Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alzrius We have a choice; it's called the OGL. That said, I think that in this case no choice for 4E-compatible products would have been better than this monstrosity. The GSL has negative effects, by way of its restrictions, that it imposes on a company forever, far outliving its termination. |
*shrug* - only for one product line and the products. It's not like it's they're springing a trap on you. Furthermore, previously you had the choice between (for a single product/product line):
OGL and non-publishing. Now you have the choice between:
OGL, non-publishing, and
GSL-exclusive publishing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alzrius It would have been better not to offer it in the first place, since that would've solidified the OGL community more. |
Ah, you're coming from there - I could also say: The negative reaction to the
GSL solidifies the
OGL community more than ever, especially as Pathfinder, a viable alternative, is already there and can catch all people not going
GSL (which are now aggravated due to the restrictive
GSL and hence actively search an alternative!).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lizard Overall, it seems odd to me that anything which underwent such a protracted period of development -- remember, as soon as WOTC decided there would be a 4e, they had to know they'd have to do something about how the OGL with interact with it -- comes to us with so many open issues. |
Yeah, the same here. I start to think that some part of it may be due to directed effort to produce such an effect (though I cannot fathom by which parties - though I really don't think that the direct D&D team was related - Scott and Linae).
All of this could have been much better. It makes me sad, because I fear that 3rd party support for
4E will drop close to zero, where as Pathfinder will get a lot of support (which isn't bad, but a fragmentation of the D&D player base isn't exactly great, regardless how big the chunk is).
Cheers, LT.