Letter to WOTC
MonkeyBoy
I just emailed this to WOTC's customer service, and I suggest that any and
all TCG players email similar messages, with the promise of boycotting WOTC
products.
Dear WOTC;
Don't take this the wrong way folks, but, are you nuts?
Your action is going to further cripple the already weakened TCG industry,
as it will effectively scare many new developers away from it. Their influx
of new ideas and concepts might have turned around the effect of the choking
glut that nearly killed the market over the past couple years.
When WOTC first launched Magic The Gathering, I was thrilled. It looked, to
me, like the birth of an entirely new game genre, one that would be able to
grow and expand over the years. TCG's would, I thought, take their place
alongside RPG's, Minatures games and Board games as concepts that would be
firmly entrenched in the gaming world.
Those genres of games grew and flourished, in part, due to the fact that
_anyone_ could make a title in those genres, adding new concepts and ideas
as they did so. It was that very freedom and accessibility that made them
grow and prosper. Big companies, small companies, guys with access to a
printing press, anyone. If they had to pay royalties and/or licensing fees,
many of them wouldn't have bothered.
By imposing this sort of "big brother" mentality on the TCG industry, you
are very effectively stifiling it's growth, limiting the creation of new
concepts, and scaring the smaller developers away. And for what? More money?
Doesn't WOTC make enough money as it is? Or is this some scheme to stamp out
competition?
Frankly, I'm sickened by this decision. I admired your company for bringing
a new and innovative concept to the world, but now you're yanking it away.
It's a; "If I can't play, I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality, and
it's very crude and unbecoming of the company I thought you were.
While I know if will make no real effort, I am immediately halting any and
all purchases of your products. I simply can't justify giving more money to
a company that is effectively leaching off the creativity of others.
Andrew S. Hsu
Dear Monkeyboy,
Ummm...I'm confused. I think you should cite what you are referring to in
the letter before you send it. This is the copyright issue?
Andrew Hsu
as...@midway.uchicago.edu
In article <625t6a$j...@examiner.concentric.net>,
--
Andrew Hsu
as...@midway.uchicago.edu
Mark Pitcavage
Presumably he refers to the patent issue, not the copyright issue
(whatever that is).
Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Remus Shepherd
Andrew S. Hsu <as...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> Dear Monkeyboy,
> Ummm...I'm confused. I think you should cite what you are referring to in
> the letter before you send it. This is the copyright issue?
The issue that he's talking about, and which is being discussed on the
non-Magic CCG newsgroups, is WoTC acquiring a patent on the idea of
collectible card gaming.
For those on r.g.t-c.magic.misc who have missed the uproar: WoTC
has won a patent on collectible card gaming that apparently applies to
any game that:
o Taps, turns, or otherwise marks a card as being used.
o Allows players to customize decks of cards with which to play.
Any game that contains either of these concepts infringes on the patent.
Furthermore, WoTC has stated that they intend to enforce the patent...
although they're willing to license CCG 'technology' out to other companies.
This licensing will take the form of a royalty payment on all net sales
(Note: not profits, not after-expenses income, but *sales*) over half-a-
million dollars. In addition, if the licensed game doesn't sell 'well
enough' (I do not know what the criteria is for 'well enough'), WoTC
reserves the right to take it over, assuming ownership of the game and
any unsold product.
Depending on your level of cynicism, this action is an:
3. Attempt to take over and/or destroy any and all CCG's other than
WoTC products;
2. Attempt to insure that WoTC remains the #1 CCG company, by making
all other CCG companies dependant upon them and by making sure
their games cost more than WoTC games;
1. Not-very-well-thought-out, money-grubbing decision made by
greedy corporate managers that will be overturned in patent court;
0. Act that preserves intellectual property and sets a precedent for
rewarding game designers for their research and creativity.
Personally, my cynicism level is about 1.5 on the above scale. <:)
Right now, there's only one thing that I can definitely say that this
patent action is: A really bad public relations boondoggle that will make
WoTC enemies of a lot of gamers. Anytime someone compares you to Microsoft,
you know you've lost the public's affection. <:)
If you're interested, read rec.games.trading-cards.misc for more
details.
... ...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
Kirby Krueger
In article <3446A844...@earthlink.net>,
Walt Harris <walth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>MonkeyBoy wrote:
>Hear hear!
>
>I sadly agree w/ you... think of it this way:
>
>I don't want to give WOTC any more of my money... So maybe I'll switch
>to a
>different TCG. What have we got, whoops, that means WOTC gets
>royalties...
>Can't have that...
>
>Let's switch to role-playing... The major RPG is ... AD&D and it's
>derivitives...
>BTW, did all RPG manufacterers give TSR royalties? I don't know but I'm
>sure
>it's interesting... anyway, who owns TSR now? WOTC...
>Can't have that...
>
>Well, there goes RPGs and TCGs... What's next? Are they going to buy
>FASA Corp, Steve Jackson's Games, what? I personally think it's getting
>
>ridiculous... GIVE IT UP WOTC!
>
It should be pointed out that while AD&D is the venerable giant of the
RPG industry, it hardly dominates the market - it has nowhere near the
market share that Magic does in the CCG market. In fact, there's little
argument that it is not the best system - people play it at first because
everyone's heard of it, and later because they're comfortable with it and
already enjoy it. But there are lots of other RPGs out there that WotC
doesn't have any hand in.
I'd suggest popping over to rec.games.frp.misc, and letting them know
what kind of game interests you - genre, complexity of mechanics,
experience of your group, that kind of thing. You should get a dozen
suggestions that don't fill WotC's coffers. In fact, FASA and Steve
Jackson whom you mention above are primarily RPG companies, not CCG
companies.
I think the RPG industry is on an upswing right now, with quite a bit of
new and good stuff out there. Good luck in finding something to put your
time into - it's certainly possible for it to be a cheaper hobby than
CCGs, that's for sure.
--
Kirby Krueger O- kir...@netcom.com
<*> "Most .sigs this small can't open their own jump gate."
Brian Thomas Habing
Walt Harris <walth...@earthlink.net> writes:
>This Patent does spell disaster in many ways... I have to agree... Look
>at
>all the TCGs that are just struggling by now, are they going to go under
>because of this ? Probably.
So WotC wants 5% of everything over $2 million right? CCGs were kind
of their idea, and that is how Patents work...
>WOTC, let loose the reigns and stop being
>so money grubbing...
In other words your saying to them, "Yes, you can legally take this
money that anyone in any other field would do, but because it's a game
you're obviously money grubbers." !?!?!
---Brian Habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Dave Green
In rec.games.trading-cards.misc Brian Thomas Habing <hab...@neyman.stat.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: In other words your saying to them, "Yes, you can legally take this
: money that anyone in any other field would do, but because it's a game
: you're obviously money grubbers." !?!?!
The question I have is not whether they deserve the royalties,
as I am convinced they do. However, what precedents are there
for the right to arbitrarily kill and take over any game
covered under their liscensing plan if it is not, in their
opinion, making enough money? What is the point of that
<$500,000 profit category, then? I should think that any sane
person would feel that making no money off of a royalty is
about as little as you can get.
-Dave Green
Walt Waisath III
Daniel DuBois wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:05:59 GMT, Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >has won a patent on collectible card gaming that apparently applies to
> >any game that:
> > o Taps, turns, or otherwise marks a card as being used.
> > o Allows players to customize decks of cards with which to play.
> > Any game that contains either of these concepts infringes on the patent.
>
> designation is used for the purpose of bringing other cards from hand into
> play.
>
> 1. A method of playing games involving two or more players, the
> method being suitable for games having rules for game play that include
> instructions on drawing, playing, and discarding game components, and a
> reservoir of multiple copies of a plurality of game components, the method
> comprising the steps of: each player constructing their own library of a
> predetermined number of game components by examining and selecting game
> components from the reservoir of game components; each player obtaining an
> initial hand of a predetermined number of game components by shuffling the
> library of game components and drawing at random game components from the
> player's library of game components; and each player executing turns in
> sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game
> components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of
> executing a turn comprises:
> (a) making one or more game components from the player's hand of game
> components available for play by taking the one or more game components
> from the player's hand and placing the one or more game components on a
> playing surface; and
> (b) bringing into play one or more of the available game components by:
> (i) selecting one or more game components; and
> (ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into
> play by rotating the one or more game components from an original
> orientation to a second orientation.
>
> >million dollars. In addition, if the licensed game doesn't sell 'well
> >enough' (I do not know what the criteria is for 'well enough'), WoTC
> >reserves the right to take it over, assuming ownership of the game and
> >any unsold product.
>
>
> > Depending on your level of cynicism, this action is an:
> > rewarding game designers for their research and creativity.
>
> thing' when he made MTG, and WOTC should control rights to the concept.
>
> -----
> Daniel DuBois ClickOver, Inc.
> Senior Software Engineer (650) 322-8336
Yes, he did come up with a new gaming concept, but by the same token,
that means that the inventor of poker should control any other forms of
poker that are later created (and, yes, I know that the original
inventor of poker is deceased.)
Daniel DuBois
Remus Shepherd
Daniel DuBois <ddu...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I believe you're overstating things. 'Tapping' is only-patented when the
> designation is used for the purpose of bringing other cards from hand into
> play.
There's dispute about that. It appears to several other people that
the WoTC patent includes any process of marking a card as used by altering
its position.
> >million dollars. In addition, if the licensed game doesn't sell 'well
> >enough' (I do not know what the criteria is for 'well enough'), WoTC
> >reserves the right to take it over, assuming ownership of the game and
> >any unsold product.
> What's your source on this? Sounds pretty outlandish.
My source, actually, is from people on r.g.t-c.misc who are researching
this in more detail. <:) I haven't delved into it myself, the subject
being not that important to me...I intend to buy WoTC products regardless.
I merely tried to bring some information here, because I read both of these
newsgroups, and MonkeyBoy made a mistake in not introducing what he was
talking about when he made his crosspost. I'm a messenger, not an expert. :)
Brian Thomas Habing
Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
>> >million dollars. In addition, if the licensed game doesn't sell 'well
>> >enough' (I do not know what the criteria is for 'well enough'), WoTC
>> >reserves the right to take it over, assuming ownership of the game and
>> >any unsold product.
>> What's your source on this? Sounds pretty outlandish.
> My source, actually, is from people on r.g.t-c.misc who are researching
>this in more detail. <:) I haven't delved into it myself, the subject
>being not that important to me...I intend to buy WoTC products regardless.
>I merely tried to bring some information here, because I read both of these
>newsgroups, and MonkeyBoy made a mistake in not introducing what he was
>talking about when he made his crosspost. I'm a messenger, not an expert. :)
You can download the liscencing agreement from Wizards homepage in
PDF format.
-Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu