From a business standpoint, was the OGL good for Wizards?

[Libertad]

As a consumer, I loved the Open Gaming License.  It allowed 3rd party developers to publish D&D products, many of which would probably remain unpublished or have another system were it not for this license.  As a young high school student, it made 3rd Edition feel like a cornucopia of ideas and products that could keep me entertained for so long that I wouldn't need any other game system.  Many great companies, from Green Ronin to Malhavoc Press, got their start by publishing OGL-compliant products.

But in terms of profit and business, was the OGL good for Wizards of the Coast?  Did it help them by giving D&D and D20 unparalleled power and accessibility?  Or did it harm them by allowing other publishers to profit off of their works?

[X-Codes]

It was absolutely good for WotC, no question.  One company's publishing capabilities only go so far, so it's unlikely that books sold by other publishers could have even been produced by WotC at all.  Further, the total number of books sold is not zero sum, for reasons explained below:

Every RPG book printed under the OGL had the d20 logo in it, and somehow referenced Dungeons and Dragons.  In other words, every book sold by Green Ronin was essentially free advertising for WotC.  While we're on the subject, every dollar Green Ronin spent advertising their d20 products was also free advertising for WotC.  All this free advertising leads to a larger customer base, so a WotC customer that goes and buys a Green Ronin product is still a WotC customer.  On the other hand, if a Green Ronin customer only ever uses the SRD, they're still not costing WotC anything, but many Green Ronin customers also, in fact, became WotC customers.

Therefore, the OGL gave WotC something for, essentially, nothing.

[veekie]

It is one easy way to corner the market, and is I think, one of the major reasons for D&D's dominance. It was just so much more available. An easy analogy is back with the original computers, the 'closed' source Macs and the 'open' architecture PCs, it ensured that one archetype would be more adaptable and fill far more niches than your single company could ever reach.

Just contrast WotC with any other RPG company out there. The size during the OGL days is uncontested. Even with the OGL few companies grew to significant sizes to challenge their market dominance, and they mainly focused on niche markets. WotC has legitimacy simply because they were primary source, and they basically couldn't afford to publish as much material as the entire industry dependent on them did, nor could they vary the production scale to cater to tiny or irregular audiences.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Blackberry Vs. Android = Android wins.

Heck, iPad v. Android = outside of USA Android is ~50% of the market.

[veekie]

For more recent matters, just look at Paizo's success, they've taken over the role of the OGL 'source' and I think, are currently having problems with knowing what the hell to do with their suddenly enhanced scale. Just think, how many game systems can have entire sub-industries doing nothing but making expansions for their game?

Of course, closed source can work, but you need to have enough quality to outcompete the whole market AND the capacity to meet most demands. Apple could do it for a while with iPhones because of that, it takes time to design and release a product, as well as marketing and exclusivity deals from being first-on-the-market. They had to use a lot of clout for that and the lead doesn't last forever.

[X-Codes]

Blackberry Vs. Android = Android wins.

Heck, iPad v. Android = outside of USA Android is ~50% of the market.

Blackberry vs. an actual Blackberry = Fruit wins.

The thing about the Android OS is that it's just flat behind iOS.  The iPhone came out before the first Android phones, and the iPad came out before anyone else even thought about making a tablet computer.  Now the iPad is even starting to take market share from e-readers like the Kindle and Nook, and there's just not a whole lot to be done about it because the quality of the first-party software just isn't there in anything else and anyone with a successful app on one of the two platforms will obviously make another app for the other because the profit is there and worth it.

Eventually, I think the Android will prevail.  I hate to put it in these terms, but without Steve Jobs running Apple's development, I'm not confident they have the creative juice to overpower both Google AND the open-source community for too much longer.

[Arz]

I doubt anyone has yet spoken from a stockholder's perspective on Hasbro. Look at the data for earnings 2000 to 2004:
2000 & 2002 were down years but overall they were static in revenue. Sadly I lack easy access to details prior to 2002 so all I can say is the OGL had zero financial effect. D&D was already the dominant product in the market so the free ad benefit was largely maintaining their share.

So any stockholder out there?

[X-Codes]

The initial release of 4e didn't do much better.  There was a surge in the stock price around the release date, and then it hit the 5 year low in 2009, which was right about when it became clear that 4e was an abject failure compared to 3.5e's sales figures.  It improved in 2010 as retail began recovering in that year.

[caelic]

In the short term, the OGL was a great idea.  However, the execution was flawed on several levels, and ultimately came back to haunt them.

The original idea behind the OGL (as it was described to the company I was working for at the time) was the "evergreen model."  WotC intended to farm out the production of supplements and modules to third parties, and make their money on the "evergreen books"--the PHB, MM, and DMG.

Unfortunately, that model had one small flaw: there's no such thing as an evergreen book.  Once the majority of players have the core rulebooks, sales are going to stagnate; that's just the nature of the beast.  The books don't wear out fast, and there just aren't that many new players coming into the hobby.

Consequently, WotC then had to jump in and compete in the supplement market.  I firmly believe that 3.5 was a way to ensure that they didn't HAVE all that much competition; by tweaking the rules, they not only revitalized sales on the "evergreen" books, they largely killed interest in all of the 3.0 OGL material already on the market.   (Heck, I don't know about you, but my FLGS still has a lot of that stuff gathering dust on the back shelves.)

Thus, any company that wanted to really be competitive had to start over with 3.5 material, ensuring that they didn't have a headstart on WotC.

In the long run, I think the OGL was one of the major reasons 4.0 never really took off.  WotC gambled on "Play the new edition or get left behind, because nobody will be supporting the old edition"--and, in this case, it wasn't true.  Hence Paizo's ascendancy and the substantial chunk of their playerbase that simply stayed with 3.5 and Pathfinder.

[snakeman830]

The thing about the Android OS is that it's just flat behind iOS.  The iPhone came out before the first Android phones, and the iPad came out before anyone else even thought about making a tablet computer.

Microsoft released the tablet PC back in 1999.  The iPad was nothing revolutionary.

Overall, the OGL I would say was a positive thing for D&D.  When 4E came around and the OGL equivalent was a mangled mess of unusable crap, surprise surprise, nobody stepped up to supporting the new edition.

[X-Codes]

Microsoft released the tablet PC back in 1999.  The iPad was nothing revolutionary.

Frankly, the only things that Microsoft has done objectively well in the past 20 years were Windows 98, Windows XP, and the XBox 360.  As such, the iPad may not have been revolutionary, but the iPad's release was timed and executed better than the Tablet PC.  Example: We really needed widely-accessible Wi-Fi before a tablet had any real marketability, and when the Tablet PC came out we really didn't have that.

[littha]

Microsoft released the tablet PC back in 1999.  The iPad was nothing revolutionary.

Frankly, the only things that Microsoft has done objectively well in the past 20 years were Windows 98, Windows XP, and the XBox 360.  As such, the iPad may not have been revolutionary, but the iPad's release was timed and executed better than the Tablet PC.  Example: We really needed widely-accessible Wi-Fi before a tablet had any real marketability, and when the Tablet PC came out we really didn't have that.

The original Xbox was good too... and built like a tank. (I saw a video once of one hitting a road at 70mph after an accident and surviving)

and lets not forget the Zune 

[X-Codes]

Meh, the Original XBox was like an overpriced PS2 without any good games on it.  If it wasn't for Halo, it probably would have failed just as badly as the Zune.

The 360, though, changed that song.  They managed to undercut the PS3 (by a lot) and got ports of a lot of big-name franchises that were PS2 exclusives in the previous generation.  Couple that with the fact that the Wii just plain targeted a different audience than either of the two other systems, and you get one of the best business decisions Microsoft's had in a really long time.

[cvar]

Meh, the Original XBox was like an overpriced PS2 without any good games on it.

JSRF?  KotOR?

[X-Codes]

1) What's JSRF?

2) KotOR was better on the PC.

[Libertad]

Jet Set Radio Future!  A terribly under-appreciated game.

Fly Like a Butterfly

You've gotta make a Statement of Intent!

[snakeman830]

Microsoft released the tablet PC back in 1999.  The iPad was nothing revolutionary.

Frankly, the only things that Microsoft has done objectively well in the past 20 years were Windows 98, Windows XP, and the XBox 360.  As such, the iPad may not have been revolutionary, but the iPad's release was timed and executed better than the Tablet PC.  Example: We really needed widely-accessible Wi-Fi before a tablet had any real marketability, and when the Tablet PC came out we really didn't have that.

I'd add Windows 7 to the list.

I agree that the iPad definitely had better timing for release than the tablet PC and as such was more successful.  I was just pointing out that your original statement on the matter was false.

[cvar]

1) What's JSRF?

2) KotOR was better on the PC.

Everything is better on the PC.  Everything.  Even terrible ports that are objectively worse than the console version are better on the PC since you can mod it there.  Normal games are better since they were made on a PC and then ported over to a console.  That's not really a strike against the Xbox.

Liber posted, but the rundown of the game is Rollerblading Graffiti Artists with an incredible soundtrack and a unique graphic look.

[littha]

Saints Row 2 is nearly unplayable as a PC port...

[X-Codes]

I'd add Windows 7 to the list.

I agree that the iPad definitely had better timing for release than the tablet PC and as such was more successful.  I was just pointing out that your original statement on the matter was false.

I wouldn't add Windows 7 to the list, because I still can't even get 4 hours of battery life running my Windows on my MacBook (OSX has a 7- to 8-hour battery life on the same computer), and the default settings are unfriendly towards software made for XP (which is a LOT).

Also, the only reason I was wrong was because I forgot one of the specific things that Microsoft did something stupid.  It kinda reinforces my other point.

1) What's JSRF?

2) KotOR was better on the PC.

Everything is better on the PC.  Everything.  Even terrible ports that are objectively worse than the console version are better on the PC since you can mod it there.  Normal games are better since they were made on a PC and then ported over to a console.  That's not really a strike against the Xbox.

Liber posted, but the rundown of the game is Rollerblading Graffiti Artists with an incredible soundtrack and a unique graphic look.

On the contrary, most modern first-person shooters and derived games (Fallout 3, Skyrim) are better on the 360.  Fuck the mods, the games were designed for controllers, and then re-programmed (badly) to work with keyboards at a later date.

Also, I remember the other game now, but I didn't recognize the acronym.  If it was a good game for your crowd, then fine.  Frankly, I couldn't care less about it.  I'm not part of the target audience for the game, and I really doubt I'm missing anything having never played it.