Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)

[CharlesRyan]

I also don't really believe that there was a glut of d20 materials.

At Gen Con and Origins the past 2 or 3 years, there have been multiple stands selling stacks and stacks of RPG product, predominately d20 product, predominately hardcover product, at 3-for-1 or 75% off or other deep-discount prices.

Huge inventories have been landfilled by the 40+% of game shops that have gone out of business over the past 5 years, the multiple distributorships that have closed, and the many, many publishers that shut their doors while still holding pallets of products in their garages.

The d20 phenomenon generated sales of untold thousands of books by many publishers. But for every book sold, there was another that entered the channel but was never purchased by a consumer. The money spent by the publisher, distributor, or retailer on that book was effectively a "tax" on the d20 phenomenon--money spent that generated no return.

Imagine the state of our industry if the publishers, distributors, and retailers had made all the profit from all the books that were sold, without having that profit sucked up by all the books that didn't sell! It's that potential that a more restrictive open license might achieve. The GSL might or might not prove effective in that regard--we'll all just have to wait and see!

 

[Fenes]

Imagine the state of our industry if the publishers, distributors, and retailers had made all the profit from all the books that were sold, without having that profit sucked up by all the books that didn't sell! It's that potential that a more restrictive open license might achieve. The GSL might or might not prove effective in that regard--we'll all just have to wait and see!

I imagine an industry where the products are mainly sold as PDFs.

 

[Steely Dan]

I liked Dragonfist, but aside from that, after all these years with this game, I have no interest in anything much aside from the PHB, DMG and MM.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

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.

That's correct. Clark left no room for misinterpretation on his part. He heard what he heard.

This does not, however, preclude the possibility that there was confusion about the policy within WotC, and Clark was "accurately" delivered the wrong information.

To address jeffh directly, let me help clarify for you: There was notification directly from WotC about the poison pill-- explicitly to Clark, and implicitly through their subsequent commentary (or lack thereof) here on these message boards.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And your evidence for the claim in bold is...?

I would imagine he is making that claim because, in their initial announcement, that's what WotC said. There was an outcry, and it was changed.

NOTE: It's very sad that the Unofficial D&D Info Page no longer points to all of those early WotC announcements, as it once did.


RC

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My own observations still don't fit those patterns. I see gamers that are more discerning - they'll look for the best (for them) book on a particular subject, rather than buy all the books available on a subject.

This was my pattern. I went out and got what I thought were the best books on undead, the fey, sea-based adventuring, etc. and disregarded the rest (after some initial 3E-introductory-euphoria buying).

I'm not so sure that the 4E GSL will mean that there will be a lack of good product. I'm concerned and dismayed that GR, Paizo, et al will not be going 4E, and I think that WoTC missed the boat on this one, but remember that in 2000, pretty much no one had ever heard of ANY of the companies that ended up being the top d20 publishers. The same may hold true for 4E.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"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

Funny, that. I hope a few people followed the link provided, as well as that followed in the post directly thereafter.

Taking a lesson from software publishers, WotC will be making available an OGL Designers Kit. This gives early access to rules and is offered to any publisher, not just the ones on the conference call. Access to the kit requires a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee.

This kit will be available within a matter of weeks, as soon as several legal logistics are complete. It provides three hardcopy pre-publication versions of the three core rule books, copies of the OGL and SRD, and a FAQ.

As we know, however, 4e isn't published under an OGL. So, even were this true (which, as has been pointed out), the one-time $5000 fee is required in order to get the kit, which was supposed to contain copies of the OGL.

Please note again, following the link you provided, you must meet the requirements of "a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee" in order to gain "copies of the OGL".

Seems pretty darn clear to me.

And, seems pretty darn clearly what I said.

Of course, then, in Question #2, they contradict this (and later, admit that the answer to Question #2 was wrong). One might imagine that, asked baldly, they answered what seemed to be the obvious answer, and then the rep discovered that it wasn't the obvious answer at all, at all. Again, just follow the links provided in the post after yours.

In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.

This, of course, turns out to be patently false. I hope no one ponied up $5 grand on the basis of this claim.....either because they saw this claim before ponying up the money, or because this was the "OGL" that was included in the early adopters kit.

Wasn't the early adopter's kit really late, btw?

Didn't Necromancer start planning 4e products on the basis of that announcement that, as it turns out, are now off the table because what WotC indicated then bears scant resemblance to what WotC is saying now?

Or am I just dreaming?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

And the response was that this doesn't necessarily follow.

The GSL has far more serious restrictions if you are an established company with strong IP. If you are a fly-by-nighter who doesn't care about your IP, the GSL has no real restrictions to you whatsoever.

What therefore follows is that the GSL is more heavily restrictive to established companies with strong IP, therefore it is more attractive to fly-by-night adopters, and as a result there's a greater likelihood that the 3pp created for 4e will contain a glut of ill-conceived product.

RC

 

[dmccoy1693]

First off, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

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.

This I can understand; this keeps the dozen or so books on individual races out of the market place.

But the bottom line I see is that of the 5 major 3PPs (Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, GR, and Necro) only 1 has publicly said they applied and been approved by Wizards to be a licensee. Thats tells me that there is something very wrong with the license. YOu are right that the license will mean a greater slice of the pie for the few that sign on, but these are companies that are known for their quality and aren't fly-by-night companies that will dry up in a day. Companies like this is what, at least IMO, a company would want to encourage to be licensees. Only 20% of the biggest names are on board, and if the license hadn't change from company basis to a product line basis, Mongoose wouldn't have even signed on.

Do you see what I'm basicly getting at?

 

[Psion]

At Gen Con and Origins the past 2 or 3 years, there have been multiple stands selling stacks and stacks of RPG product, predominately d20 product, predominately hardcover product, at 3-for-1 or 75% off or other deep-discount prices.

Last 2 or 3 years, eh? I wonder how much of this is due too:
1) Aftershocks of the 3.5 transition.
2) Caution at buying new products amidst increasing rumors of 4e.