Alphastream
Adventurer
Most would admit that the RPG industry is largely populated by labors of love on top of fundamentally flawed business models. Just because only one strong RPG company has risen due to the OGL does not mean others cannot do so. And, clearly a single one can be a risk.
We can look at it lots of ways. Without an OGL, no Pathfinder. Yes, Paizo has risen due to excellent quality and vision and skilled industry/Wotc employees. But the OGL is what allows them to sell 3.75, where .25 or less (we can argue the percentage, of course) is from another company that sees nothing for all those sales. That's a model that is very risky and really requires a specific approach to work. In this specific case, it's a model flawed in several basic ways. It requires you to always want to make money off of core books. That isn't a given truth in the digital age, where publishing costs could vary substantially. DDI isn't perfect, but it suggests tweaks where the published book could really be of less value than the additive products, subscriptions, and the like. Let alone that we can now see how you end up not gaining core sales when other companies make their own core books - this undoes one of the fundamental theoretical benefits of the model.
Additionally, the model requires that you stay on one edition. There are many reasons why that isn't likely/desirable over time. As we see from OSRIC, even editions you think no one would play end up being a possible risk.
I love Eclipse Phase by Posthuman Studios and their open gaming license and how they even seed their own torrents. Fantastic model... for a small company and that kind of game. It would not be a good one for a larger company with a product that is a valuable brand.
While I respect you and I'm sure we would have fun at the table together, I can't disagree with you enough. WotC was having real problems moving product at the end of 3.5's life cycle and the fan base had been clear about how little they like .x versions. The truth is that only an outside company could get away with doing what would be labeled as "taking the same product and making minor changes and then repackaging it yet again".
In any edition we see people that don't want to move on. We see it now, with 4E fans and D&D Next. Paizo will see it at some point when they make a new version. The OGL makes it so you can't move forward without tremendous risk. The edition wars speaks to the problem of sustaining previous editions, especially when those editions were excellent. 3E was an excellent edition, but many of us tired of it. 4E is an excellent edition, but it didn't please everyone. Welcome to life... except the OGL allowed you to have both. That's terrible for the company that wants to move forward. Thus, it can be a terrible strategy if you want to be able to make an edition now and a new one later. It's a great strategy if you just want to sell core books and an excellent strategy if you are a small company.
Objectively, companies should be able to move forward. Paizo should be able to make the next game they want, and so should Wizards and every other company. They shouldn't create agreements or licenses where their old edition compete against them or allow others to repackage that edition and compete against them without profit in return.
It is very hard to find a company of WotC's size that doesn't lay people off. While the threat of a layoff resulting in competition is always possible, so are the benefits of laying off some staff while retaining the best.
Discussion of layoffs often seem to me to be some strange form of edition wars security blanket, as if it is a way to confirm WotC is evil. But that could not be further from the truth. Look at the people laid off: often they come back to work for Wizards. In the near term they are often still in good graces with WotC and we see WotC employees still hanging out and playing D&D with the ex-employees.
The most likely situation is this: WotC hires the best they can find. They promote people to new opportunities, sometimes rapidly (rather than the more typical approach of not doing so). This gives employees an opportunity to excel, but also to fail. When budget results come across, it can mean those that were promoted but did not do well are laid off. However, they receive a good severance package and opportunities for a return both exist and happen regularly.
Could it be better? Very likely. I know a lot of people that deal with these kinds of organizational issues, and it depends on the company. I don't know enough about WotC to say. I just know that those laid off seem reasonably understanding of the situation, everyone stays amicable, and many return. Not only is that not the sign of evil, it is better than what I see at many companies. Importantly, Wizards continues to bring in fantastic talent. You can't read their articles without being impressed by the quality of the personnel. And the same goes for meeting them in person. The model of layoffs isn't scaring off top talent from joining them.
Not only is that not accurate, it is not a correct view point. If you can stay friendly but competitive, everyone wins. This goes back to my original question: are you being objective?
If you want a strong RPG industry, you want great people working at one company and then going to another. You want Monte to work at Wizards, then go off and influence other companies, then work with Pathfinder, then to come back to Wizards. You want this kind of talent movement, including from Paizo to Wizards (Chris Sims is a great example that worked as a freelancer for Paizo and now works (again) full-time for Wizards). That's what takes the best practices from one place and the innovations from another and combines them.
You want companies to use models that encourage other companies to be involved. On that level, I like the OGL. But, you also want fairness and reality. You don't want a glut of low-quality d20 in stores. You don't want a company to create a game and see another company make a lot of money off of them without giving any back. You don't want monopolies either (that's why everything from Tunnels and Trolls to Shadowrun to Vampire to Pathfinder are so important). But, you don't want the monopolies to solely be broken up by clones - especially clones that don't profit the original creator. You want big innovation - new thinking to keep the industry growing rather than ratcheting slowly.
Can an OGL work? Sure, in some form. Is it clear how to do so? Not at all. Is it a no-brainer that WotC should have an OGL right now for a game they say they are 1/3rd of the way through creating? Let's go with what provides us maximum flexibility and minimum risk: the opposite.
