I'm curious -- how many units does an item have to sell to be a platinum seller in today's RPG market? And who certifies platinum status?
Cepheus Engine - does it help Traveller?
- Thread starter Spenser TR
- Start date
I'm curious -- how many units does an item have to sell to be a platinum seller in today's RPG market? And who certifies platinum status?
The method is similar to how Pathfinder makes Wizards no money. And identical to how T20 made Wizards almost nothing; it use the open content in a way that was so nearly stand-alone that a one page OGL non-D20-Logo web expansion filled the gap.
Simply put - if it was JUST expansions allowed, it would drive core sales.
But, as it allows standalone corebooks with the same mechanics...
Take for example Omer's new setting. It's a standalone RPG, with its own supplements, and compatible with Traveller (to varying degrees by edition referenced). A player starting there might never look at anything which pays Marc/FFE.
dmccoy1693
SOC-13
The different medals mean the number of paid purchases of a product sells from that site. So something that is Pay What You Want and is downloaded for free does not count towards it, but paying $0.01 does.
Also they only count for that site. So a purchase at RPGNow does not count to the medal on DriveThruRPG.
Copper is 50+
Silver is 100+
Electrum is 250+
Gold is 500+ (I think)
Platinum is 1000+ (again, I think).
Bravesteel
SOC-12
Indeed, which was why WOTC has never done an actual OGL again, everyone that I have ever talked to that was there at the time said it was the worst move the company ever made in regards to D&D.
There is an OGL 5E SRD. It's playable as written... tho' fairly limited (one subrace per race, and subclass per class).
There is no 5E compatibility license for the OGL products.
There is an open supplement license (which was the model for the TAS license) which surrenders all the IP value of the submitted work...
dmccoy1693
SOC-13
What is? Doing the OGL? Or not doing the OGL?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
It's probably time to make a real investment, and turn all that intellectual property into a film franchise.
One that we don't just fast forward through.
One that we don't just fast forward through.
It's interesting to note that Monte Cook was said to be the one who browbeat Wizards to put 3E on the OGL...
The original intent was stated as to allow 3rd party supplements, but apparently the lawyers failed an "RPG comprehension roll"...
because it opened up alternate corebooks. And certain companies made a good bit of money performing what was essentially plagiarism by repackaging the SRD with a new layout ... but this was legal under the OGL and d20STL licenses. Far from what was intended, tho'.
Whether or not it was ethical is another matter...
Wizards dropped the OGL for 4E, and went to the GSL... but the OGL allowed 3E rules to be morphed into Pathfinder. So, when 4E was both hard to support (due to the GSL) and very different in feel from all prior editions... and Paizo was kicked to the curb... Paizo did a legal, but possibly unethical, end-run, and created Pathfinder. Which, for the next 6 years, dominated the market in the place D&D traditionally held. 4E dropped off the top-5 sales charts, and low into the top 10.
Mongoose Traveller was selling more units than 4E in the reported sales numbers for some periods.
Bravesteel
SOC-12
Correct, but that isn't the same thing as the 3rd Edition OGL, as you state later. A lot less threat to WOTC in regards to 5E.
Good. Only, maybe, 1% of the stuff made using the OGL (for use with 3rd Edition, I'm not getting into the OSR movement.) was worth a darn in my opinion.
Correct again.
Not nearly a damaging to WOTC as the original OGL.Implementation of the 3rd Edition OGL was seen as a bad move, retrospectively, by a lot of people that were in the know at WOTC during the time it was introduced.
RockyMountainNavy
SOC-12
There is only one Traveller
The original question is moot as long as CE is not recognized as Traveller.
I never really thought about it before, but why can CE not call itself Traveller if it was derived from the Traveller SRD? Does Mongoose have an exclusive license on the Traveller name (other than Marc's T5)?
The original question is moot as long as CE is not recognized as Traveller.
I never really thought about it before, but why can CE not call itself Traveller if it was derived from the Traveller SRD? Does Mongoose have an exclusive license on the Traveller name (other than Marc's T5)?
I am definitely the novice here, but am I the only one who sees a parallel between WOTC shutting out 3PP from the post 3rd Edition D&D and the rise of Pathfinder to Mongoose driving off lots of 3PP and the rise of CE?
If FFE & COTI borrow a page from the D&D play book and treat CE like WOTC treated Pathfinder, are we setting Traveller and CE up to follow a similar path?
The people that I know that are involved in the 3PP (most of them old names and old friends here on COTI) would jump at a chance to place a "compatible with Traveller" on their products and be willing to pay FFE to do so. What they need is a simple mechanism that allows them to retain IP rights on their creations. This looks to this ignorant outsider like it is still an opportunity and not a problem. (Unless we follow WOTC/Pathfinder and choose to make it 'us' vs 'them').
If FFE & COTI borrow a page from the D&D play book and treat CE like WOTC treated Pathfinder, are we setting Traveller and CE up to follow a similar path?
The people that I know that are involved in the 3PP (most of them old names and old friends here on COTI) would jump at a chance to place a "compatible with Traveller" on their products and be willing to pay FFE to do so. What they need is a simple mechanism that allows them to retain IP rights on their creations. This looks to this ignorant outsider like it is still an opportunity and not a problem. (Unless we follow WOTC/Pathfinder and choose to make it 'us' vs 'them').
Actually this sidles up to another Meta-Traveller question; Is Traveller the setting or the rules?
In CE's case it takes a version of the rules and separates it from the setting. As such CE's answer to the question is Traveller is the setting.
Mostly that is due to the wording of the SRD/Developer's Doc produced by Mongoose. 3ed party development in the 3rd Imperium setting was limited to one sector.
Bravesteel
SOC-12
The damage CAME from the OGL which allowed Pathfinder to exist in the first place (and where so many 3PP first came about) not from from the shutting down of that support. You mistake the divergence of the D&D brand in 4E from all that came before, which was what really hurt them, with the lack of 3PP support post 3E.
The problem here is that CE already is Pathfinder. The wheels for Paizo to create Pathfinder were already in motion before WOTC realized what a terrible idea the 3.0 OGL actually was. WOTC didn't treat Pathfinder as anyting but another competitor, which it was.
I'll agree with you here. I think this would be the perfect opportunity for Marc to create some sort of Traveller5 OGL, similar to the new 5E OGL mentioned before. That being said, I think it would be a mistake to only allow these products to be sold on DTRPG as it limits exposure and cuts into other, potentially lucrative, distribution channels.
I already addressed why that isn't quite analogous, so I won't rehash.
RockyMountainNavy
SOC-12
I happen to agree with what I think is called the Proto-Traveller movement. The CT '77 and '79/'80 versions had no real setting, i.e no true 3I. "Traveller" predates 3I meaning Traveller is the rules. CE is a non-3I legacy of Traveller and therefore properly Traveller.
I looked at the Traveller Logo License (TTL) and see that it is Mongoose exclusive. Echoing the thoughts above about "compatible" publishers, it looks to me like it is time for a new non-Mongoose TLL. Of course, I'm sure MongooseMatt ain't gonna let that happen!
So I come back to the original question. In my case it's CE (or Cepheus Engine Traveller - CET?) all the way because I reject Mongoose's restrictions on 3PP and want more than just the 3I. I have found much enjoyment in Gypsy Knights Games' The Clement Sector or Zozer's Orbital 2100 and more recently Stellagama's These Stars Are Ours! From my perspective CET helps Traveller by being the version that favors the most creation by both players and publishers.
dmccoy1693
SOC-13
Yes, and those people are also very short sighted. They may have seen it as "competing companies are making books for our game without us making a dime off it" when they should have seen it as "their biggest competition was making books to support their game, helping them sell more of their books." The OGL helped D&D become and stay a dominant force all through it's 3rd edition days.
Let's be honest a second, 4e went down because wizards made changes that were "too different" from previous versions for most fans. However, it may have survived it if they had serious Compatible publisher support, making products that were too niche for Wizards to do. Take the "gnome effect." Gnomes are the least popular core book race, but if it is a choice between disappoint the gnome fan in the group or stick with the version with a gnome in it, the latter wins. And because that one person is unhappy, wizards lost out on a whole group of sales. This, however, could have been overcome with a publisher-friendly license, like the OGL. But no OGL meant those short sighted bean counters cost the company money. The same is true for those that relied on a constant stream of Necromancer adventures, Paizo adventure paths, and hundreds of other niche products that just weren't coming out for the game. It was death by 1,000 cuts.
Even worse, Paizo started their own game. Sure you can say, "the OGL enabled that." Wrong. Sure it made it easier, but anyone can made a recognizable D&D clone without using the OGL, just like Dungeon Crawl Classics. But by using the OGL they were able to achieve market dominance just like wizards had in the previous decade by having lots of companies making products you just don't have time for.
Take my own company for example, we do the "weird" races. Last time I was at PaizoCon, I ran games using those races. People were THANKING me for giving those under-supposed races their time in the sun. If I stopped doing that for Pathfinder and start my own game featuring those races, would I peal off some players of Pathfinder, possibly. Would it be enough for Paizo to notice, probably not. But it would be 1 cut. Give it a bunch more just like it and sooner or later their bottom line would hurt.
Wizards did learn their lesson and released an OGL for 5e, as well as a game recognizable as D&D to their audience.
dmccoy1693
SOC-13
I can now confirm that it is 500+ for gold. My first book to cross 500 went Gold Medal late yesterday, Book of the River Nations.
I'm in a similar "frame" of mind: I'm not interested in the 3I setting, but am interested in a rules framework for my own creations. One can either buy OOP versions of the 1977 (or 1981, if you don't mind some additional setting implications) LBB's, the FFE one-volume reprint (which uses the 1981 version), or now buy CE (which is PWYW), if one is more inclined to a setting-light set of rules. If one is interested in the 3I then MgT 2e and T5 are also available, as well as all the OOP versions of Traveller that came before.
Bravesteel
SOC-12
Here we will have to disagree. The short sighted folks were those that supported the 3.0 OGL and didn't see the potential for Pathfinder and the OSR movement to seriously affect their sales.
Totally in agreement, here.
No, 4E would have crashed and burned regardless because companies such as Paizo and Troll Lord Games were offering products that they actually wanted system-wise. 4E could have had ALL the 3PP support in the world, in the form of a 4.0 OGL, and it wouldn't have made enough of a difference to call 4E a success.
Understood, and your point has merit to it, but I would counter and say that 4E had a ton of fan created material within the first year to cover those "flavor-gaps" which, in my mind served the same purpose as 3PP would have in this instance.
I disagree, as this would have opened them up to another Pathfinder incident. I don't think you understand (and I'm not talking-down to you) exactly how much the emergence of Pathfinder and the OSR movement hurt the D&D brand and their sales.
There are LOADS of gamers who have never played D&D, but play the heck out of Pathfinder. Many don't even know that Pathfinder comes from D&D, and if that isn't lasting damage to a brand then I don't know what is.
There was a metric ton of this type of content being put forth by the community. The problem was that many of the people that were clamoring for 3PP support and more supplements weren't even aware of this because they had already discounted 4E as too different and continued on with Pathfinder, or an OSR game, or what have you.
Yes, the OGL enabled that because Paizo would not have been able to achieve the brand penetration that they have without it. The fact that they were able to leverage the OGL to gain their own 3PP support does not mean that the OGL was, in genesis, a good thing for WOTC to have put out in the first place.
Of course, but there has to be 10,000 other "cuts" just like you willing to take that step, and without the support of an OGL type situation that Paizo benefited from, it really won't, and has not mattered if company A decides to make the next best RPG game.
Yes, but it isn't quite the same thing. It is much more protective of the D&D brand, and due to their design-space (of bring 5E back in line with older editions) it doesn't really matter a ton anyway. I could publish a book tomorrow based on the 3.0 OGL and say it's compatible with the world's best fantasy game and it would be legally and mechanically sound to do so. Thus, it was more industry related PR then any sort of essential or effective business move.
Let's talk some numbers about the OGL...
Mearls has noted that 4E sold well. It was a critical failure, but it expanded the overall market by about 15%... as one third of its players were retained from prior, (but were only about 10% of the overall D&D 3.X market), and half were new to RPGs. It's overall market share was about 33% of 3.X's.
Pathfinder likewise got a large chunk - about half of the 3.X crowd, and half of their player base was new to gaming in the last data I saw. It was selling about as many units as 3.X...
5E has sold, according to Mike Mearls, "more units than any other edition of D&D" About half the players I've met playing D&D have played only 5E, but there's a huge influx from both PF and 4E.
Between PF and D&D 5E, more than half the market space is eaten. Add the 40K RPGs and Star Wars, MGT, and Fate, and you're up over 90%, and cover most of the top 10 when the 40K and SW lines are counted separately by corebook, rather than as combined lines.
An FFG staffer pointed out that FFG SW sells more units per corebook than FFG sells total of all non-SW non-40K RPG content they own combined.
And each corebook is at least mid-5 digits in sales - based upon the shipping math (provided by a friend in a game store) and the corebook pallate stack, the initial print run for Edge, Age, and F&D were all at least 40,000 units. And all sold out within months.
D&D5 initial print runs are estimated at over 100,000 units. And I'm aware of at least 3 reprint runs on the PHB...
T5, by comparison,was a roughly 2000 preorder... and IIRC 4000 units printed.
I've not got good numbers for MGT1, but ISTR between 60K and 100K total units printed.
Mearls has noted that 4E sold well. It was a critical failure, but it expanded the overall market by about 15%... as one third of its players were retained from prior, (but were only about 10% of the overall D&D 3.X market), and half were new to RPGs. It's overall market share was about 33% of 3.X's.
Pathfinder likewise got a large chunk - about half of the 3.X crowd, and half of their player base was new to gaming in the last data I saw. It was selling about as many units as 3.X...
5E has sold, according to Mike Mearls, "more units than any other edition of D&D" About half the players I've met playing D&D have played only 5E, but there's a huge influx from both PF and 4E.
Between PF and D&D 5E, more than half the market space is eaten. Add the 40K RPGs and Star Wars, MGT, and Fate, and you're up over 90%, and cover most of the top 10 when the 40K and SW lines are counted separately by corebook, rather than as combined lines.
An FFG staffer pointed out that FFG SW sells more units per corebook than FFG sells total of all non-SW non-40K RPG content they own combined.
And each corebook is at least mid-5 digits in sales - based upon the shipping math (provided by a friend in a game store) and the corebook pallate stack, the initial print run for Edge, Age, and F&D were all at least 40,000 units. And all sold out within months.
D&D5 initial print runs are estimated at over 100,000 units. And I'm aware of at least 3 reprint runs on the PHB...
T5, by comparison,was a roughly 2000 preorder... and IIRC 4000 units printed.
I've not got good numbers for MGT1, but ISTR between 60K and 100K total units printed.
