4e / GSL WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[blargney the second]

Originally Posted by lurkinglidda

Is "opener" a word?
That's the hope.

Very very cool. Colour me happy.
-blarg

[Brown Jenkin]

Originally Posted by Alzrius

I think the most important change to make, however, is to nix the policy regarding WotC's ability to revise the GSL at will and third-parties must comply with whatever the newest version is. So long as that's in there, any other changes, no matter how beneficial, could vanish at any time.

That is the killer clause that I can see, no matter how nice they make the GSL if that clause remains all other changes are cosmetic and no matter how nice they are, those changes are at risk of disappearing just as easily.

[TerraDave]

Really. Good. News.

[Darrin Drader]

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making it friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.

[GVDammerung]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.


[gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]

And speculate as you like if it might be a late attempt to head off OGL alternatives to 4e, especially if sales thus far for 4e have been good but not up to what Hasbro expected given the investment in the edition change and its associated digital products.

[/gleeful speculation and rumor-mongering]

Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!

[Frostmarrow]

Yay! The results of a 4e search at rpgnow is all too meager.

[Phaezen]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.

Or possibly, (D) they listened to the concerns raised by the various forums and third party publishers and decided to rethink the the GSL.

From my side, I would like to extend my thanks to Linae and The Rouse for taking the listening to the role playing community on this and other issues that have been raised, we do appreciate your efforts.

Phaezen

[DaveMage]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.

Actually, I think it's more simple than that.

Scott Rouse once said (IIRC) that the number one goal with the GSL was to benefit D&D. It seems that WotC has determined, based on 3pp feedback, that the GSL as written has failed to do this.

[Orcus]

Originally Posted by Phaezen

Or possibly, (D) they listened to the concerns raised by the various forums and third party publishers and decided to rethink the the GSL.

From my side, I would like to extend my thanks to Linae and The Rouse for taking the listening to the role playing community on this and other issues that have been raised, we do appreciate your efforts.

Phaezen

I am voting for D.

I'm with you in my public support for the fight Scott and Linae have been fighting to make things happen. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, so to speak, but I remain optimistic as I have been that the needed changes and clarifications will happen. Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do.

Clark

[evilref]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.

Or maybe,

E) Individuals at WotC always wanted different aspects to the license but for whatever reason that didn't happen, those individuals have now convinced other individuals round to their way of thinking.

I get that you like to criticise WotC but given you have no idea, making statements like this is just yet another example of poor reasoning and logic.

[Darkwolf71]

Originally Posted by Whizbang Dustyboots

Cautiously optimistic here. I want my Folio of Fiends from Necromancer.

Sums it up nicely.

Here's hoping.

[bramadan]

Or, you know, they are trying to be helpful and fix something they did based on feedback...

I do not see why everything WotC does has to be interpreted (by some at least) as having some sinister ulterior motive.

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

And speculate as you like if it might be a late attempt to head off OGL alternatives to 4e, especially if sales thus far for 4e have been good but not up to what Hasbro expected given the investment in the edition change and its associated digital products.

4E would have to be a door-closing disaster for even the most successful 3rd party game of all time to be a real threat to it. You have the scales of each enterprise way, way off here.

[Orcus]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Actually, I think it's more simple than that.

Scott Rouse once said (IIRC) that the number one goal with the GSL was to benefit D&D. It seems that WotC has determined, based on 3pp feedback, that the GSL as written has failed to do this.

I agree. I think it is clear to anyone that, intentions aside, the GSL as it is now has completely failed to achieve its goals. People dont like failure. So we have revision.

I'm glad to see that my hope looks like it is coming true--I said some time ago that wouldnt it be great if the first change to the license was a good one, rather than a bad one like everyone feared. Looks like that is what is going to happen. I'm not taking them off the hook for prior bungling, but you have to take your hats off to them for even considering a change let alone making one.

Clark

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Originally Posted by GVDammerung

Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help.

Which, of course, ignores that Ryan Dancey pushed through the OGL because he felt it was the right thing to do for the company and for gamers.

There doesn't have to be a crisis for similar cool heads to prevail.

[rkwoodard]

Originally Posted by GVDammerung

Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!

I am highly doubting that 4th ed is in any type of trouble, and if it was, this would not be the remeady.

But this is really good news.

RK

[lkj]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.

How about:

D) They actually wanted active 3PP support from the beginning, and it took the lackluster performance of the first GSL to demonstrate to certain people in the company that a more open GSL was required to achieve their goal.

I don't really see how it requires 4e to be bombing. There's good reason to want 3pp support even if 4e is doing well-- more support for 4e is presumably better for D&D in the long run. On the other hand, the more restrictive a license they can convince people to sign, the more control they have over the outcome. In short, the goal is probably as restrictive a license as possible that people will still use. They missed the mark on the first pass.

They are trying again. It'll be interesting to see if they hit the sweet spot.

AD

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Orcus

I am voting for D.

I'm with you in my public support for the fight Scott and Linae have been fighting to make things happen. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, so to speak, but I remain optimistic as I have been that the needed changes and clarifications will happen. Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do.

Clark

Woohoo!!!

I also have to point out the irony of someone going by the name of Orcus working with WoTC to "fix" an "evil" contract...

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by Whizbang Dustyboots

Cautiously optimistic here.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Shemeska

One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.

I don't think it's to late. The GSL hasn't even gone live yet. I am hopeful (cautious, but hopeful nonetheless).

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by GVDammerung

Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!

Hey, play nice. Lidda has been very good about keeping an open dialogue. Lets see what the changes are before making unfounded accusations.
[teasing]Afterwards, make all the unfounded accusations you want.[/teasing]