New GSL Announcement

S'mon said:

and in breach of contract re the GSL.

Click to expand...

So they are taking this 100% support seriously then. I have heard of 100% support compliant boutiques but it is the first time I see it in publishing. At this point I start wondering about their intentions. It is not protection of their investment anymore. It is aggressive market competition.

mxyzplk said:

You can't copyright game mechanics, so you don't have to change from using a d20. All you have to do is:

Click to expand...

I know mechanics can't be copyrighted, I was just thinking any extra "see we're not using your stuff" couldn't hurt Besides, my % dice are getting lonely

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. .

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

La Bete said:

Not sure if the "nerd rage" comment is called for - there are some people here who's livelyhoods we are talking about. Also some people with perfectly rational beliefs - just ones that you (and I) disagree with.

Click to expand...

Yeah, people like you and me. I'm a publisher and a consumer. I didn't single anyone out or mean anything derogatory by saying that. People have a right to be angry at the situation, but people don't have a right to make personal attacks or act like jerks as they have been.

BSF said:

OK, allow me to bring up yet another factor here. What about games that were released under the OGL, but were never actually derivitave of D20? As Gareth-Michael Skarka has asked earlier, why does Adamant Entertainment have to choose between supporting Spirit of the Century and D&D 4? The OGL license was put out there for anybody to use, much like the GPL was in software circles.

Click to expand...

I know Gareth mentioned this a few times. The only reason why I didn't bring it up is because I think it was just something they hadn't considered and I feel like it'll be addressed. I highly doubt that they would have issues with a company publishing products for both Fudge and 4th Edition for instance. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it'll be an issue when the final license comes.

Goobermunch said:

I'm not sure what you're asking here.


--G

Click to expand...

I think I have covered you in the subsequent posts, no?

La Bete said:

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).

Click to expand...

You seem to completely disregard the fact that GR might want to publish 4e accessories under the GSL as well. If they decide to do that they will need to drop their True20 no matter how good it is.

That's why quality of product is only secondary. The terms of the GSL is this primary thing.

xechnao said:

I think I have covered you in the subsequent posts, no?

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I think S'mon has answered your question. For works that were released under the OGL, but are in no way derivative of 3.xe, I think a publisher might be able to release under a different sort of open license and not run afoul of the GSL. Of course, this is entirely dependent on the terms of the GSL.

--G

Ok, now I have had time to calm down, I realized what I posted before was poorly thought out and in some cases wrong. I apologize.

I will say this, though. WotC DOES own the OGL. Pull out any OGL book and read it. Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast. However, what they can't do is recall it, or force publishers to use a different version, and so on. But they do own it.

As far as open gaming, I wasn't talking about other companies releasing trademark licenses like Green Ronin's True20 STL, or the d20 STL. A lot of companies use trademark licenses, which I think is cool, but it doesn't mean their system is open to the degree that D&D 3.5 is, which was the point I was trying to make.

I was talking about a true OGL, where anyone can publish any content from your system. I was mistaken in that there are some systems that have joined the OGL that I wasn't aware of. Fudge, for example, is now using the OGL (and not just a trademark license which it also has akin to WotC) and I didn't know that. So I was wrong about that.

But some of my point still stands. For example, when you can point to a fan site not associated with Green Ronin that republishes ALL the mechanics from True20, or M&M, including power points and hero points (which are NOT open), then I will admit those systems are truly open.

And for Pathfinder, as long as I can only download branded PDFs from Paizo's site, I don't agree that Pathfinder is open. When Pathfinder is released, I'll read their designation of IP. If it would be possible for a fan to publish a website with the ENTIRE Pathfinder system using the OGL (obviously minus Golarion IP and the Pathfinder trademark) then I'll admit that it is truly open.

Basically my definition of an open game, is whether I can use your entire engine (without select elements like character creation stripped out of it) in order to publish a standalone product or website that does not in any way require a product from you.

WotC has generously done this (and a few other publishers as well), but most have not. A lot of publishers just use a trademark license, just like WotC has done with the d20 STL, and just like WotC will do with the GSL. And thats fine. Yet, WotC seems to be unfairly criticized when they do what other publishers do. That's what drives me nuts.

Now, I do think that requiring publishers to completely drop all use of the OGL in order to publish under the GSL is unduly harsh. And if I was a company like Green Ronin, I wouldn't do it. But, I also think that its WotC's ball that everyone wants to play with, and if those are the terms they set, then so be it. If you don't like it, then don't use the GSL. Hopefully, WotC will lighten up on that requirement, but I'm just thankful that 4e is open at all.

S'mon said:

Wisdom

Click to expand...

Agree fully - that gels with my understanding. To paraphrase Orcus when he has commented on this subject in the past: "If it's your money - get a lawyer before you do anything"


With regards your other post (tinfoilhattery) - While I do certainly accept the potential pitfalls for a licensee under the GSL, to a lesser degree I believe that any company who's business is dependent (or symbiotic) on another businesses activities, should be prepared for major game-changing events at any time (case in point 3.5).

My main quibble was your choice of example, which I felt was unnecessarily inflammatory (try saying that six times quickly). Legally accurate though, so I'm happy to concede the point.

Oldtimer said:

You seem to completely disregard the fact that GR might want to publish 4e accessories under the GSL as well. If they decide to do that they will need to drop their True20 no matter how good it is.

That's why quality of product is only secondary. The terms of the GSL is this primary thing.

Click to expand...

I was going.. honestly...

Quite correct. I disregard that fact becuase I don't really care. GR can bring whatever products to market they wish - based on the market they work in. I imagine they would make said decision based on what would bring them the most cash (short and long term). They're businesspeople, I'm sure they are more than capable of dealing with it.

And if they come up with kickass 4e product and still want to produce True20? They're smart cookies, I'm sure that said product would make it's way to the market somehow - if the quality was high enough and the demand strong enough.