Quote from: Warthur;878081One day I need to sit down and write an article about Geek Business Fallacies - like the Geek Social Fallacies idea but applied to business. Fallacy 1 would be "Licensors have no right to pull a licence."

Warthur Fallacy 1: Customers have no right to have an opinion when a company makes decisions they don't like.

Given that Chaosium is saying this edition change was a cold, hard business decision driven by low royalties, I'd think they would be interested in the fact that so much of the fanbase is unhappy with the decision. At least it gives them an opportunity to engage with unhappy customers, either to win them over or to adapt to what they want.

It's also worth remembering that RuneQuest is acquiring a very bad reputation for excessive edition churn. This will be the fourth edition since 2006. As someone with a history with RQ/BRP, I know that it isn't as bad as would be in some systems, as there is a reasonable level compatibility between books for different editions, but its something that comes up when I try to sell the game to outsiders. A lot of the negativity simply comes from a new edition when very few people were clamoring for it.

Warthur, it's cool that you are happy about this new edition. I'm ambivalent about it, but I don't wish it or it's creators any ill will. In fact I hope it does well regardless if I end up playing it or not. However, if you want to be a cheerleader for this edition, I suggest you lay off implying that everyone that isn't happy about it is an entitled whiner. It's not going to win anybody over to your side, and it might make people that would have come over to your side with time choose to dig in their heels instead.

Quote from: Baulderstone;878163Given that Chaosium is saying this edition change was a cold, hard business decision driven by low royalties...

To be fair, I don't think that's what they're saying. My reading of it is that was just the technicality that gets them out of the contract with TDM once it was decided not to go with RQ6 as a base for the new version... for reasons we are not privvy to.

Quote from: estar;878156So without the Runequest trademark we will see what happens with TDM. I think they will be around to stay myself only this time with a trademark and brand they control.

Building up a new brand from scratch is going to be a gruelling challenge, but we'll give it our best shot. Who knows, it may work out better for us all in the end. I hope so anyway.

Quote from: MOB;878126Akrasia is trying to stir up conflict, between his blog posts ('Chaosium fumbles fatally'), accusations of "stabbing" Loz and Pete and "abandoning" RQ6, claims of super secret insider knowledge, and so on. That's sh:hand:t stirring in my book. Buy hey Acrasia, thanks for allowing us to inspire such passion. I would say that's far better that than indifference (excluding some pathetic trolling - stay classy Kruger:cool:)

I tracked down the blog entry you refer to (with a comment from you) as well as Akrasia's response.

I had no idea you and Akrasia had, ahem, "history."

I realize that unsolicited advice from sorta-anonymous strangers on the Internet is, well, just as likely to suck as it sounds. But I'll go out on a limb and do it anyway.

Quote from: Akrasia;878043This is no way for a representative of a company to reply to customers on a public forum.  (I may not be happy with what Chaosium has decided with respect to RQ, but I still play CoC and look forward to my copy of 7e.)

He is absolutely right.

You are coming across as a whiny bitch who can't deal with critics.

I don't see the VPs of other entertainment companies typing angry comments or logging into forums to rebuff critics who are far more vocal and vitriolic than Akrasia.

I realize the hobby's a small pond, but if you're a pro, act like one. Other Chaosium staff like Ben Monroe and Jeff Richard have been nothing but professional in what I've seen of their posting, as have Loz and Pete. You might want to take a page from these people's playbooks. Maybe appoint someone else to handle all online media interactions?

Good luck putting Chaosium back on its feet. The new Runequest, like the new CoC, looks like it's not for me; and like Akrasia, I think you guys are going about it all wrong. But I owe many, many hours of fun to CoC and I feel Greg, Sandy, Ben and Jeff all deserve to succeed at this.

PS. Kruger's just yanking your chain. Welcome to theRPGsite!

Quote from: Warthur;878081One day I need to sit down and write an article about Geek Business Fallacies - like the Geek Social Fallacies idea but applied to business. Fallacy 1 would be "Licensors have no right to pull a licence."

Awesome, while you're at it, go over the Geek Fallacy of the Company Apologist, where they believe customers have no right to any criticism or opinions about companies because Capitalism.  That's one's getting kind of annoying, not to mention a wee bit sad.

Quote from: The Butcher;878171PS. Kruger's just yanking your chain. Welcome to theRPGsite!

Sssshh.

Quote from: Simlasa;878167To be fair, I don't think that's what they're saying. My reading of it is that was just the technicality that gets them out of the contract with TDM once it was decided not to go with RQ6 as a base for the new version... for reasons we are not privvy to.

If the royalty issue was just a contractual technicality, not their main motivation, it seems that they would have been better off not dragging it into public discussion. It seems weird there would be some other motivation behind that they we are not privy to if they are okay with that as public knowledge.

Quote from: MOB;878126stay classy Kruger:cool:)

Dude, seriously, "classy" isn't replacing the "i" in shit as you post across the various forums insulting people who criticize your company's PR disaster.

The one who did the most to put a stop to the torches and pitchforks is the same person who put a stop to it last time when the original announcement that months of work developing the most comprehensive collection of Gloranthan spells, creatures, and cults from the last 30 years just got flushed down the toilet despite being ready to publish - Loz himself.

If you don't want his system, fine, but maybe take his social media example.  All you've done is lose sales since you've opened your mouth.

...and RQ4?  That's just a dick move. Period.  Might as well say "Well we tried to keep the name going while Greg was off on the mountain, but that didn't work out so well, so our long national nightmare is over and the "real" RuneQuest is coming back.

Quote from: One Horse Town;878101Lay off the drugs mate.

Bah, he started it.

Quote from: Simlasa;878167To be fair, I don't think that's what they're saying. My reading of it is that was just the technicality that gets them out of the contract with TDM once it was decided not to go with RQ6 as a base for the new version... for reasons we are not privvy to.

Could be.

• It's not unusual for companies to use the out provided by a licensee not meeting their contractual obligations to yank the license. That's a key reason those obligations were put in the contract in the first place. That protects the license owner (licensor) in the event that the licensee isn't able to pay or doesn't pay the agreed fees and royalty amounts.

• It sounds like in this case, if the licensee had fulfilled the terms their license couldn't have be yanked. That too is not unusual in license agreements as that protects the licensee as long as the licensor is paid the contracted license fees and royalty amounts.

• It sounds like in this case, the reason the licensee didn't fulfill the terms of their agreement was that the royalty amount didn't meet a contract minimum because licensed product sales were too low. That too is not unusual when sales don't end up as high as both parties original expected and hoped.

• Royalties may be lower than expected, hoped for, and required by the license despite the best efforts of the licensee. Sometimes the market just isn't what people thought it was going to be when they first agreed to the license.

Nothing here sounds unusual from a business standpoint. Though the outcome is undoubtedly sad and discouraging for the licensee.

EDIT: Also, MOB (whoever that is) could use the help of an actual PR person. It's one thing when random people on the internet toss out insulting posts. It's another when someone associated with a company does that. That's seldom a winning marketing strategy.

Quote from: Bren;878181Could be.

The picture I'm getting is that the RQ title was going back to Chaosium one way or another. TDM was originally talked about as writing the 'new' RQ (the one we were told was absolutely NOT going to be a new edition). That fell through for whatever reason but Chaosium still got the RQ back (because of the technicality).
I could be, probably am, wrong... but that's the story I'm getting from what's been said.

Quote from: Bren;878181EDIT: Also, MOB (whoever that is) could use the help of an actual PR person. It's one thing when random people on the internet toss out insulting posts. It's another when someone associated with a company does that. That's seldom a winning marketing strategy.

Got to agree.
Of course, Mr. O'Brian is also the human outreach for Chaosium, as evidenced by his profile at their site, so we are telling him how to do his job. But without questioning his skills in that area, I'd say he might benefit from some professional advice.

Quote from: Simlasa;878185The picture I'm getting is that the RQ title was going back to Chaosium one way or another.

That would depend on the terms of the license. If it was an exclusive license RQ couldn't go back to Chaosium without first pulling the license. And whether or not the license was exclusive, the licensee's could continue to publish RQ stuff as long as they maintained a license. But not generating the agreed stream of payments isn't a technicality. It's one of the main substantive points of a license agreement.

Quote from: MOB;878126Akrasia is trying to stir up conflict...

I didn't start this thread. And my first post is #18, after a number of other criticisms of the new RQ already had been raised.

Frankly, your fixation on me is becoming a bit creepy. You seem to think I'm the cause of all your troubles. It's bizarre. (But if you absolutely must obsess over my posts, why not something more helpful for your company, like my review of CoC 7e? I was one of the very few people to have nice things to say about 7e in these parts. [Chaosium is still selling CoC, right? It's not now 100% Glorantha-ized?])

As for your PR job, if you don't want to take my advice at least consider seriously the comments from Bren, the Butcher, CRKRuger, AsenRG, and others.

Quote from: Bren;878221But not generating the agreed stream of payments isn't a technicality. It's one of the main substantive points of a license agreement.

I should have used some other word that doesn't imply it's a negligible thing... but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Either way, none of the concerned parties seems to be digruntled about it.

Quote from: Akrasia;878224As for your PR job, if you don't want to take my advice at least consider seriously the comments from Bren, the Butcher, CRKRuger, AsenRG, and others.

Or if you just want everyone to shut the hell up, let Adventures in Glorantha come out.