competitor began rapidly opening new stores. And as yet another example, I was in the suit separates/dress clothing apparel business as casual Fridays (and later “business casual”) became the norm. Business has challenges. That’s what makes it fun.
Some people are scared of the challenges, or see only the risks. I’m not one of those people.
At the luggage company, we organized a huge sale on the “old-dimension” bags. At the cosmetics company, we re-launched our core brands with new packaging and new fixtures, and in doing so we drove a 40% sales increase despite the competition. At the apparel company, we made dress clothing our #1 category for two years in a row, by focusing on eco-friendly dress clothing, the basic “marry and bury” suits, and a few other strategies.
The 3E launch was an EL 1 encounter. That’s why you had first-level publishers releasing product. The 4E launch, on the other hand, was an EL 20 encounter. Not all publishers made it through that challenge. Goodman Games had a good adventuring party and some good die rolls, and we made it through and earned some good XP. Whatever challenge the future brings, I’m now one level higher thanks to 4E, and looking forward to some more interesting encounters.
Got a designer, publisher, or artist you’d like interviewed by our Kobold Diplomats? Let us know in comments.
-
Das man mit der GSL sowohl Leben als auch Arbeiten kann, beweisen andere Verlage schon seit Start der 4E. Ungeachtet was man persönlich von der Qualität der einzelnen Produkte hält, so sind Produkte von Goodman, Mongoose und einer handvoll anderer Verlage am Markt und verfügbar, ohne dass derren Rückgrat von der ach so mieserablen GSL zerbrochen wurde.
Das ist zu Schwarz/Weiss. Es kommt in erster Linie darauf an, auf was für Produkte man sich spezialisiert hatte. Es gibt eine lange Liste an Werken aus der 3.x Zeit, die mit der GSL absolut unmöglich sind. Diese Verlage müssen sich nun entweder neu orientieren oder aber aufhören. Allerdings sollte klar sein, dass die Necros und ihre Spezialisierung auf Abenteuer sicherlich nicht zu diesen Verlagen gehört.
-
Man fragt sich natürlich gleich: wie viele Firmen bringen 4E auf den Markt, wie viele Produkte bekommt man in nem Shop (weil es soll ja Leute geben, die nicht nur am Rechner hocken und ihre Drucker quälen wollen). Wenn die dann das (von mir angenommen) Wenige was es doch als Druckausgabe gibt sofort kaufen, ist das ehrlich gesagt kein Wunder.
-
Das man mit der GSL sowohl Leben als auch Arbeiten kann, beweisen andere Verlage schon seit Start der 4E. Ungeachtet was man persönlich von der Qualität der einzelnen Produkte hält, so sind Produkte von Goodman, Mongoose und einer handvoll anderer Verlage am Markt und verfügbar, ohne dass derren Rückgrat von der ach so mieserablen GSL zerbrochen wurde.
Das ist zu Schwarz/Weiss. Es kommt in erster Linie darauf an, auf was für Produkte man sich spezialisiert hatte. Es gibt eine lange Liste an Werken aus der 3.x Zeit, die mit der GSL absolut unmöglich sind. Diese Verlage müssen sich nun entweder neu orientieren oder aber aufhören. Allerdings sollte klar sein, dass die Necros und ihre Spezialisierung auf Abenteuer sicherlich nicht zu diesen Verlagen gehört.
Mich würde interessieren welche Produkte du damit meinst. Ichür Kampagnenmaterial sein kann. kann mir nur denken dass die "Termination on short notice"-Klausel mit der Abverkaufsfristen ein ernsthaftes Hinderniss für Kampagnenmaterial sein kann. Wenn mich mein Wissen nicht trügt, dann spielen sich alle relevanten verkäufe in dieser Branche nur in den ersten 3 Monaten ab, alles danach ist Pillepalle.
-
Man fragt sich natürlich gleich: wie viele Firmen bringen 4E auf den Markt, wie viele Produkte bekommt man in nem Shop (weil es soll ja Leute geben, die nicht nur am Rechner hocken und ihre Drucker quälen wollen). Wenn die dann das (von mir angenommen) Wenige was es doch als Druckausgabe gibt sofort kaufen, ist das ehrlich gesagt kein Wunder.
Also "wenig" ist sicherlich relativ. Hier (http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/4E_3rd_Party_Publishers) findest du die Liste mit allen 4E 3PP Publishern. Sicherlich sind das weniger als zu Hochzeiten der 3E (also 2001), aber letztlich reduzierte der D20 Crash das Feld dann ja auch erheblich.
Gruß Zechi
-
Mich würde interessieren welche Produkte du damit meinst.
Kleines Beispiel: Paizo hat für seine Pathfinder-Produktlinien die Völker genommen und hier und da kleine Änderungen vorgenommen. Z.B. sind die Elfen jetzt ein bissl größer als die Elfen in D&D 3.5.
Die GSL schließt solche (eigentlich unbedeutenden Änderungen) komplett aus. Man hätte in diesem Fall einen gewissen Spielraum, über ein Untervolk zu gehen, aber das Corevolk Elfen muss 1:1 unangetastet bleiben.
Das gilt laut GSL sowohl für Regelmaterial wie auch für Fluff.
@Topic: Joe Goodman hat einige der Kritikpunkte, die ich nach seinem Beitrag hatte, in dem Interview wunderbar adressiert und vor allem einen interessanten Einblick gegeben, warum Gooodman Games sich so auf die 4E gestürzt hat, obwohl er nach eigenem Bekunden nicht mal ein besonders großer Fan davon ist.
-
My biggest challenge in marketing 4E right now is the exact opposite scenario – dealing with the excessively positive response to the RPGA under 4E. The RPGA is so strong now, with so many gamers playing RPGA events, that it’s limiting my ability to sell “unofficial” third party supplements. Endgame and Black Diamond Games are two high-volume game stores in California which should be selling a lot of my product. Instead they sell my 4E titles at a much lower ratio to their core book sales than smaller retailers. Why? Because they have enormous RPGA contingents who are gobbling up all the official 4E material. I’m currently strategizing product and marketing offers to deal with this unintended side effect of 4E success.
Und damit ist alles gesagt.
Gut, TheRaven hat es auf seine Art nochmal wiederholt, und Coldwyn scheint das irgendwie nicht zu verstehen. Also im Klartext. Die 4E forciert eine Homogenisierung der Spielkultur rund um D&D. Folglich ist alles, was nicht diese homogenisierte Spielkultur bedient, automatisch ein Nischenprodukt. Ein Nischenprodukt innerhalb einer Nischenindustrie (RPG). Das sollte man sich mal vor Augen halten.
Von mir aus können auch 3 Millionen Leute die 4E spielen. Das ändert nichts daran, dass für diese Leute, egal wie divers ihre Geschmäcker sein wollen, nur eine winzige Bandbreite an unterschiedlichem vorgefertigten Spielmaterial zu haben ist. Und ja, als Selbstbastler, gerade in der 4E, ist mir das scheißegal, aber es geht in diesem Thread ja um Materialkäufer.
-
Gut, TheRaven hat es auf seine Art nochmal wiederholt, und Coldwyn scheint das irgendwie nicht zu verstehen.
Nein. Ich wollte explizit wissen welche Art von Produkten durch die GSL nicht mehr möglich sind. Abenteuer sind möglich. Ob es sinnvoll ist sie zu produzieren und zu verkaufen ist eine vollkommen andere Frage.
-
@Coldwyn
Jedes einzelne Produkt, welches etwas am Core Content verändert, anstatt hinzufügt oder auch nur im Ansatz die Regeln anfasst. Wie eben Pathfinder, Conan, Midnight, Arcana Unearthed, Book of Iron Might und beinahe jedes andere Malhavoc 3.X Werk, sowie in Teilen fast jedes einzelne Produkt von Drittanbietern. Die GSL ist extrem starr. Du kannst neue Inhalte schaffen, solange man sich an die Vorgaben/Templates hält aber nur die geringste Abweichung ist nicht erlaubt.
-
Es gibt natürlich auch noch die Möglichkeit die GSL nicht zu unterzeichnen und somit außerhalb der Lizenz zu agieren, so wie das Kenzer macht.
-
Klar, aber angesichts der Problematik, die Joe Goodman bzgl. der Konkurrenz durch die RPGA beschreibt, bleibt natürlich die Frage, wie sinnvoll das ist, wenn man dann nicht mal einen offiziellen Stempel draufdrücken kann. Außerdem ist das ein sehr schmaler Grad, gerade für kleinere Anbieter. Ist ja kein Zufall, dass im Prinzip nur Leute und Firmen so was machen (Wolfgang Baur ja auch), die bereits einen Namen haben.
-
Es gibt natürlich auch noch die Möglichkeit die GSL nicht zu unterzeichnen und somit außerhalb der Lizenz zu agieren, so wie das Kenzer macht.
Das ist nicht wirklich eine Option für klassische TPP. WotC hat ja in den letzten Monaten seine Zähne gezeigt und ich würde mir das gut überlegen, ob ich es darauf ankommen lassen möchte ob mich die Küstenmagier beissen. Ein Produkt in dieser Grauzone aufzuziehen ist ein zu grosses Risiko für Leute, die zum Teil von ihren Werken leben wollen/müssen.
-
@Coldwyn
Jedes einzelne Produkt, welches etwas am Core Content verändert, anstatt hinzufügt oder auch nur im Ansatz die Regeln anfasst. Wie eben Pathfinder, Conan, Midnight, Arcana Unearthed, Book of Iron Might und beinahe jedes andere Malhavoc 3.X Werk, sowie in Teilen fast jedes einzelne Produkt von Drittanbietern. Die GSL ist extrem starr. Du kannst neue Inhalte schaffen, solange man sich an die Vorgaben/Templates hält aber nur die geringste Abweichung ist nicht erlaubt.
Sprich: Also haben WotC den Publishern die Möglichkeit genommen ihnen die Kunden abzunehmen, wie es bei der OGL geschehen ist? Wobei ich Pathfinder im Sinne der Abenteuer und dem Regel-leichten Golarion-Quellenbüchern hier mal rausnehmen würde, die könnten nämlich auch mit Core gut klappen.
Klar, aber angesichts der Problematik, die Joe Goodman bzgl. der Konkurrenz durch die RPGA beschreibt, bleibt natürlich die Frage, wie sinnvoll das ist, wenn man dann nicht mal einen offiziellen Stempel draufdrücken kann. Außerdem ist das ein sehr schmaler Grad, gerade für kleinere Anbieter. Ist ja kein Zufall, dass im Prinzip nur Leute und Firmen so was machen (Wolfgang Baur ja auch), die bereits einen Namen haben.
Wieder mal ein starkes Indiz wie unwichtig der europäische Markt wirklich ist. Ich nehme mal an, gestützt durch eigene Erfahrung, dass RPGA hier gar nicht mal so verbreitet ist. Ok, es gibt ein paar Gebiete mit mehreren Cons auf denen RPGA stattfindet, von denen liest man auch regelmässig, aber im Vergleich zur offentlichsichtlichen Anzahl an Heimrunden ist das mehr ein Tropfen auf den heissen Stein. Aber vieleicht kann Amurayi was dazu sagen.
-
Sprich: Also haben WotC den Publishern die Möglichkeit genommen ihnen die Kunden abzunehmen, wie es bei der OGL geschehen ist?
Nein: WotC versucht mit der GSL, den Publishern Kunden abzunehmen, die es in erster Linie ohne die OGL gar nicht gäbe. Das die OGL für WotC ein schlechtes Geschäft gewesen wäre, ist ein von WotC selbst in die Welt gesetztes Gerücht, für das es nicht den geringsten Anhaltspunkt gibt, und das auch (wie merkwürdig) erst in die Welt gesetzt wurde, als die GSL zu einem Aufschrei der Empörung führte.
Du hast in soweit recht, als dass das Regelwerk selbst nix dafür kann. Im Sinne einer Kampagnenwelt sind Magier letztlich Magier und Kämpfer Kämpfer, egal wie diese Gruppen regeltechnisch abgebildet werden. Wobei es selbst da ein paar Feinheiten gibt, bei denen man sich Gedanken darüber machen müsste, wie man das aus einer 3E- in eine4E-Welt transportiert.
Was Pathfinder angeht, liegts letztlich einfach am absoluten Desinteresse an einem für die eigenen Zwecke weniger geeigneten System, nicht daran, dass es grundsätzlich nicht ginge. Und daran, dass man sich speziell, was den Hintergrund angeht, von niemandem Vorschriften machen lassen will.
-
Sprich: Also haben WotC den Publishern die Möglichkeit genommen ihnen die Kunden abzunehmen, wie es bei der OGL geschehen ist?
Nein: WotC versucht mit der GSL, den Publishern Kunden abzunehmen, die es in erster Linie ohne die OGL gar nicht gäbe. Das die OGL für WotC ein schlechtes Geschäft gewesen wäre, ist ein von WotC selbst in die Welt gesetztes Gerücht, für das es nicht den geringsten Anhaltspunkt gibt, und das auch (wie merkwürdig) erst in die Welt gesetzt wurde, als die GSL zu einem Aufschrei der Empörung führte.
Vieleicht trügt mich da meine Erinnerung, aber zum ersten mal las ich etwas darüber als WotC zu den alten 3.0 Zeiten ihre Abenteuer einstellten.
Dennoch kann ich mir leicht vorstellen das es etlich Entscheider bei WotC (damit meine ich Leute aus dem rein wirtschaftlichen Sektor, nicht aus dem eigentlichen D&D Umfeld) sauer aufgeschlagen ist dass die OGL d20-Derivate wie eben genanntes Conan hervorgebracht hat und somit Firmen wie Mongoose ein Geschäftsfeld eröffnet hat, das nach fortgeschrittener Zeit und Entwicklung vollkommen unabhängig von WotC-Produkten agieren konnte und derren Verkauf, was ja der ursprüngliche Sinn und Zweg der OGL war, nicht im geringsten gefördert hat.
Somit denke ich das die OGL als Teilerfolg gewertet werden kann. Anfangs lief alles wie geplant und es war ein gutes Geben und Nehmen, im späteren Verlauf - eher nicht so.
Um meinen Gedankengang zu klarifizieren:
Der Sinn der OGL Lizenz war es nie andre Firmen erfolgreich oder reich werden zu lassen, sondern die leeren Stellen im D20-D&D-System zu füllen und somit mehr Kunden heranzuziehen. Das wäre dann IMNSHO systemnahes Spielmaterial (Abenteuer, settingneutrale Crunch-Bücher wie die alte Quintessential Serie, Monsterbücher, Core-taugliche Settings wie Scarred Lands). Und von diesem Punkt hat sich di Branche doch arg wegbewegt. Welcher Conan-Kunde benötigt ein Complete Mage? Welcher Arcana Unearthed-Kunde benötigt ein Dragon Magic? Welcher Book of Iron Might-Kunde benötigt ein Complete Warrior? Wohl praktisch keiner.
Du hast in soweit recht, als dass das Regelwerk selbst nix dafür kann. Im Sinne einer Kampagnenwelt sind Magier letztlich Magier und Kämpfer Kämpfer, egal wie diese Gruppen regeltechnisch abgebildet werden. Wobei es selbst da ein paar Feinheiten gibt, bei denen man sich Gedanken darüber machen müsste, wie man das aus einer 3E- in eine4E-Welt transportiert.
Backgrounds und Feats, würde ich sagen, aber für so etwas gibt es ja erfahrene und gewitzte Designer.
Was Pathfinder angeht, liegts letztlich einfach am absoluten Desinteresse an einem für die eigenen Zwecke weniger geeigneten System, nicht daran, dass es grundsätzlich nicht ginge. Und daran, dass man sich speziell, was den Hintergrund angeht, von niemandem Vorschriften machen lassen will.
Da frage ich mich nur ob es am Desinteresse oder an der Art und Weise wie die ursprüngliche Geschäftsverbindung beendet wurde liegt. Dies ohne Hintergedanken und aus persönlicher Neugier, unter dem Aspekt dass ich die ganzen Blogeinträge und sonstige öffentlichen Aussagen aller Beteiligter nicht als die volle Wahrheit betrachte ;)
Eine wichtige Frage stellt sich mir übrigends bzgl. der Pathfinder-Lizenz, denn so wie es bisher aussieht und wie man aus den Aussagen etlicher 3PP herauslesen kann, so wird diese auch eher GSL-Charakter haben und nur minimla eSchnittstellen bieten. Ich bin gespannt wie sich das genau entwickeln wird.
-
Ja schön, nur war das ursprünglich nicht das Thema und ich habe die GSL als solche nicht bewertet. Du warst nur ungläubig, was die Einschränkung der GSL angeht und nun, da dir diese aufgezeigt wurde, veränderst du die Diskussion in die Richtung, dass diese Produkte, welche nicht mehr möglich sind ja eh böse wären.
-
Sprich: Also haben WotC den Publishern die Möglichkeit genommen ihnen die Kunden abzunehmen, wie es bei der OGL geschehen ist?
Nein: WotC versucht mit der GSL, den Publishern Kunden abzunehmen, die es in erster Linie ohne die OGL gar nicht gäbe. Das die OGL für WotC ein schlechtes Geschäft gewesen wäre, ist ein von WotC selbst in die Welt gesetztes Gerücht, für das es nicht den geringsten Anhaltspunkt gibt, und das auch (wie merkwürdig) erst in die Welt gesetzt wurde, als die GSL zu einem Aufschrei der Empörung führte.
Vieleicht trügt mich da meine Erinnerung, aber zum ersten mal las ich etwas darüber als WotC zu den alten 3.0 Zeiten ihre Abenteuer einstellten.
Beides ist nichtig richtig. WotC als Firma hat sich nie zum Erfolg bzw. Misserfolg aus ihrer Sicht bzgl. der GSL geäußert und auch ein solches Gerücht nicht gestreut. Bereits 2002 hat aber Ryan Dancey erklärt wie die OGL aus seiner Sicht funktionieren sollte, nämlich so, dass die 3rd Party Publisher hauptsächlich Abenteuer und andere Support-Material veröffentlichen, welches aus Sicht von WotC unattraktiv ist.
Wir alle wissen wie es letztlich gekommen ist, einige 3rd Party Publisher haben auf dem Gebiet von WotC gewildert. Somit lief die OGL-Sache sicherlich nicht 100 % wie geplant. Ich denke es ist dennoch eine gewaltige Erfolgsgeschichte und auch für WotC. Allerdings wird man darüber sicherlich streiten können , zumal der Erfolg für WotC vermutlich schwer "messbar" ist. WotC hat sicherlich gehofft, dass die GSL genauso akzeptiert wird wie die OGL und das war vermutlich ein strategischer Fehler, wobei ohne tieferen Einblick das aus Fan-Sicht nicht beurteilt werden kann.
-
, wobei ohne tieferen Einblick das aus Fan-Sicht nicht beurteilt werden kann.
Warum sollte man dies nicht beurteilen können? Die 4E-Lizens hat nicht so viele Produkte wie die 3E-Lizens hervorgerufen.
-
, wobei ohne tieferen Einblick das aus Fan-Sicht nicht beurteilt werden kann.
Warum sollte man dies nicht beurteilen können? Die 4E-Lizens hat nicht so viele Produkte wie die 3E-Lizens hervorgerufen.
Die GSL ist ca. ein Jahr alt und die OGL gibt es nun fast 10 Jahre. Da ist es ja wohl logisch, dass es deutlich mehr OGL Produkte gibt.
Was aber noch viel wichtiger ist, der Erfolg misst sich aus Sicht von WotC (darum ging es ja hier) nicht nach der Anzahl der Produkte die unter der GSL rauskommen, denn möglichst viele Produkte war nicht das Ziel von WotC, sondern eben dass die 3PP vor allem bestimmte Produktarten produzieren die für WotC unattraktiv sind (z.B. Abenteuer).
Ob dieses Ziel mit der GSL erreicht wird, ist noch nicht ausgemacht, dafür gibt es sie noch nicht lang genug.
Gruß Zechi
-
Die Geschichte ist ja aus ENWorld bekannt. Die 4E sollte ursprünglich gar keine Lizenz haben. Es sollte wie früher nur auf Lizensierungsbasis laufen. Erst auf massiven Druck von innen und aussen haben sich die Kravattenträger dazu bereiterklärt (aus Angst vor mieser PR, abwandernden Fans und desinteressierten TPP) eine minimalen Ansatz zu erlauben. Das Resultat war ganz mies und erst in einer zweiten Iteration wurde dann der Vorgänger der GSL geschaffen. Die GSL ist wirtschaftlich die absolut richtige Entscheidung für WotC auch wenn es am Ende doch eine Bremse für die kollektive Kreativität des Hobbys ist. Ich denke mit einer 4E unter OGL wären absolut fantastische Spin-Offs entstanden.
-
Dennoch kann ich mir leicht vorstellen das es etlich Entscheider bei WotC (damit meine ich Leute aus dem rein wirtschaftlichen Sektor, nicht aus dem eigentlichen D&D Umfeld) sauer aufgeschlagen ist dass die OGL d20-Derivate wie eben genanntes Conan hervorgebracht hat und somit Firmen wie Mongoose ein Geschäftsfeld eröffnet hat, das nach fortgeschrittener Zeit und Entwicklung vollkommen unabhängig von WotC-Produkten agieren konnte und derren Verkauf, was ja der ursprüngliche Sinn und Zweg der OGL war, nicht im geringsten gefördert hat.
Es ist zumindest anzunehmen, dass es die OGL nie gegeben hätte, wenn Hasbro von Anfang an das Sagen gehabt hätte. Man darf nicht vergessen, das so ziemlich alle Personen, die daran mitbeteiligt waren, ziemlich schnell nach der Übernahme gingen/gegangen wurden.
Ansonsten (das hat Ryan Dancey mal so formuliert) war der ursprüngliche Sinn und Zweck der OGL eben auch, die Abwanderung der Spieler (die seit 1E sowieso stattfindet) in Bahnen zu lenken, von denen aus eine Rückkehr nach D&D wenigstens denkbar war. Warhammer-, DSA- oder Shadowrunspieler haben im Prinzip nicht den geringsten Grund, sich für D&D überhaupt zu interessieren. Wenn WotC eine neue Edition herausbringt, wird das dort unter Umständen nicht mal wahrgenommen. Für einen Spieler, der Conan D20 spielt, ist der Schritt zurück dagegen recht klein. Kleiner jedenfalls, als wäre er ganz abgewandert.
Der Sinn der OGL Lizenz war es nie andre Firmen erfolgreich oder reich werden zu lassen, sondern die leeren Stellen im D20-D&D-System zu füllen und somit mehr Kunden heranzuziehen. Das wäre dann IMNSHO systemnahes Spielmaterial (Abenteuer, settingneutrale Crunch-Bücher wie die alte Quintessential Serie, Monsterbücher, Core-taugliche Settings wie Scarred Lands). Und von diesem Punkt hat sich di Branche doch arg wegbewegt. Welcher Conan-Kunde benötigt ein Complete Mage? Welcher Arcana Unearthed-Kunde benötigt ein Dragon Magic? Welcher Book of Iron Might-Kunde benötigt ein Complete Warrior? Wohl praktisch keiner.
Stimmt bedingt. Wie gesagt, ist die Frage eher, wo besagter Spieler hinschaut, wenn er irgendwann mal eine Alternative sucht. Und da liegt für d20/OGL-Spieler D&D eben näher als alles andere.
Da frage ich mich nur ob es am Desinteresse oder an der Art und Weise wie die ursprüngliche Geschäftsverbindung beendet wurde liegt. Dies ohne Hintergedanken und aus persönlicher Neugier, unter dem Aspekt dass ich die ganzen Blogeinträge und sonstige öffentlichen Aussagen aller Beteiligter nicht als die volle Wahrheit betrachte ;)
Naja, unabhängig von den persönlichen Vorlieben, war es zunächst ja noch gar nicht klar, was Paizo machen würden. Die Umfragen unter den eigenen Kunden gaben ein sehr gespaltenes Bild ab, am Anfang gabs doch sehr viele, für die die Frage nicht war, ob sie selbst 4E spielen würden, sondern ob Paizo den Schritt mitmache. Aus dieser Zeit stammen auch die Aussagen z.B. Erik Monas, denen sich entnehmen ließ, dass man eigentlich damit rechne, die neue Edition zu unterstützen.
Und so sehr mich der Lizenzverlust Paizos an sich auch geärgert hat, muss man den Wotzies zugute halten, dass sie Paizo genügend Vorlauf gegeben haben (und sogar die Lizenz kurzfristig verlängert haben) bis Paizo Plan B fertig hatte. Dafür haben sie sich eine Menge Prügel eingefangen, die sie sich hätten ersparen können, wenn sie es früher bekanntgegeben hätten. Ich denke schon, dass die Paizo-Leute das auch wissen.
Dass dann WotC nicht mit der GSL rausrückte, dafür konnte Paizo ja wenig. Dass sie sich nicht auf gut Glück wiederum von WotC abhängig machen wollten, ist nachvollziehbar und dass man dann sofort das PFRPG aus dem Hut ziehen konnte, spricht für mich eher für gute Planung von Eventualfällen als davon, dass sie das sowieso vorhatten.
Das darf man dabei nicht vergessen: Paizo hat in den letzten Jahren wenig falsch gemacht. Aber das WotC z.B. so wie geschehen mit den Vergessenen Reichen umgehen würde und aus Candlekeep einen Hort von Paizoliebhabern machen würde, konnten sie ja nicht vorher wissen.
Eine wichtige Frage stellt sich mir übrigends bzgl. der Pathfinder-Lizenz, denn so wie es bisher aussieht und wie man aus den Aussagen etlicher 3PP herauslesen kann, so wird diese auch eher GSL-Charakter haben und nur minimla eSchnittstellen bieten. Ich bin gespannt wie sich das genau entwickeln wird.
Uhm, Moment. Die Lizenz, unter der Paizo das Regelsystem veröffentlicht , IST die OGL. Du kannst ein beliebiges Pathfinder-Abenteuer aufmachen, dir den Statblock des Monsters schnappen und ins Netz stellen, obwohl das Monster speziell für dieses Abenteuer gebastelt wurde. Du kannst das komplette Regelwerk (bis auf die Götter) ins Netz stellen, und kein Mensch verbietet dir, Conan Pathfinder zu basteln.
Die Pathfinder Compatibility Licencse ist tatsächlich restriktiver, allerdings ist sie auch eher als das Gegenstück zur d20-Lizenz zu sehen. Wenn Du das Pathfinder Compatibility Logo auf deinem Produkt sehen willst, dann musst Du dafür sorgen, dass diese Kompatibilität auch gegeben ist. Ich sehe jetzt nur begrenzt, wie dieses System mit der GSL in Vergleich zu setzen ist.
-
Wieder mal ein starkes Indiz wie unwichtig der europäische Markt wirklich ist. Ich nehme mal an, gestützt durch eigene Erfahrung, dass RPGA hier gar nicht mal so verbreitet ist.
Die RPGA ist in Grossbritannien sehr aktiv und werden von WotC US nicht zuletzt über den starken WotC UK Arm unterstützt. Ich tippe mal, dass die deutschen Hasbro Jungs hingegen einen Warlock von einem Wizard nicht unterscheiden können. Und dass sich ohne deutsche Regelwerke keine deutsche RPGA mit der 4E mehr aufziehen läßt, ist ebenso klar. Dass die deutschen Hasbros noch dazu Matthias Schäfers 4E-Promotion-Tour durch Deutschland unterbuttert haben (Ihr erinnert Euch hoffentlich), sagt uns hingegen etwas darüber, wie gern gesehen die RPGA hierzulande bereits vor 4E-Launch war. Das muss man sich mal nachträglich auf der Zunge zergehen lassen. Zuerst verbieten sie Matthias, die 4E und die RPGA zu bewerben, und dann stampfen sie die deutschen Grundbücher ein. Der deutsche Markt ist für die 4E nicht nur "irrelevant" - ich würde sagen, sie haben hier eine destruktive Slapstick-Nummer abgezogen.
Goodmans Meinung war aber, dass die Meinungsbildung auf den amerikanischen Foren nicht marktprägend und auch nicht aussagekräftig über den tatsächlichen Markt in den Staaten sind. Seine Erfahrung mit den Lieferanten und Abnehmern sagt ihm, dass die Leute in diesem Markt primär RPGA spielen, und dementsprechend ihre 4E Produkte einkaufen.
Was heißt das jetzt. Joe G kann kein Buch herausbringen mit einem einzigen Feat/Power/Item, das diese Leute jemals in ihren RPGA-Runden anwenden dürfen.
Meine Frage daher an Dich: weshalb sollen sie sich diese Leute ein Goodman-Buch kaufen? Genau.
Welchen potenziellen Kunden gibt es da noch? Ganz einfach. Ein Spielleiter, der gerade zu faul ist, sich ein Gratisabenteuer von den WotC-RPGA-Servern oder vom DDI herunterzuladen. Wow! Das nenne ich mal eine tolle Marktlücke! Und sie läßt sich wunderbar auf dutzende weitere Verleger münzen. Auch Necromancer und Paizo müssten für diese Nische produzieren, wollten sie unter der 4E kommerziell erfolgreich sein.
Die spannende Frage ist freilich, ob diese Fokussierung auf die RPGA, und die dementsprechende Beeinflussung des Kaufverhaltens (der überwiegenden Mehrheit der) 4E-Kunden auf die GSL zurückgeht oder umgekehrt. Tatsache ist jedoch, dass hier zwei mächtige Faktoren - Organized Play und 3PP-Licensing - am gleichen Strang ziehen. Man erzieht sich homogenisierte Kunden und bedient diese perfekt. Die handvoll Nörgler in den Internetforen kannst Du in der Pfeife rauchen, deren Postings liest sich ein Joe G höchstens mal zwischendurch zur Belustigung durch.
-
@Windjammer:
Zu der Sache mit Matthias Schäfer und der deutschen RPGA kann ich nichts sagen, da ich zur betreffenden Zeit aus persönlichen gründen weder im Gate noch in sonstigen Foren aktiv war. Diesbezüglich habe ich eine gewisse Wissenslücke, daher stelle ich ja etliche Frage oder äussere meine Meinung zu bestimmten Themen. Mein RPGA-Stand bezieht sich also auf die vor-4e-Zeit und explizit auf den Süddeutschen Raum und da sah es schon sehr mager aus.
-
Ja, habe ich mir vorhin schon gedacht, dass die Schäfergeschichte wahrscheinlich in Deine Gate-Abwesenheit hineingefallen ist. Bei Interesse einfach googeln, auch Settembrini hat dazu einen unterhaltsamen Blog-Eintrag geschrieben (und die Schuld mal wieder F&S gegeben :D ).
-
Die RPGA war in Deutschland (und Europa) schon immer irrelevant... Auch wenn es mir als Ex-Kampagnenleitung einer ehemaligen weltweiten RPGA-Kampagne wehtut zuzugeben. Wir können mit den ca. 200 bis 300 Personen, die in ca. 8 Jahren in Deutschland mal Living Greyhawk gespielt haben (regelmäßig mögen es ca. 100 gewesen sein, dazu ein paar Spieler aus dem Ausland, die immer wieder auftauchten) kaum gegen das anstinken, was in einer durchschnittlichen US-Region auf EINEM mittelgroßen CON an Spieler mitspielten (ca. 250 Spieler an einem Wochenende). Und die Zahlen für Deutschland lagen weit über dem europäischen Durchschnitt! Nur in Großbritannien und Frankreich gab es mehr bzw. aktivere Spieler (nach meiner Kenntnis regelmäßige Spieler ca. 500 in UK und ca. 250 in Frankreich). Leute, die mal auf einem GenCON-UK oder einem GenCON Paris waren (wobei bei letzterem nach meinem Kenntnisstand die RPGA offiziell recht unterrepräsentiert war), werden das aber eher noch besser beurteilen können....
-
Die RPGA war in Deutschland (und Europa) schon immer irrelevant... Auch wenn es mir als Ex-Kampagnenleitung einer ehemaligen weltweiten RPGA-Kampagne wehtut zuzugeben. Wir können mit den ca. 200 bis 300 Personen, die in ca. 8 Jahren in Deutschland mal Living Greyhawk gespielt haben (regelmäßig mögen es ca. 100 gewesen sein, dazu ein paar Spieler aus dem Ausland, die immer wieder auftauchten) kaum gegen das anstinken, was in einer durchschnittlichen US-Region auf EINEM mittelgroßen CON an Spieler mitspielten (ca. 250 Spieler an einem Wochenende). Und die Zahlen für Deutschland lagen weit über dem europäischen Durchschnitt! Nur in Großbritannien und Frankreich gab es mehr bzw. aktivere Spieler (nach meiner Kenntnis regelmäßige Spieler ca. 500 in UK und ca. 250 in Frankreich). Leute, die mal auf einem GenCON-UK oder einem GenCON Paris waren (wobei bei letzterem nach meinem Kenntnisstand die RPGA offiziell recht unterrepräsentiert war), werden das aber eher noch besser beurteilen können....
Mal so gefragt: Könnte es schlicht daran liegen das wir hier (in Deutschland) kein sonderlich mobiles Volk sind, zudem die Con-Kultur hier nicht verbreitet ist?
-
Die GSL ist wirtschaftlich die absolut richtige Entscheidung für WotC ...
Ist das so? Das halte ich nämlich für zweifelhaft. Ich denke (und das ist reine Spekulation), dass die GSL bislang ein Eigentor war. Letztlich verdient WotC ja unmittelbar nicht wirklich an der GSL oder OGL, somit gibt es keinen wirklichen finanziellen Vorteil aus den Lizenzen (Ausnahme, die GSL Previews vor Erscheinen der 4E, die Geld gekostet haben).
Somit haben sowohl OGL als auch GSL andere Vorteile als unmittelbar finanzielle, z.B. gibt die GSL WotC mehr Kontrolle über das 3PP Material, aber sie hat meiner Meinung nach auch Nachteile, wie dass einige Publisher nicht bereit sind der GSL zu folgen. Des Weiteren war die OGL Imageträchtiger im Fan-Bereich. Ich bin mir daher nicht so sicher, dass die GSL für WotC besser ist.
-
Ist das so? Das halte ich nämlich für zweifelhaft. Ich denke (und das ist reine Spekulation), dass die GSL bislang ein Eigentor war.
Ich habe nicht behauptet, dass sie ein Erfolg ist, gut läuft oder super funktioniert. Zu dem Zeitpunkt als die Entscheidung getroffen wurde, war es die richtige. Du argumentierst ja hier mit Einsichten und Wissen, die damals noch nicht vorlagen.
Des Weiteren war die OGL Imageträchtiger im Fan-Bereich. Ich bin mir daher nicht so sicher, dass die GSL für WotC besser ist.
Ja schon aber wen interessiert das Image bei einem Publikum, welches mehrheitlich das Zeugs eh kauft, egal was mit der TPP Lizenz passiert, wenn man aber im Gegenzug verhindern kann, dass dank der eigenen Regeln Konkurrenz durch Off-Spins entsteht? Bis auf uns zwei und wohl einigen wenigen Leuten bei ENWorld ist das vermutlich eh allen egal, wenn sie nicht gerade selber direkt als Publisher betroffen sind.