Community

Well, that makes me sad, but it could be worse.

As part of a small group of designers that love putting out quality d20 material I very much want to be able to put out 4e material asap. Unfortunately, as a small group that does this in our spare time, we're not really making money at it yet (although issue 10 of Claw / Claw / Bite is selling quite well), and certainly can't afford $5k.

But at least they're making noises about releasing it to the general public in a year. It gives us plenty of time to convert our adventures to 4e before we can put them out, too, so there's a little silver lining there.

Hello everyone.

I have debated not saying this at all, but I am highly opposed to this marketing plunge of doom. If the general public knew that this kind of corporate stinginess was happening openly in front of them (especially us web nerds who are just so involved in this kind of stuff that it hurts), they would not condone it whatsoever.

I understand the corporate policies at Hasbro, and I am completely opposed to their external business ethics.

Let's talk about Scrabble and Scrabulous, shall we?

Please see www.scrabulous.com. Now also be aware that this game pulls in over 500,000 unique users a day on Facebook.com alone. This little online device (nothing more than some data on a machine) has deserved these two Indian developers not fame - but infamy. They are now being outright sued by Hasbro and Mattel (the co-owners of national/international rights to the Scrabble line) for what could have been a major marketing investment made on their part. Intellectual Property law aside, this was the opportunity for a major corporation (or two) to step up to the plate, and give these guys the creative credit they deserve. Not only did they not embrace - in a proactive approach - the possibilities of success within this project; instead of acting like civilized human beings and trying to work out some sort of system for the application to continue being successful, we take the less work-oriented route: we'll sue the living snot out of their indie butts. Good job, Hasbro. Great Marketing there, Mattel. Feel good about that, do ya?

This is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, but let me state openly that my background is in multinational design business, and I have learned the ins and outs of what constitutes good business ethics well enough to know that I oppose these companies' actions.

Now that we have established that they like to squash the little guys in favor of a profit margin, let's inspect our own investment in their company over these last few decades...

How much money have you spent in d20 or D&D products? How about Magic cards? How about board games? Have any good memories of playing?

Good. Because it's not about that anymore. It's about one good thing: our little green papers.

http://elftown.com/~xido (diary entry about my views).

Now, let's get one thing straight here: I AM that little guy. I am in the process of getting together material that I have been planning out for ten years to self-publish our content, and maybe make enough funds to produce a cool multimedia product that would be coordinated with D&D material. Good idea, right? Great plan for a blooming entrepreneur, I would think...

Apparently I have to have been born a rich man. I shelled out $100 to NewFuntiers.com to have them review my content in 2006, only to be told that Wizards was not in any way looking for new material... Why? 4th edition, of course. Understandable, but harsh.

Now 5,000 bones?!?!?! DUDE...!?!?!

So my dreams of becoming a professional should be shattered because Wizards wants me to PAY them and HASBRO for the rights? They're lucky I don't do it all by myself, and not tell them at all, in my opinion. I just so happen to be one of the people out there in the growing business world with morals, so help me God. Pirating in the name of ethics is still piracy, but damn, dude, what's a guy gotta do in a ransacked global economy like ours? Bow to the man? Is that right in any form? Why? Why should we accept this level of drudgery in the creative field?

In my opinion, this fee is not only rude, it is a complete hypocrisy, and a statement about our value to the people at Hasbro, Inc.

As an RPGA member, I was astounded to know that my edition of D&D would soon be moot, and that I would have to completely re-invest my money to save my games. Now this?

Please.......

Wizards.com, tell Hasbro they can shove it!

And what do the original D&D creators think of this BS? What are their stances in this fiasco? What are their views?

I am sickened to know that only a week and a half ago, I heard back from Wizards Corporate, and they expressed a light interest in my ideas. Now the two Agarwallas are getting sued, when they should be rolling in dough? This is what IP law has led us to... Andy Warhol, hear our plea.

Sorry, I cannot accept that as ethically responsible. I simply can't.

Best wishes to you all,
-will, WFR Guild Lead Moderator and Organizer
http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/xidoravenstudios
http://elftown.com/_xidoraven%20studios
http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/wfrguild

xidoraven's post should be its own thread. He has every right to say his piece, but in the context of this thread, it's blatant threadcrapping.

Having said that, Scrabulous is a pretty blatant use of another company's IP. I realize game rules aren't copyrightable, but that is by no means the end of the matter - the board layout, for example, can legitimately be both copyrighted and trademarked as far as I can see (IANAL and all that, of course). It's at least not obvious that suing over it is in any way illegitimate.

I don't feel that it should be Moved.

The Topic is Who's On Board, and Here's someone who actually wants to do what Many of Use have dreamed of Doing for Years. Being a Published D&D Author, talking out about whats stopping them from Doing So.

New Blood into the Accessories Market keeps D&D alive, Not Ruleook after Rulebook. After All Accessories are what save DMs from Having to do Everything else in the Game.
Rulebooks don't provide Towns, People, Encounters. They just define the Process for Doing so in Game Mechanics

I Own Dundjinni and CCPRO and CC3, yet I still Use Maps Created for Adventures from Publishers and Fellow Cartographers because If I spent all my time mapping I would not have time to Play.

I Use Artwork from Books and Publishers Because I suck as an Artist. Yet I still like to give Faces to Noteable NPCS and Magic Items do appear different from Time to Time. Monsters need to be shown once in Awhile

xidoraven wrote:

I'm sorry if I seemed to be thread-crapping. That was not my intention.

I am a creative designer, and a business major in online schools. This is a highly controversial matter, I agree, and I am sure that my own credibility may be at stake with these statements, but as a human being, and someone who does not have an extra five grand to shell out at Wizards' whims, I find this highly disrespectful to me as a consumer.

Bad enough to put us as gamers in a bad position, but now they have to have a monopoly on a market that they created and evolved? And what about marketing tactics? Just because Mattel and Hasbro share IP on a product, that means that they can turn their backs on us as independent designers, simply because it's not on THEIR agenda?

I'm sorry, I just don't find that pleasing to think about as a long-time consumer of Hasbro products. It's bad business ethics to put money above opportunity to gain a market presence and consumer trust. Ask Coke and Tylenol, they'll tell you the same thing. It's been proven in the past.

Sorry if I've slandered your thread. Please let me know where this content can be moved, so as not to impose.

Thanks and best wishes to you all,
-will

Just a couple of comments as someone who has worked with several game designers over the years.

First, this is about designers , not the end customer. This move is actually better for WotC and their customers. It's the small designers that are chaffing, and these folks would be better served by waiting for the free access to the licensing.

Second, WotC made a revolutionary move by opening up parts of their IP to independent developers for 3.0. This had never been done in the RPG industry. In fact, it's still not doesn't in most of the industry.

Most other companies require your to obtain (purchase) a license for the IP, before you can develop and release. Honestly WotC and Hasbro are still being VERY generous with their IP. (Track down anyone who has used a licensed IP and ask them about cost and IP owners controls over their products.)

Also, lets take a look at the 3.0 launch. Another company that will remain nameless actively tried to compete with WotC directly and released a Monster Manual before the 3.0 Monster Manual was released. Also there ended up being a glut of poorly thought out products, and some just bad products. Some companies actually went under (or nearly did) trying to get onto the D20 bandwagon without taking it very seriously.

The $5k has been openly stated as a deterrent for development companies who are not serious about releasing quality product at release. In reality, this also deters companies who may not have the initial capital to commit to a full release of a product. If a company can't scrape $5k in licensing costs, how are they going to afford printing, distribution and advertising?

Finally, the $5K is only for releasing products this year. In summer (believe) the OGL becomes public and designers will be able to release product in January. This gives small companies with little capital to view the market to see if their financial risk will be worthwhile.

From a business perspective, the $5K makes a lot of sense. Unfortunate most RPG designers (not including you or myself) lack business savvy. This can cause a lot of problems for the designers themselves, and indirectly (and for a short period) the industry as a whole.