Boing Boing on the GSL !

[Ace]

Not being the fastest on the draw I usually miss scoops but I think I found one
Cory Doctrow at Boing Boing points to an article that briefly covers the GSL

Its not a favorable outlook -- they call it sleazy in fact --

I don't agree but it certainly is a poison pill -- saying in essence -- upgrade or don't use 4e at all --

I can understand the behavior -- market share is important.

Still it can really hurt a small company since they can no longer get access to both revenue streams. The fact is many people aren't going to upgrade simply because (at least in the US) they can't afford to -- or because they are happy with what they have. It would be nice to serve both markets with one product

Its kind of risky to assume that 4e sales will be huge since the US (the main market) is headed for tough times -- it would be nice to have an offset or a hedge as well -- Every dollar counts

However good 4e is (and it looks good) sales are based on economic matters and with wages flat and everything up people may just stay with what they have or go with wares, neither of which contribute to anyones bottom line --

also with at least 4 markets out there (OGL, TRUE 20, M&M Superlink, Pathfinder) in addition to the GSL its hard to make such a call. If I were to try any publishing I'd have no idea what I'd do to be honest -- and that not a nice place to be in for me or anyone else.

 

[OgreBane99]

Not being the fastest on the draw I usually miss scoops but I think I found one
Cory Doctrow at Boing Boing points to an article that briefly covers the GSL

I don't think it's a scoop. This was one of the topics for 4e news at the top of the page. I saw it last week I think. Here's a link to the original news topic (there was a discussion post too).

 

[JohnSnow]

Not being the fastest on the draw I usually miss scoops but I think I found one
Cory Doctrow at Boing Boing points to an article that briefly covers the GSL

Its not a favorable outlook -- they call it sleazy in fact --

I don't agree but it certainly is a poison pill -- saying in essence -- upgrade or don't use 4e at all --

Sorry Ace.

1) You're about a week late. This fear was discussed shortly after the announcement of the GSL last week.

2) It has not yet been confirmed this is the case. So far, it's been implied that you won't be able to release a single product under both the OGL and the GSL, or even market the same product for both licenses.

What we do not yet know is whether the restriction on being able to release OGL and GSL products is company-wide or product-specific. Supposedly, there will soon be an FAQ on WotC's site (as well as a response here on ENworld) that answers that question.

 

[Mistwell]

If people cannot afford to buy the relatively inexpensive 4e Player's Handbook on Amazon or a similar discount site, then they cannot afford to buy yet more 3e-type products anyway. I do not think it's going to come down to cost for the success or failure of 4e vs. 3e-type products.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Boing Boing posting about it is pretty significant, and the blurb has about the right of it: this thing goes against the principles of the OGL by kind of transforming it into a little bit of gaming fuedalism: "We'll let you work our fields, but you can't work your own! Or, you can go work your own fields! GOOD LUCK, we've got the biggest castle around!"

The OGL is amazing, and I don't know why Wizards would have to force companies as a whole to choose between 4e and the OGL when it's entirely possible that some company could release some killer adventure for 4e and then some new OGL game under a different umbrella.

I haven't seen the confirmation of this "by company" restriction yet, but if Boing Boing is paying some attention, the negativity has already reached a bit of critical mass.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I haven't seen the confirmation of this "by company" restriction yet, but if Boing Boing is paying some attention, the negativity has already reached a bit of critical mass.

Not only on Boingboing - it starts to crop up in totally unexpected places. Sure, nothing important - but it's interesting how many different people start to pick this up.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Ktulu]

Boing Boing posting about it is pretty significant, and the blurb has about the right of it: this thing goes against the principles of the OGL by kind of transforming it into a little bit of gaming fuedalism: "We'll let you work our fields, but you can't work your own! Or, you can go work your own fields! GOOD LUCK, we've got the biggest castle around!"

The OGL is amazing, and I don't know why Wizards would have to force companies as a whole to choose between 4e and the OGL when it's entirely possible that some company could release some killer adventure for 4e and then some new OGL game under a different umbrella.

Think of it this way. the OGL is like a sandbox that WotC let other developers play in. At first, they were building sandcastles, and driving tonka trucks around. Then some of the developers decided to take a bunch of the sand to another part of the playground to play with. WotC has more than enough sand, so that wasn't a problem. The issue began when the developers told everyone, "You can play over here, in our sandbox. You don't need to play in WotC's at all" (ala creating their own PH books but using the OGL (Arcana Unearthed is a prime example).

WotC then went out and got a big huge bin of Lego's. Again, they offer anyone to play with their legos and build neat stuff. However, they don't want sand all over their Lego's, and they don't want anyone taking the legos to the other side of the park to play without them.


It makes complete sense for WotC to do this. It's also not a bad thing from the developer's desk. If they published the same content in both editions, they're doubling their work and publishing costs. If they publish some material in 4 and others in OGL, then they're going to piss off their fanbase. I know I'd be irritated if a really good book from Green Ronin, for example, came out only in 3.x, and I'd be equally irritated if they put both OGL & 4e material in the book.

It seems very reasonable for WotC to require this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It seems very reasonable for WotC to require this.

Only....they can't really require this.

Part of the motive of the OGL was to create a "safe harbor." Game mechanics can't be protected, and I'm not sure that WotC can legally enforce this (aside from the idea of just calling all the 4e stuff "Happily Oppressed Serf Games" and calling all your OGL material "Free But Starving Games").

The OGL came along and said "Look, yes, you can rip us off and we can't do anything about it, but work WITH us, not against us!"

Requiring this (or trying to require this) will basically encouarage more rip-offs.

And, again, it's not even obvious that they ARE going to require this. This could all just be some of the most rampant of speculation.

 

[Ktulu]

That's very true, it could be just speculation. I can easily see how they could, though. They never really intended the OGL to be a way for other companies to basically rip them off and then snub them. Arcana Unearthed is one of the worst for doing this. Monte basically made an OGL book that wasn't compatable for play with 3.0 or 3.5. He uses what he wants from either, creating a book that can really only be played with itself unless you want to spend HOURS reconfiguring and balancing the classes/spells/feats. All the while, he reprinted almost 90% of the PH in his book and says ON THE BOOK to use it as an alternative to the D&D PH.

If the GSL is restrictive, it's restrictive because of actions like that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Arcana Unearthed is one of the worst for doing this. Monte basically made an OGL book that wasn't compatable for play with 3.0 or 3.5. He uses what he wants from either, creating a book that can really only be played with itself unless you want to spend HOURS reconfiguring and balancing the classes/spells/feats. All the while, he reprinted almost 90% of the PH in his book and says ON THE BOOK to use it as an alternative to the D&D PH.

If the GSL is restrictive, it's restrictive because of actions like that.

It won't prevent that.

And I doubt that WotC shares the view of AU that you seem to have.