What are the implications of this?

[Aescleal]

Posted on the WotC boards.
Note the last paragraph of the first post...

https://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=744631

Is it possible that FG 2 could become a Wizards product? Hmmm...

FG is the best I've seen, visually and otherwise.

Anyhoo, I thought I'd share this.

[richvalle]

This is the 3rd post on this topic. :)

Nice that everyone thinks of FG when they read this.

rv

[Zuxius]

Something is in motion at WotC, it is the only explanation for CMP's loss of favor with them. I prefer to think that it is 4.0 on the horizon. I do not believe 4.0 will be OGL so they really won't care about all the other 3.5 products running about that mimic the Virtual Gaming Table. I believe 4.0 will be from the bottom up a completely revamped form of entertainment, for the internet (such as what one would wish for in their wildest dreams). Everything Code Monkey was promising and more. There will naturally be an FG-type program that will plug into the extensive datasets of 4.0 manuals and add-ons, DM-produced data for the adventurer as well as PC sheets updated by the players. All in all, this will be something that everyone will envy. They only get one shot at this, and I am sure they know what is at stake. The flak from 3.5 loyalists will be very much the same as they were from 2.0 folks, but this will fade away as a new generation moves to D&D.

What spawned this reasoning? My whole group spends all their time playing World of Warcraft. Even WotC employees spend a lot of time on their computers playing this game. Blizzard Entertainment is the best in the business as far as execution of a product as well as maticulous maintenance. If the D&D staff want what Blizzard enjoys (a huge watershed of revenue streaming in on a monthly basis with little overhead), they have to change gears and get with the program. The audience has moved to the internet, and WotC needs to do more than have product displays, articles and message boards.

This is why the OGL will have to go. 4.0 needs to be exclusive so everything can be kept under one roof. The day of buying game manuals are over. Now it will be PDFs with the promise of unlocking datasets for those manuals over the internet. I would not be surprised if some game manuals will be PDF only.

In any event, let me tell you about a program called Kali. It was a place for everyone to meet to play games. It created a virtual LAN connection that fooled programs into believing they were, well, on the LAN. Blizzard watched Kali intently and also offered help to improve their program through Kali. Naturally, this was short lived and Blizzard concluded the experiment with their launching of Battle.net. I would not be surprised if FG has curious WotC people dropping lines and playing FG.

Everything I have said is doable, but only if it adheres to Blizzard Entertainments fanatical devotion to squashing bugs and improving the game.

Cheers,
Zux

[kalmarjan]

While what you say may be true, there are some caveats here:

1) While the 2.0 loyalists (myself included) had a hard time accepting D&D 3.0, in the end, it really just narrowed down to rethinking the paradigm that was D&D. The adjustment was not that great, as a lot of 3.0 was already implimented with house rules etc.

If WOTC were to completely "revamp" the game "from the ground up", they would be taking a VERY big chance. Right now D&D is mostly targeted at the higher ages. Chances are very good that the people who are playing (and paying big bucks) were all around for the start of 2.0 and 3.0. By radically changing the game to a money mill format (like a monthly subscription), they stand to lose that corner of the market.

A quick poll: How many of you would be willing to continue playing D&D if it cost you 20$ a month, and you did not even have a book at hand?

That's what I thought. For those few that raised their hands, put them down. He He.

2) OGL is going to die? That's a laugh. If the managers at WOTC were stupid enough to kill the monster that is OGL, then they would deserve the long line up at the unemployment offices, because that is where they would be headed. Think of it like this: If they were to shut down the OGL, then they would have to AGAIN produce everything in house, and fight for the exclusivity. Perhaps you are too young to remember the TSR fiasco with the dawn of the internet, but to put it into a summarized form: It didn't work then, and it will not work now.

3) While a lot of people play WoW, it can be said that it is not the same thing as playing D&D online. Indeed, WOTC already has the online form mimicing WoW. Aptly named D&DOnline. I am sure that they will continue in this fashion, but I doubt that it will become the sole vehicle for our game.

D&D is like a boardgame; you can carry it anywhere you go to play. The only difference is that you could get away with only having a set of dice to play. This makes D&D portable. I could be in the hallway outside of class and play if I liked, or at the dinner table, in church (*gasp*), on my lunch break in college or practically anywhere else. (BTW: These are all places I have played D&D. About the church thing.. it was in the '80s before the demonization of the game).

I do believe the future success of the game lies online. Models like FG and the 30 other VTs are the future. Now a person can game with anyone in the world. Back in highschool, I would have never dreamed of playing a regular campaign with people that lived in England, Germany and Australia weekly. I do that now, thanks to FG.

4) Blizzard has no overhead? You're kidding, right? The office in edmonton, Alberta, Canada is huge. There are a lot of people employed there. In all seriousness, Hasbro would be retarded to try to go on this alone. (in house). Chances are very great that they would be inclined to contract the work out. Hasbro is a bottom line corporation. The costs to create an application in house of the magnitude that you are speaking of would far outweigh any form of revenue that the sales of the game would make. You would be speaking of the hiring, training, councilling, benefits, bonuses and wages of a completely new department in a sector of a corporation that is really only filling a niche.

Has anyone really stopped to think for a minute why we were looking at a complete failure with ETools in the beginning? The company that was hired to create the application was inline with a smaller amount of incidental costs than the competition. Why would WOTC choose to go with a lesser company? Budget constraints.

WOTC is for profit. Hasbro is for profit. What this means is that they have to answer not only to the customer, but moreso to the shareholders in their company. Bottom line is, if an application costs too much to make, even if it is cool, and the revenue generated is not projected to generate an income from that product, the company's shares lose credibility with their investors. THis is why it does not make sense for a corporation to try to create these applications "in house".

Chances are, if what you say comes to pass, it will be created by a group of programmers in India or another country that has dirt cheap programming labour. Not a pretty picture to relish.

5) If what the predictions are saying come to pass, it is fine with me. I will simply move on. I have children to consider, so I will pass on the pay to play. I am sure that a lot of other people will do the same. THere are plenty of other companies out there vying for my money. I will be happy to offer my services to them as well. :)

Enough Ranting, time to go to school. :)

Sandeman

[sunbeam60]

If WotC wants to "buy" SmiteWorks, or at least have SmiteWorks turn FG into DGT for a hefty amount of money, then, all things considered, I'm for it. God knows SmiteWorks have done a better job than anyone else implementing what's been everyone's dream since the dawn of the internet. It would mean official support and access to Beholders in the monster section :) You can't argue against beholders, really.

In all honesty, I almost hope FG is turning into DGT. Let's put it this way: What would you rather want?
1) A shitty program (some kind of new software) that all RPG manufacturers have to take seriously, at FG's detriment, or...
2) A cool program (FG turned into DGT) that all RPG manufacturers have to take seriously.

I do see some problems with a possible FG-->DGT transition, specifically WotC management's past record on managing software and how I'm sure they'd start to wrap FG in crap.

On the other hand, it would mean a lot of manufacturers would have to take FG/DGT seriously, so the amount of material that would come in FG/DGT format would greatly increase. That, to be blunt, would rock.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to limit the amount of sessions you can have per month. If FG comes with some arbitrary limit for how many "sessions" you can start, just because WotC is seeing dollar signs ahead, then I wouldn't be terribly surprised if hacks start to appear. There's no point in limiting sessions except profit.

I'd be curious to get an official comment from SmiteWorks about this, but obviously we're not gonna get that if negotiations are going on.

[Wraith]

I have to agree with Kal here I don't see DnD fans paying to play DnD. I have been playing DnD for almost 10 years now, and there is no way I am going to go from $0 per month to $.01 or more per month. What I see happening is me going back to my books and playing good old DnD with some close friends, and not giving a damn what WotC does.

I am a die hard WotC customer, I have a subscription to Dungeon and Dragon magazine. I have all the 2.0 books, and most of the 3.0/3.5 books. I even bought some of the adventures they put out early on. I think that a good idea for WotC to do would be to put a CD in the manuals that has a PDF file of the manual on it. Then to offer updates to the PDF manuals, like erratas for a small fee. If they did this right then there would be no need for Dungeon Masters Guide II, you would just add the extra pages like a lot of the cook books do these days. In this manner you could have a book of feats, and then have feat of the month for $12 a year.

This idea came from the fact that I am tired of buying books that are out dated the week after I buy them. I am a DM and if I could log on to my computer and get all the most recent Feats, Skills, Classes, Prestige Classes, Weapons, Spells, and Magic Items that are put out every month and pay a fee like a subscription, then sign me up. That would be a source of income and all they would have to do is put the stuff in an update like anti-virus software does, instead of publishing a book.

See the difference between pay and play and my idea is that I am paying to have a edge over other DMs, rather then turning DnD into an arcade. Subscriptions is the way WotC needs to go to stay in business, and OGL will never die it is a living breathing thing that can't be controlled.

That is just what came to mind when reading this thread sorry if I went off topic.

[freckle_smoker]

I wotc did make fg one of there products , I would try to subscribe to their offer . and the pdf on cd inside the books is a great idea .

[demonsbane]

If WotC wants to "buy" SmiteWorks, or at least have SmiteWorks turn FG into DGT for a hefty amount of money, then, all things considered, I'm for it. God knows SmiteWorks have done a better job than anyone else implementing what's been everyone's dream since the dawn of the internet. It would mean official support and access to Beholders in the monster section :) You can't argue against beholders, really.



Regarding Digital Gaming Table (DGT), it is difficult for me to express an opinion here, but if I had to express one I see myself tilted to be in agree with Sunbeam regarding Fantasy Grounds being a good bet for WoTC's hypothetical online role playing app.
I always saw Fantasy Grounds as the D&D (d20) app.

Aditional WotC service or products can be fine, but transporting/transforming the D&D game to:

a) Plastic (minis)

or to

b) Computers (DGT)

exclusively, and not as an additional/optional service (as minis are currently, optional) for D&D/d20 gamers would be a great error , IMHO.

Besides this, such rpg online app (DGT or whatever) would need to be open to d20 products and inputs besides hosting and handling official WotC contents. And it would keep a lot of FG game system openness.

Nevertheless, the thing about a limited number of gaming sessions is a ridiculous crime, and not having the chance of purchasing the program purchased but needing to being subscribed "pay by month" to it too. That is too much robbery.
I will not pay for that.

Greetings

[kalmarjan]

Nevertheless, the thing about a limited number of gaming sessions is a ridiculous crime, and not having the chance of purchasing the program purchased but needing to being subscribed "pay by month" to it too. That is too much robbery.
I will not pay for that.

Greetings

Okay, there apparently has been a lot of controversy over the amount of times per moth that you could play.

I honestly believe this is *just* bad grammar on the part of the copywriter. Perhaps with a subscription, you could have 3 "free" sessions per month, then you would have to pay for the extra sessions.

Either way, even if they do clear this up, it does not bother me in any way. I simply will not pay.

As for FG becoming a product with exclusivity to WOTC, I hope that NEVER happens. I would be out of a job then. If WOTC had exclusive rights to FG, then there would be no Iron Heroes and other non-proprietary gaming systems to be had.

That would be a sad day for FG. :)

Sandeman

[Zuxius]

a huge watershed of revenue streaming in on a monthly basis with little overhead
-Zux


Blizzard has no overhead? You're kidding, right?
-Vis

Well, the size does not matter in comparison to the profits. They are giving the game away like crack dealers grow crops. Does not matter on the size of an organization, just the proportion of profit.

Titanic made a profit.

Famous last words,
Zux

[kalmarjan]

Well, the size does not matter in comparison to the profits. They are giving the game away like crack dealers grow crops. Does not matter on the size of an organization, just the proportion of profit.

Titanic made a profit.

Famous last words,
Zux

Profit=Revenue-taxes-Expenses

Expenses=Salary+Overhead+Development

The size of a "department" directly coresponds to the profit margin for a corporation. Each "department" receives a set amount of budget depending on the results of the history of the prior sales.

Now for the paradigm of Wizards=Blizzard, the reason this cannot work is 2-fold:

1) Blizzard is a dedicated company. Their business is the R&D of computer games. Chances are great that Blizzard would pay to licence a product from WOTC, because they would already have the people employed with knowledge to complete their tasks.

2) WOTC would either have to hire or train their staff to compete with Blizzard. This would cut into their budget for salary. Chances are great that there would be a great shuffle in staffing in order to accomodate the rise in salary. Or worse, they would search overseas in order to compensate for the rise in salary/training.

The reason that I cannot see this happening with Hasbro is because they are not in the business of R&D for video games any more. They were the #3 spot in the business, but in 1999, they had to shut down their division in cost cutting efforts. Basically, the expenditures they were laying out did not meet the profit demand their shareholders were expecting.

To start up again, would be a move that would be daring, and probably would make an intersting show convincing upper management in Hasbro that this is a good idea. Especially considering we are a niche market.

What may happen is Hasbro will license out the rights to make a D&D based game with a company like Atari. Right now D&D online is licenced out to Turbine Inc. Not a division of Hasbro, but Hasbro does own the rights to Atari.

See where I am going with this?

All in all, even if they were to come out with a D&D like table top game that modeled after a MMORG, no thanks. I will settle with another game system. Which will be sad, because I have over 20 years of fun with the system.

Sandeman