If you can link the quote to which you're referring, I'd like to see it. My understanding was that the business of company-wide restrictions was a misunderstanding that was later clarified, not an actual part of the license that was later revised.
Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)
If you can link the quote to which you're referring, I'd like to see it. My understanding was that the business of company-wide restrictions was a misunderstanding that was later clarified, not an actual part of the license that was later revised.
RedShirtNo5
First Post
Sadly, I also lack boardsearch.
"Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee."
Q&A #2. http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-215976.html
Here's a few links.
It's interesting that the official WOTC press release from 1/8/08 says the opposite of what RedShirt quoted from a conference call the same day. In this release, you pay $5000 for access to the "Kit" and the "Kit" includes the license (called OGL at the time):
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a
Here's the news updates from when the "poison pill" was first announced around 4/19/08. Clark Peterson wrote "It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice... By the way, this info was from Wizards." And WOTC went many days avoiding official comment on the issue, before finally coming out with different information. In the meantime, Scott Rouse was scrupulously careful to say things like "From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.":
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=224217
It's interesting that the official WOTC press release from 1/8/08 says the opposite of what RedShirt quoted from a conference call the same day. In this release, you pay $5000 for access to the "Kit" and the "Kit" includes the license (called OGL at the time):
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a
Here's the news updates from when the "poison pill" was first announced around 4/19/08. Clark Peterson wrote "It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice... By the way, this info was from Wizards." And WOTC went many days avoiding official comment on the issue, before finally coming out with different information. In the meantime, Scott Rouse was scrupulously careful to say things like "From my personal perspective asking them to rewrite the history books and wipe out their catalog does not sit well with me.":
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=224217
Teflon Billy
Explorer
I can't see how this makes any difference to me at all.
As long as Green Ronin continues producing M&M, ASoIaF and the odd long-shot project (Black Company, Red Star etc.) they will still be getting the lion's share of my gaming dollar.
In fact, it won't even be close.
As long as Green Ronin continues producing M&M, ASoIaF and the odd long-shot project (Black Company, Red Star etc.) they will still be getting the lion's share of my gaming dollar.
In fact, it won't even be close.
So in other words, we have only a secondhand report from someone who, while a pretty smart guy, could have been misinterpreting what he was hearing. So there is, contrary to what you said earlier, nothing from WotC directly saying the poison pill ever existed? I just want to be clear on this.
Now that I look, that doesn't actually say you need to pay before actually seeing the license.
CharlesRyan
Adventurer
To be clear here: I can only speak for my own thoughts on the topic, now and when I was running the brand. Any discussion about what WotC cares or thinks about now is pure speculation.
That said, as to why they might care about competition: They don't, as I said. What they care about is a marketplace full of interesting products that excite the consumer and the sales channel. If there are 10 products released this month, everyone benefits if they are 10 different, interesting, exciting products. If, instead, they are 10 versions of the same splatbook, everyone loses. Consumers get a confusing, unexciting range of options, retailers and distributors have to make difficult and often arbitrary decisions on which products to support, and all this leads to piles of dead stock in the channels which affects WotC's marketplace.
I made the comments Nicole brought up in reference to WotC's decision to get back into the adventure publishing business. At the time there was great demand for adventures, but only a couple 3PP were publishing them, whereas dozens of 3PPs were making harcover splatbooks, often on the same sorts of topics WotC was covering, often even cloning the WotC look and feel. Some of those books were real gems, to be sure--I own many a 3PP d20 book--but they were drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Since the 3PPs (I'm generalizing here) were not innovating or focusing on the opportunities in the marketplace, WotC changed course and re-entered the adventure business, along the way innovating with new adventure formats and product types.
You certainly can't do it if you're chasing other people's successes and failing to respond to the needs of the marketplace.
CharlesRyan
Adventurer
Oh, please.
CharlesRyan
Adventurer
I didn't say a thing about this. I said the GSL is more restrictive, and as a result fewer companies are adopting it, and as a result of that there's less likely to be a glut of ill-conceived product.
Absolutely nothing one way or the other. The only "evidence" is that Orcus's comments created a big internet storm, which WotC could have defused with one word, and they chose not to do so.
As for Orcus misinterpreting what he was hearing, no way. It was and is a subject close to his heart, and he made sure the WotC guy was saying what he thought he was saying.
Either the unnamed person Orcus spoke to made a mistake, or WotC changed their minds.
Similar Threads
