To BryonD
Hmmm. I'll try and avoid a battle of point-by-point here - life is a bit too short.
Key things - with regards my "bait and switch/changing the subject" - Lets just say I obviously see things differently than you. From my perspective, quality of a product, and potential size of the market for said productare pretty important factors in operating in a marketplace. And the ability to operate in said market is governed by the OGL or the GSL.
You believe (i think) that the GSL is an assault on said marketplace.
I (firstly) don't see it as an "assault". A change, certainly, but tbh I believe that the launch of 4e is just as big, or bigger factor.
Secondly, I believe that 3e-derived/OGL products will remain in the marketplace if they fulfil quality and market share requirements. There are certainly a number of people proclaiming their intention not to move to 4e.
An example: If GR believe that True20 is that good, and has a prospect of continuing market share, they will likely continue to publish it. So as the consumer I'm OK. If not, well I guess it wasn't that good (personally I'm of the mind that it is pretty good).
So in short, as a consumer, I believe that my requirements for 3rd party material will continue to be met by products released under the GSL, or potentially legacy 3e-compatible material (or related) under the OGL.
I should note that this is all in response to your question to me about if I would still feel the same way about the GSL in the current worst case scenario.
I know I said no point by point - I guess that was a bit of a fib.
BryonD said:
First, you are changing the subject. The point of this part of the exchange was that smaller companies can not as easily make these kinds of arrangements. Your reply doesn't in any way address that. .
Right - after a quick trawl through the posts:
Me - "Clark indicated (I think) that WotC are ok with the Necro/Paizo 4e/3e split in support. So I don't see any issues with publishers doing some sort of finessing to manage the situation."
You - "Paizo and Necromancer are stand outs in the overall 3P OGL field and do not accurately represent the overall community."
Me - "And regarding Paizo and Necromancer - well, if they are "standout" publishers, then I can receive quality products from them, so I (the consumer) win anyway?"
I don't recall mentioning smaller publishers. My view is that the higher-profile or larger publishers would probably be able to make some sort of arrangement that would be legit. I.e. publishers of quality material would continue to make their quality products available one way or another.
BryonD said:
Assume someone makes $100 a week off a product, and suddenly a $5 a week hoop-jumping expense is added. If $95 a week isn't enough to justify producing the product then the consumers lose. If the product is still viable, then the best you can say it is "only" a $5 a week harm. But it has added nothing of merit to the system.
Costs are incurred when operating with another (much larger) company? News at 11. Sorry, thats business. I don't believe that any company producing 3rd-party material based on WotC's licensed IP necessarily has a "right" to exist. You deal with the circumstances as they arise. I also don't believe that a publisher would be substantially deterred if they believed in their product enough (quality again).
BryonD said:
"a bit"?? Talk about understatements
They'll still exist under the OGL - and anything published under the GSL, well I'll have the core 4e books already, so no big deal.
Don't get me wrong - I think I understand your point of view, and it is valid (I just disagree). I would also agree that the GSL is going to cause pain to some publishers - it's just that I believe that in the end the impact to me as a consumer is not going to be nearly as substantial as you might.
Apologies for the size of the post. I have to go and baby-wrangle, so I'll check in tomorrow if you wish to continue.
Cheers