New GSL Announcement

mxyzplk · Apr 19, 2008

lurkinglidda said:
We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.

No, not really, it says nothing relevant to this discussion. Did anyone not expect that Wizards would discontinue 3e support and do only 4e? No, of course not. However, is that supposed to make us feel happy about every other game company being compelled to forgo open gaming entirely, 3.5e based or not?

Alzrius · Apr 19, 2008

lurkinglidda said:
Heh. You got us on that one. We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but I have to wonder if maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing, if it would lead to the tossing-out of the company wide either/or clause in the GSL. Seriously, if the GSL came out at the end of 2008 without that clause in there, I honestly think it'd be worth the wait.

We understand the impacts this license will have on the 3pps, fans, community and industry in general. We respect that companies will need to make the decision that is right for them and their supporters.

I'm a cynic at heart; hearing that you understand the impact this has on them always makes me think, "you understand what this'd do to them, and then you did it anyway." I know it's meant to be a statement of sympathy, but like I said, I take it in a more cynical spirit.

As it stands right now, the various publishers, fans, etc. will make the decision that is best for them, but it's an instance of making the best of a (relatively) bad situation.

Mxyzplk said that he'd prefer the GSL not exist rather than have it exist in a way that it actively attacks the OGL. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment...but I'm not sure I disagree either.

We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.

You've mentioned this level of enthusiasm before. I confess, I'm very confused by these statements.

First, I take it for granted that you guys believe in 4E; no matter what prompted you to create Fourth Edition, I don't doubt that you've thrown yourselves behind it totally. It seems weird that you're reminding people of this. It's like if I made sure to tell people, "I trust my wife. Seriously, I believe in our marriage 100%." It'd sound a little odd that I'm so emphatically stating what people assume to already be true.

Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the context of you saying you're not doing any edition but 4E. If you mean after the launch, well, yeah, that also goes without saying. I don't think anyone ever thought that WotC would support 3.5 and 4E simultaneously.

Now, if you're referring to how - during the "transition period" from when 4E was announced last Gen Con until 4E launches - you're only supporting 4E and not 3.5 at all, that makes a little more sense. It's not entirely true (since, even now, there is some 3.5 support to be found, such as the "Epic Binders" column in e-Dragon), but it's easier to understand since, in my experience, this period usually has some level of continuing support for the existing edition. That said, it's still a bit odd to state that, since we're roughly six weeks out from 4E anyway, so of course that's what you'd be supporting.

Anyway, sorry if I come across as being a downer!

Wulf Ratbane · Apr 19, 2008

mxyzplk said:
However, is that supposed to make us feel happy about every other game company being compelled to forgo open gaming entirely, 3.5e based or not?

No one is compelling every other game company to forgo open gaming entirely unless they want to take advantage of 4e.

That being said, it does seem to be aimed rather directly at the heart of Paizo. Paizo simply can't go 4e at this point. This is a deadly serious judo throw to the Pathfinder announcement. Something's gonna die, now much sooner than later.

Tewligan · Apr 19, 2008

JohnRTroy said:
I don't think we should compare serious abuses of corporations that affect human rights and health in the world to that of a game publisher getting a little more control over their content, so can we stop the comparison to sweatshops, medical testing, war and oil companies please. Let's not trivialize the serious.

Totally agree. That was one of the stupider analogies I've seen in a pretty long time, actually.

Mouseferatu · Apr 19, 2008

Hmm...

I'll admit that when I posted earlier, I was rushed, and didn't think things through. I was thinking purely in terms of 3.5-compatible material vs. 4E-compatible material. I hadn't considered other OGL games like T20 or SotC.

So yeah, I can indeed see some reason for being irritated at the provisions of the license. I still don't believe it's in any way "evil," "immoral," or "spiteful" on WotC's part--but I'll agree with Clark that it is, indeed, unfortunate, and may result in either the loss of some cool games, or the refusal of some companies to support 4E.

Psion · Apr 19, 2008

Alzrius said:
Mxyzplk said that he'd prefer the GSL not exist rather than have it exist in a way that it actively attacks the OGL. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment...but I'm not sure I disagree either.

I certainly understand where you are coming from.

I can certainly understand that if I was working for wizards and getting a paycheck from them, that's what I'd recommend. (Maybe. I wonder if they are really recovering enough revenue to be worth it. I have to wonder if a "higher up" needed placated more than any actual dollars-and-cents issue.)

At the same time, this will affect my actual gaming in all likelihood. I sort of accepted that I wouldn't be seeing much 3e support anymore. But this could easily slash that by 1/2 or 1/3. It's about the same scope as hearing that a game line I was anticipating got canceled. But that's a pisser to me.

BryonD · Apr 19, 2008

Mouseferatu said:
I still don't believe it's in any way "evil," "immoral," or "spiteful" on WotC's part--but I'll agree with Clark that it is, indeed, unfortunate.

Evil - Nope.
Immoral - Nope.
Spiteful - I'd have to go with a big YES on that one.

But regardless of whether we agree or disagree on that, a list of bad things that it is not doesn't mean there isn't a list of bad things that it IS. Companies now must choose and the gaming community as a whole will be harmed to some degree no matter which choice is made.

If a person's desire for 4E's success completely trumps any interest in gaming as a whole, then that person should be ok with this. But if one is more interested in more than just that, it is a negative development.

Arrond Hess · Apr 19, 2008

So, what does this mean for 3rd Party companies who wish to continue 3.x and conventions? Are they not allowed to showcase and sell their 3.x material?

Alzrius · Apr 19, 2008

Arrond Hess said:
So, what does this mean for 3rd Party companies who wish to continue 3.x and conventions? Are they not allowed to showcase and sell their 3.x material?

They can continue to showcase and sell 3.x materials (save that they must remove the d20 logo from products they're still selling by the end of the year)...unless they use the GSL. If they use the GSL, then they won't be allowed to showcase/sell 3.x materials anymore (in theory, they could publish OGL materials after using the GSL, but that'd almost certainly carry some sort of penalty).

Lizard · Apr 19, 2008

lurkinglidda said:
We totally believe in 4E. We're not doing any edition but 4E. We are so thoroughly behind it we are giving it 100% of our support. That says something.

The problem is, as I see it, that you're asking everyone ELSE to give it 100% of their support.

To put it into perspective -- supposed the original OGL had this "all of nothing" stipulation. Would White Wolf have dumped their dice pool system to support the Sword&Sorcery line? Would Atlas Games have given up on Ars Magica?

(For that matter, I find it interesting that, in theory, White Wolf could make both 4e products under the GSL and their current World of Darkness products, but not 3x products (not that they're likely to...))

I would think this license would discourage companies from 'testing the waters' with 4e with a few products before committing resources, and thus encourage support by allowing a gradual transition. I think saying "All or nothing" will lead to a lot of companies to say "Fine, nothing, then. How's that Pathfinder Beta coming along?" But I also recognize and respect your job is to know this stuff, do the research, and draw the conclusions, so you might have access to data I don't. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

(I also see a niche for a general D20 publisher to become a 'clearinghouse' for 3x products produced by companies which want to do 4e. The products would be 'published' by this hypothetical company, which might have a strong core of OGL product and no concern for moving to 4e, taking only a modest fee in exchange for 'fronting' product. Offhand, I can think of two publishers whose business plans this might fit. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but if I can think of it, so can anyone else.)

Interesting times.

Of course, I'm going to guess the license will have a "No shenanigans" clause, and the right of WOTC to pull it from any publisher trying to do an 'end run' around the spirit of the rule via dual companies, third party fronts, other other means.