I completely understand and agree with the decision to revamp the game every few years. From a purely business stand point, it would be foolish not to. What I don't understand is the willingness on the part of Wizards to lose whole chunks of their loyal players by giving the impression of "This is the only edition. The last one is dead. Suck it up." I know this isn't intended, but it FEELS that way to those of us who prefer an older edition of the game.
That said, my request for future releases would be 3 or 4 titles a year that harken back to previous editions. There must be hundreds of titles that never saw the light of day sitting on a shelf or hard drive somewhere. If every 3 or 4 months, someone were to dust one of them off, polish it up, and release it, even as a PDF, it would feel more like "Sorry you're not in love with the new line. Here's a little something to hold you over until we publish a line more to your liking."
I personally know a lot of 1st/2nd Ed players who would love a new module. As for myself, I didn't realize that I hadn't visited the Wizard's website in over a year until I got an email asking if I wanted to let my account expire. That's sad, considering I was on the site 10 to 12 times a week before 4th Ed came out. If I knew that every now and then, a product supporting my edition might be available, I would be sure to visit more often. As it stands, it may be a year or two after 5th Edition gets here before I find out it's EXACTLY what I want.
I just feel it's shortsighted or narrow minded to relegate all those who love older editions to "former customer" status. If there are only two 3.5 offerings a year, I WILL buy them. And when the new edition comes out in a few years, I will be encouraged to at least look it over. Ironically, I could be buying up every 5th Ed supplement while crowds of 4th Ed players lament to me that "It's not REAL D&D". But if I have no reason to pick up a new D&D book at the store, or to visit the website, I can't see my returning when that day finally comes...
First-- the company that owned the D&D brand during 1st and 2nd edition was a different company than owns it now.
Next, we are to understand that the changes made from 4E are for the most part improvements to the system. Saying that something only works in 1E or 3E is claiming that 4E fails at something the previous editions didn't. This would be quite demoralizing for anyone who worked hard to make improvements to this system... 3 times no less!
Following that-- if any adventures were created for 3/3.5 and were never released-- it would support the business platform more to overlay the 4E system onto the adventure. The storyline still works, the monsters still exist (and if they don't, a stat block can be written in the adventure) and so forth. Anything you can do in 1E, you can do in 4E. But you can do some (A LOT OF) things in 4E that you couldn't in 1E.
Therefore if someone had a 1E adventure, you could probably do it better in 4E.
People who liked previous editions are not former customers, they are customers who have not yet switched over. Of course, a customer who hasn't switched over for financial reasons isn't going to buy a new setting book or adventure either... those who haven't switched over because they just plain don't like change in general will not be happy with anything WotC puts out that would signifigantly change or expand their game anyway. The point is-- these customers aren't going to buy anything anyway.
On top of this, another game company went and snatched up those who refused to switch over to 4E for whatever reason. However, while that seemed to initially pay off for that company-- over time more and more people have been switching to 4E anyway. A lot of the immediate complaints (such as not getting Gnomes, Half-Orcs or an angel race) no longer apply.
This really wouldn't make any sense.
First-- the company that owned the D&D brand during 1st and 2nd edition was a different company than owns it now.
That's kind of a stretch. Hasbro now owns WotC who own the rights to everything TSR ever produced.
Next, we are to understand that the changes made from 4E are for the most part improvements to the system. Saying that something only works in 1E or 3E is claiming that 4E fails at something the previous editions didn't. This would be quite demoralizing for anyone who worked hard to make improvements to this system... 3 times no less!
Waah. Since when do companies exist to not hurt their employee's feelings?
Following that-- if any adventures were created for 3/3.5 and were never released-- it would support the business platform more to overlay the 4E system onto the adventure. The storyline still works, the monsters still exist (and if they don't, a stat block can be written in the adventure) and so forth. Anything you can do in 1E, you can do in 4E. But you can do some (A LOT OF) things in 4E that you couldn't in 1E.
Therefore if someone had a 1E adventure, you could probably do it better in 4E.
No 4e does not do everything better than earlier editions. 1st edition still has the best wilderness rules of any edition, though most of those rules are easily ported. And 3e is far more versatile than 4e.
People who liked previous editions are not former customers, they are customers who have not yet switched over. Of course, a customer who hasn't switched over for financial reasons isn't going to buy a new setting book or adventure either... those who haven't switched over because they just plain don't like change in general will not be happy with anything WotC puts out that would signifigantly change or expand their game anyway. The point is-- these customers aren't going to buy anything anyway.
This is an extremely flawed viewpoint. People who prefer previous editions ARE FORMER CUSTOMERS. I own a lot of 3e books. I bought the core 4e books when they first came out and never intend to buy another. That defines me as a former customer. If they put out a 3e book I'd at least give it a chance.
On top of this, another game company went and snatched up those who refused to switch over to 4E for whatever reason. However, while that seemed to initially pay off for that company-- over time more and more people have been switching to 4E anyway. A lot of the immediate complaints (such as not getting Gnomes, Half-Orcs or an angel race) no longer apply.
And a lot of players will never switch over. Most of the people who hang around in the previous editions forum feel 4e is an inferior product. I'm not gonna drink New Coke when I got Coke Classic in the fridge. Producing an occasional classic rules book would generate revenue from people who will never buy a 4e book.
I completely understand and agree with the decision to revamp the game every few years. From a purely business stand point, it would be foolish not to. What I don't understand is the willingness on the part of Wizards to lose whole chunks of their loyal players by giving the impression of "This is the only edition. The last one is dead. Suck it up." I know this isn't intended, but it FEELS that way to those of us who prefer an older edition of the game.
Well, these sentiments have existed since 2E. They may be more prominent now, but they're no more valid.
That said, my request for future releases would be 3 or 4 titles a year that harken back to previous editions. There must be hundreds of titles that never saw the light of day sitting on a shelf or hard drive somewhere. If every 3 or 4 months, someone were to dust one of them off, polish it up, and release it, even as a PDF, it would feel more like "Sorry you're not in love with the new line. Here's a little something to hold you over until we publish a line more to your liking."
This seems kinda counter-productive to me, though it would be a nice gesture.
I just feel it's shortsighted or narrow minded to relegate all those who love older editions to "former customer" status. If there are only two 3.5 offerings a year, I WILL buy them. And when the new edition comes out in a few years, I will be encouraged to at least look it over. Ironically, I could be buying up every 5th Ed supplement while crowds of 4th Ed players lament to me that "It's not REAL D&D". But if I have no reason to pick up a new D&D book at the store, or to visit the website, I can't see my returning when that day finally comes...
Well, WOTC won't make such a move until they feel the potential profit (vastly) outweighs the cost and resources spent. Times change; I'm sorry you don't feel a connection with 4E, but your hopes are probably going to be dashed.
Doing 1st or 2nd edition product wouldn't sell well enough to make it worthwhile.
1) You are assuming there's "shelved" unreleased product.
2) If they're currently pushing the current edition, releasing previous edition product doesn't support "all their customers." It supports an extremely small segment that isn't buying their product. They dont' want you clamoring for the next "classic" release, they want you to buy the new stuff. There isn't an incentive for them to make new product for old editions.
3) If people really want the old stuff, you can find it. I see vendors at conventions all the time hawking old edition material, sometimes offering it buy 1 get 2 free. Shelves of it. It's not that hard to find, and it's relatively cheap. There isn't that big a market for it. Again, no economic incentive.
It's not just RPGs either. This is why we don't see new games for the Nintendo Entertainment system, the Sega Genesis, or the PS1.
Producing an occasional classic rules book would generate revenue from people who will never buy a 4e book.
So it's pretty obvious by the above quote you are stating that all editions of D&D, except 4E, are classic.
This is completely bunk.
You talk about 1E and 2E, but it's seems you're more mad (have negative feelings toward) the fact that they are no longer producing 3E stuff.
And BTW, 3E isn't Classic D&D. I like 3E, but it isn't Classic. 3E was a big departure from 2E and that's one of the reasons I liked it. I liked the "always roll high", task resolution. I liked the fact that 3E didn't have 1E & 2E, "all abilities use a different chart for modifiers". I liked that multiclassing was more balanced then previous incarnations. I liked 3E so much I promoted to my friends and got game stores in 2 different states to run it. But, it's not Classic.
Stoping the game to look up a rule on how to wipe your keister isn't Classic.
3E was good, but it later became too bogged down in it's rules systems and subsystems.
Classsic D&D was much more about the Roleplaying, than the rules and DM Fiat instead of letting Players with an arm load of books dictate to the DM how things should be. It was more about a shared world experience and less about certain classes being uber-munchin-ized to dominated and hog all of the spotlight (I know, I have DM'd/Played in all editions of D&D; like I'm sure many others have...) and in this regard, believe it or not, 4E far surpasses 3E.
Turn to 4E DMG p.42. Turn to Basic DMG (1983) p.2. Turn to the back of the 1E DMG. Turn to the Back of the 2E PH for the list of secondary skills, etc., etc., etc.
And 3E was more versatile than 4E. That's because it only had 3 books out at the time versus 3E's whole line.
Do yourself a favor as a DM, try converting one each of BECMI, 1E, 2E module to 3E. Then try the same for 4E. Then tell me which was harder to do and took more time yet captured less of the flavor.
Plus, it's so funny how you 4E haters decry that 4E killed RP when you keep on complaining about it not having rules for this and that.
Hypocrites...
Classsic D&D was much more about the Roleplaying, than the rules and DM Fiat instead of letting Players with an arm load of books dictate to the DM how things should be. It was more about a shared world experience and less about certain classes being uber-munchin-ized to dominated and hog all of the spotlight (I know, I have DM'd/Played in all editions of D&D; like I'm sure many others have...) and in this regard, believe it or not, 4E far surpasses 3E.
When exactly was this?
You admit yourself in your post that D&D has always been bogged down in endless subsystems and loopholes that allow players to create abusive characters.
"Classic" is a term used for something that came before. Classic is not really meant to be a term for an idealized version that never actually existed (although it can be used like this tend to naustalgia causing people to forget how bad some old things were).
D&D started off as a spin-off of a model wargame that was meant to simulate battles in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings world. And everything bad and nasty and nonRP-y about Wargames existed in D&D from day 1.
Squidyak said:
So it's pretty obvious by the above quote you are stating that all editions of D&D, except 4E, are classic.
This is completely bunk.
You talk about 1E and 2E, but it's seems you're more mad (have negative feelings toward) the fact that they are no longer producing 3E stuff.
And BTW, 3E isn't Classic D&D. I like 3E, but it isn't Classic. 3E was a big departure from 2E and that's one of the reasons I liked it. I liked the "always roll high", task resolution. I liked the fact that 3E didn't have 1E & 2E, "all abilities use a different chart for modifiers". I liked that multiclassing was more balanced then previous incarnations. I liked 3E so much I promoted to my friends and got game stores in 2 different states to run it. But, it's not Classic.
Stoping the game to look up a rule on how to wipe your keister isn't Classic.
Classic, as in not the current version. 3e became classic when 4e came out. 4e will become classic when 5e came out. Classic as in one popular usage of the word. As of right now, yes, all editions other than 4e are classic. And I don't remember ever having to look up a rule on how to wipe my keister, I'm pretty sure it's not in there. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there was some rule buried somewhere in some 1e book. Perhaps the Wilderness Survival guide.
3E was good, but it later became too bogged down in it's rules systems and subsystems.
I agree. I was pleased when I initially heard they were making 4e. I didn't become displeased until the details started leaking out.
Classsic D&D was much more about the Roleplaying, than the rules and DM Fiat instead of letting Players with an arm load of books dictate to the DM how things should be. It was more about a shared world experience and less about certain classes being uber-munchin-ized to dominated and hog all of the spotlight (I know, I have DM'd/Played in all editions of D&D; like I'm sure many others have...) and in this regard, believe it or not, 4E far surpasses 3E.
I'll have to take your word on that. I was too disappointed in 4e to actually try playing it. If I ever end up absolutely unable to play any other game, I probably will. What you're describing sounds to be more an issue of the players than the systems though. And spellcasters were always more powerful than non-casters, its just that 3e compounded the problem by removing restrictions on casting and the players seemed to concentrate more on the unbalance. People in the old days were fine playing a 15th level fighter even though they new the party mage could easily annihilate him. My advice in all editions is to simply stay away from the munchkins and that problem would go away.
Turn to 4E DMG p.42. Turn to Basic DMG (1983) p.2. Turn to the back of the 1E DMG. Turn to the Back of the 2E PH for the list of secondary skills, etc., etc., etc.
I honestly don't know what you're saying here.
And 3E was more versatile than 4E. That's because it only had 3 books out at the time versus 3E's whole line.
Uh, no. You can cover a lot more ground with just the initial release of 3e than you can with the initial release of 4e. The system itself is more versatile. All the releases in the world never made 3e more versatile than GURPS, because GURPS is more versatile by nature.
Do yourself a favor as a DM, try converting one each of BECMI, 1E, 2E module to 3E. Then try the same for 4E. Then tell me which was harder to do and took more time yet captured less of the flavor.
I've done it many times, not hard in 3e at all. Now try converting a Fighter 4/Mage 3 from 2e to 4e. Good luck.
Plus, it's so funny how you 4E haters decry that 4E killed RP when you keep on complaining about it not having rules for this and that.
Hypocrites...
Sounds like you have a lot of hate in you, take a breath and stop with the name calling. 4e didn't kill RP'ing, however it does appeal more to those who role-play less. It is now a miniatures game with role-playing aspects. This isn't completely 4e's fault, the trend began in 3e with the push to use a combat maps for every encounter. 4e took that problem even further by making the combat grid absolutely essential to the game and pretty much throwing out almost all the rules that didn't apply directly to combat. Don't need craft skills, because you don't fight with gemcutting. This was probably a wise business decision by WotC because they made so much money with miniatures.
My main problem with some responses, and the only reason I responded, was the claims that 4e was simply better than 3e in every way and everyone who hasn't switched over is just to stubborn to admit how great 4e is and that we'll eventually come around. Not going to happen, 3e simply fits my style of gameplay (and is more easily adapted to my game world) than is 4e. Maybe 5e will be even better than 3e, but I'm sticking to the game I like for now.
The original poster's point that WotC might make some money off of an occasional earlier edition release is a valid one. I think 3 or 4 times a year might be a bit much. Perhaps 1 or 2 per year available online would be much more cost effective. It might make a little money and would be great from a PR perspective, keeping what would be former customers current customers for the few years until 5e is released. It's an established fact that it's better business to keep an existing customer than to get a new one.
Well, there's a few things with this:
snip
It's not just RPGs either. This is why we don't see new games for the Nintendo Entertainment system, the Sega Genesis, or the PS1.
I think Dragon9 has a good point and a good example.
I also don't think that even if shelved products exist they would be near completion. If they had a book ready to print they would have done so.
Or, they are re-using the shelved material and they are adapting it to 4th.
4e didn't kill RP'ing, however it does appeal more to those who role-play less.
Could not disagree more with this. My games can go sessions without a die roll. 4e is my system of choice.
Look... There are many reasons a title may have been shelved rather than be published in a traditional format.
Maybe there wasn't enough material to warrant publishing it. No problem there if it's sold as a PDF or POD. A lot of companies, Ronin Arts most notably, have been wildly successful selling 3 to 5 page PDF supplements. If there's a book of dangerous plants that only has 80-some pages, then there was no reason to look to printing it until someone fluffed it up. But I would have no problem paying 20 or so dollars for a POD of The Portfolio of Predatory Plants even at only 80 pages if the content were solid.
Maybe the market niche was too small. While a book on how to develop your own campaign worlds SOUNDS like a winner, most DM's don't really have the time to devote to that. And since players who don't DM have no need for such a supplement, and therefore wouldn't buy it, they never felt it would sell enough to bother producing it. Not a problem with PDFs or PODs.
Maybe market trends changed before completion of the title. With all those creative minds working so hard to complete the current projects, there are bound to be creative blocks around the Wizards office now and then. Taking an hour or two off the main project and adding to these uncompleted works seems to me like a good way to clear the current mental blockade but still be productive. ... Or they could have interns work on fleshing out the incomplete stuff to help them develop the skills needed for more front-end projects.
I guess I don't see the above arguments against this idea as all that strong. Heck, half of them have been more upset that it wouldn't be THEIR edition being produced. But honestly, it's been a year, and would take a few months longer to even realistically offer such products, meaning that they would be selling to those who refused to change their game system after a year and a half. How much more time would it take to know that these folks aren't changing over? It's been almost 10 years and the 2nd EDers haven't switched, though the ones I know would love a chance to buy products for their game. I would love to hear more opinions on this that don't include "But it would take some shine off of MY edition"
.Could not disagree more with this. My games can go sessions without a die roll. 4e is my system of choice.
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd say that it's the party, not the edition, that determines the level of roleplaying in a campaign.
Maybe the market niche was too small.
if it was too small when that edtion was king, why when it is a smaller group would it magicly become more profitble???
Not a problem with PDFs or PODs.
WotC doesn't sell eaither...they find them unprofitable...
I guess I don't see the above arguments against this idea as all that strong. Heck, half of them have been more upset that it wouldn't be THEIR edition being produced.
WotC feels the same way, why publish something not for 'their' edtion???
But honestly, it's been a year, and would take a few months longer to even realistically offer such products, meaning that they would be selling to those who refused to change their game system after a year and a half. How much more time would it take to know that these folks aren't changing over?
Once again you ignore basic supply and demand...4e has more demeand then any previus edtion, if 1e had more demeand guess what WotC would be makeing???
They use there limited resources to the best of there ability...
they can make 1 book per month, so 12 per year (More or less)...they can eaither sell 12 books at the max potential (4e) or 11 books at max and 1 at max-x....why would they want to sell less??? remember the mony to work on any project (Inless you beilve they have fully finished ones...witch there is no support for that belife) comes out of the same budget...
It's been almost 10 years and the 2nd EDers haven't switched, though the ones I know would love a chance to buy products for their game.
yes on avrage X% of players stay behind with each edtion change, they are lost sales, but they are not enough to support the line...
I would love to hear more opinions on this that don't include "But it would take some shine off of MY edition"
how about it is not profitable...it is easier and cheaper to keep everyone on the same edtion, and to sell one edtion at a time...
why spend more time and money to make less profit???
That aside, in terms of practicality, I do not see where they would release older edition supplements. I think it would be nice, but only really profitable if it was done in pdf form...as it would be a heck of a lot cheaper that way. It would not take much in the way of resources at all to do, however its not really something a business would do. This is of course going with the notion of re-releasing older supplements first off. Making new supplements for old editions...still would not take too terribly much in terms of resources however, the issue does boil down to your audience. There are quite a few die hards of each edition I am sure, but your talking about small amounts of profits from each category, which though if it were me, profit is profit, is a bit much to keep track of for a large company that finds itself busy with quite a few things. A company will only maximize its profits to a point. Could they make more money doing this yes, but is it worth the trouble for a profit from a very unique audience...that is really hard to gauge.
Each edition has its good and bad points, which is why i dont mind running all of them, and though i personally would be interested in pdfs for any given edition, I could not say for certain that my feelings would match a ton of other people. At least not enough to justify the time making the pdfs for the older stuff. Another drawback even with the pdfs from profits does come from downloading in general. I'm sure initial profits of old supplements might catch attention of old gamers, but how many would pay for the pdf. Once a few people have paid for it, there isn't too terribly much in the way of others just getting a copy off of them.
All in all I'm sure it would be nice for nastalgia sake, I think it could be profitable, but not as much as one might think, and therefore not very practical. Now I could be incredibly wrong, and feel free to correct me, especially as I am running on day 5 without sleep here...stupid owls...but those are my thoughts on the matter.
No 4e does not do everything better than earlier editions. 1st edition still has the best wilderness rules of any edition, though most of those rules are easily ported. And 3e is far more versatile than 4e.
3.5 edition has more versatility because it sacrifices all the balancing factors that the previous editions had and makes no real attempt to scale the class powers/abilities according to Character Level.
So a 20th level character with 5 levels each of Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Shadowdancer only has 5 level power scale for everything he uses.
Then the single classes were either lame (Bard) or took over the game with "unlimited power" (Druid and Wizard)
This new 4th edition returned to the previous scales, but still doesn't have the silly restrictions based on race.
This new 4th edition returned to the previous scales, but still doesn't have the silly restrictions based on race.
Or alignment.
Several people I know who were unable to purchase this book or that module 20 years ago would pay a premium to get their hands on these products today.
So why don't you take the time to introduce these people to the internet?
There's not a D&D product ever made that I can't track down & have shipped right to my door.
A few are harder to find/cost more. But everything else? There's someone out there selling it at reasonable prices....
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd say that it's the party, not the edition, that determines the level of roleplaying in a campaign.
This wins.
I personally never played 1st edition. I played quite a bit of second, quite a bit of 3rd (and 3.5) and 4E.
Chris Youngs tells me to tell people that think 4E skimps on role-playing to check out this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/2009August
I'd link it, but I don't do it enough to remember how and I'm having a lazy day. Hopefully Chris will get a chuckle out of that.
Anyway, I loved 3.5. It had it's problems, as 2nd edition did, as 4th edition will have as time goes on. I'd love to think 4E will be bug proof, but you can't please everyone all the time. It would be cool to see an "Old module, book, setting, etc." but there are multiple problems with this. So to the dude(s)/dudette(s) wanting to know why this can't happen.
1) The site and the company is set on one edition. As stated before, it would be non-profitable.
2) Edition confusion. I don't know how many times I've said "5 foot step" instead of "shift." It's the same dang thing. But each edition has it's lingo that can squeak through when writing. It's like when I DM'ed 4E for the first 5 months and my monsters would move; I'd count the feet they could move as in "5, 10, 15, 25 (since he moved two diagonals), 30, attack." My players would look at me and say, 4E, not 3.5. "Oh, well he moved 5 squares then. Attack." I can believe the nightmares of interchanging words (shifting in 4E, compared to a shifter "shifting" in 3.5/grapple-grab/cast-invoke, etc.) in the edition rules. Maybe they're better at that than I am. Maybe other players are. I'm not. That's MY suggestion.
3) There are other companies that are producing stuff for 3E/3.5. Look at the sponsors for GenCon. Go to their sites. Enjoy.
4) I'm sure if you google, you can find homebrew 1/2E stuff that is expanded on. If not, start a company and see how profitable it is for you and you can see firsthand if it's worth the work.
5) Limited time. Ever work hard to write a story? Ever hit that writer's block? There are some talented guys and gals working for WOTC. Like an artist, sometimes their stuff just isn't as good; but sometimes, it's awesome. I don't think you understand how much stuff goes into creating a book. I think it'd be a nice article for WOTC to put out on the making of....a sourcebook. It might give people an idea of pitfalls that can occur. It's not like they have a topic and produce a book in a week, they have to schedule Art, research the market, have meetings regarding these things since they have to answer to Hasbro, and another big one-
6) Advertising. What are they going to do, put a special alert on the website that they are planning on releasing a 2nd edition guide to deserts as a pop up screen? To the main audience, the 4E crowd? What percentage of older edition players do you think comes to the site? It's probably 90-95% 4E players. Thats millions. Aside from nostalgia, why would they buy it? It can't help the 4E game. Some people might come to the site to check out what WOTC is up to. Sure there's the free stuff, but more than 50% of the content on the site is on Insider. I guess there's the option to come on the 4E forums and complain that there isn't any support for older editions? Seriously.
7) Money. We are in a recession. Maybe coming out of it now. Let's not even discuss how much money WOTC would LOSE in making such a book, since they sell their copies for waaaay under what we pay (shipping, marketing, advertising, printing). But how many significant others are willing to say, "yep honey, you can spend $40 bucks on that item you won't use. We'll just eat Ramen Noodles all week for dinner."
Is that enough? Someone mentioned PDFs. I want PDFs too. I also want my books to be delivered to me 2 weeks before the release date, in perfect condition, for free. But that isn't happening. In fact, I may even pay full price for a book that isn't in perfect condition, 3 weeks after the release date.
I dunno. Like my quoted guy, the party and the DM makes the RPing. Not the edition. Sure, rules can make things challenging. Don't like it? Throw it out! Problem done. I've played great games with 2E, 3E, 3.5, and 4E. I've also played some stinkers for all of those editions; DMing, and playing. My reason for loving the game? It's an interactive storytelling game that you can share with friends, laugh, feel emotions with your characters, and kill some bad guys. Chris mentioned in the article that there are skill challenges which tries to integrate mechanics and role-playing. Don't like it? Then JUST ROLE PLAY. Nowhere does it say in the books that you will die, ruin the game, never go up in level, or whatever if you skip the skill challenges. There are no rules for role-playing. So how does an edition stop or hinder it? I'd really like to hear examples.
BTW what in hell is a POD? I get PDF but I'm not enough of a geek to have heard of the other.
Print on Demand...small companies do it to save overhead, instead of buying 200,000 at a discount they make you pay to print 1...it is a way of spreading out the cost to save overhead.
In general you fins companies make less on POD then bulk order prints...so again it is just less profit