Art Recycling

[Jadeite]

Am I the only one annoyed by the fact that about every 4E book reuses some art published in previous works? While this also happened in 3.5, especially with the Rules Compendium and, to a lesser degree, the Magic Item Compendium, it seems to me that it has gotten worth. Keep on the Shadowfell even reused maps from earlier products.
The 4E Monster Manual probably had the most reused art, but even new releases like Open Graves seems to have its share of art from Libris Mortis.
While I acknowledge that the art they reuse is quite good, most of it being Wayne Reynolds art, it nonetheless feels rather cheap to me.

 

[Mokona]

A full page of art costs over $500 with most pieces coming in at 1/4 page or 1/2 page illustrations. So if a book is 10% art then 160 page book had 16 pages of art and costs $8,000 in art costs. So if Wizards of the Coast reuses art they can save about $150 per piece of recycled art.

 

[Dire Bare]

A full page of art costs over $500 with most pieces coming in at 1/4 page or 1/2 page illustrations. So if a book is 10% art then 160 page book had 16 pages of art and costs $8,000 in art costs. So if Wizards of the Coast reuses art they can save about $150 per piece of recycled art.

Well, yes, they do it to save money. I don't think that's in dispute.

It's still reeks of cheapness and it drives me nutty too. I'll forgive the occasional reuse of an amazing picture that is just perfect for the subject (like reusing an amazing picture of Tiamat to illustrate . . . Tiamat), or the reuse of B&W filler pieces (like the famous boot from 3rd Ed that appeared in a bunch of books) . . . but when your old art stock simply becomes "clip art" because some suit is too cheap to devote a proper art budget to a new book . . . it makes me angry as a fan and collector.

There's worse things to get upset about of course, but I am not a fan of recycled art.

 

[wedgeski]

No it doesn't bother me that much. I don't have a very complete 3.5 collection so most times I only know about it from posts here.

I am noticing a tendency for the amount of art to decrease, though. Not only was some of the artwork in MotP pretty bland, but there didn't seem to be an awful lot of it.

 

[Shemeska]

Given how much artwork they're recycling lately -literally every single book- I can only ask "why in the hell?". It makes them look cheap, it lowers production values of the books, and it risks people being turned off of the books in the first place. Is the minor amount of cash WotC saves by recycling a handful of pictures per book actually enough to be relevant? And if it's relevant, are they in such poor shape that they're that desperate to save cash?

 

[Beginning of the End]

I couldn't agree more.

On a similar note, have you seen the new edition of Monopoly? They just keep reusing the same artwork on the board every single time. Incredibly cheap. I can't believe that they'd risk turning customers off of the game like this.

 

[delericho]

It doesn't bother me. I don't buy RPG books for the art.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Please excuse the pun but WotC might have painted themselves into a corner. Since they have recycled art so far, imagine that they then chose to go fully original in the next book. And then everyone sees the sucky art on a particular McGuffin and wonders why they didn't just recycle the excellent art of 3.x's McGuffin. Because of the route they have taken, they will be damned whichever way they choose at the next crossroads.

I suppose in the end, if you have an excellent piece of art that does what you want it to, it would seem foolish to recommission the subject. As long as the art is excellent I don't mind. Recycling average art however should be a big no no.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[wedgeski]

Is the minor amount of cash WotC saves by recycling a handful of pictures per book actually enough to be relevant?

Obviously it is, why else would they do it? I doubt the art bill of your average Wizards-level RPG book is 'minor'.

It might just be a simple numbers game. How many people are legitimately put off buying a book with recycled art, even if they might otherwise be interested in it? May be a good poll, if one hasn't already been done.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Good art is nice, but it's not why I buy an RPG.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure why people want completely new art in every book, myself. It seems like a such a minor thing to me. Heck, there's SO much art out there in various books that I usually dont recognise it as being recycled unless the original stood out as noticeable, and any art that noticeable probably deserves to show up again anyways.