Any word on the GSL?

[SteveC]

Not to nitpick, but the OGL needs no extension. WotC could release an SRD for 4e under the OGL, and then everyone would be able to use that information along with the open game licence. Arguably, someone could create an OSRIC-like product for 4e, and release that under the ogl, and then publishers would be able to use that... but I would imagine there would be a lawsuit before anyone could safetly do so.

...and that's exactly what I meant. WotC either needs to expand the GSL or simply release 4E under the OGL by extending it to their new product line. There's no way they'll do the latter, which is why it's only a dream. That's a pity, because I firmly believe 4E would be better adopted if there was a broader base for the game to attract.

--Steve

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Hi!

The golden question has always been if WOTC made money off the OGL.

You'll see a lot of speculation on this, but no official word.

My suspicion is that it didn't. I base that on 4e being GSL and much more closed in comparison to OGL. If OGL had been some sort of cash cow, it would not have been scrapped.

...

Primarchone

I am convinced that WotC did not make direct sales off the OGL. They made indirect sales as a result of the OGL. Every game that had an alternate setting but required a Monster Manual or a Manual of the Planes kept their market share strong. Every game that ran an adventure that used the core books or anything beyond sold books to gamers.

The big value of the OGL was in unifying the market again behind D&D.

Now, when Wizards seeks to control the market more with the GSL, they find it diverging more and more.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I am convinced that WotC did not make direct sales off the OGL. They made indirect sales as a result of the OGL. Every game that had an alternate setting but required a Monster Manual or a Manual of the Planes kept their market share strong. Every game that ran an adventure that used the core books or anything beyond sold books to gamers.

The big value of the OGL was in unifying the market again behind D&D.

Now, when Wizards seeks to control the market more with the GSL, they find it diverging more and more.

It's Android vs. the iTunes App store. I suspect that by the time 5E is announced, the general business climate will be much more inclined toward the open source model (as a result of so many businessmen having smartphones running Android or WebOS in their pockets), but that will likely be way too late for many of the D20 companies.

We'll see if the OGL fork folks come back in 5E, if it ends up OGL in the end. That'll probably be determined by just how big of a splash Pathfinder ends up making.

 

[CaptainChaos]

The GSL saga was such a comedy of errors that it was funny, but now it's just sad.

 

[Wik]

I am convinced that WotC did not make direct sales off the OGL. They made indirect sales as a result of the OGL. Every game that had an alternate setting but required a Monster Manual or a Manual of the Planes kept their market share strong. Every game that ran an adventure that used the core books or anything beyond sold books to gamers.

The big value of the OGL was in unifying the market again behind D&D.

Now, when Wizards seeks to control the market more with the GSL, they find it diverging more and more.

Except, how many people just used the SRD? There is, in fact, a PbP forum on this very site that is based entirely off the SRD... and not the Core Rulebooks. The difference, of course, being that some monsters are not in the SRD, and there are psionics in the SRD.

What about when Mongoose released the Player's Handbook in a paperback format? Or the other companies releasing their own PHB's that can effectively replace the corebooks? (Iron Heroes did something close, and there was Monte's own Arcana Unearthed.... not to mention Paizo's upcoming PHB).

All those people were skimming money off the "third party sales encourage sales to the core books" theory.

 

[Wik]

For the record, I'm all for wotc keeping things to themselves. or letting things carry on as they already are. I think, in fact, that it'll be good for the hobby.

There are already a few "open" RPGs out there that be developed, hassle-free, until the end of time: d20, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future... and I know Savage Heroes and (possibly) Castles and Crusades are "Semi-Open". Just because there's a new D&D, doesn't mean it has to be "open".

One thing I didn't like about the 2e boom was that it caused many of the game companies to converge and become, well, similar. Those that weren't dealing in d20 either collapsed, or had a strong product line of their own (Rifts or Vampire, really... Shadowrun and Earthdawn had to get picked up by third parties).

Personally, I want to see a bunch of independant RPGs, with their own systems, coming up like before the d20 boom. And we're beginning to see that again. Nowadays, only half the shelf at my FLGS is d20-related (both 3e and 4e), while the other half has some great smaller-scale games just begging to be given a spin.

d20 is great and all, but sometimes, I want to roll a d6 to make an attack roll. And I want to be able to say "My character has absolutely no class."

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I predict that there will be another annoucent from Scott saying that the GSL will be done by D&DXP but will not actually release it then. This will keep the fans from complaing at D&DXP. I then predict that it will be done by the GAMA Trade Show because the publishers and retailers there will demand something. A lack of GSL revision by that point will be taken as no GSL revision ever and business decsisions will be based on that.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

All those people were skimming money off the "third party sales encourage sales to the core books" theory.

I disagree. Gamers are collectors. The more the market stayed focused on d20/OGL, the better it was for Wizards and D&D. (There's a separate issue of saturation, of course.) The collectors bought more books, and the alternate setting games still used a lot of core material. I've seen gamers in every d20 setting out there adapting books from Wizards.

 

[Filcher]

I'm w/ Wik on this one. Like it or not, a lot of folks used the OGL to make material that used the D&D engine, but never needed the core books. I think this is why the GSL is so restrictive.

 

[Filcher]

The golden question has always been if WOTC made money off the OGL.

You'll see a lot of speculation on this, but no official word.

My suspicion is that it didn't. I base that on 4e being GSL and much more closed in comparison to OGL. If OGL had been some sort of cash cow, it would not have been scrapped.

Is there not a middle option? "Wizards made money off the OGL, but also saw some cash slip out by way of rip-offs" ?

This seems the logical reason for the "open --- but really tightly open" license we have for the GSL.