Gamespy interview

[LeaderDesslok]

Andy Collins makes an interesting comment regarding the lack of rules adjudication in the game table.

"...there are a couple of reasons behind us not turning it into an automated system. The first is that we don't have a right to do so. Digital game rights to Dungeons & Dragons aren't owned by Wizards of the Coast. That property is licensed out, and has been for a number of years now. We can't compete with our licensors; it's not fair, and it's not really nice, either, nor is it legal."

I'm not sure I agree with that, since DDI wouldn't actually be putting out an online D&D game, just a few tools to make life easier for the DM. However, it is a good point and kind of speaks to those who speak of the legality and ethics of some of Wizards' practices.

 

[Insight]

Andy Collins makes an interesting comment regarding the lack of rules adjudication in the game table.

I'm not sure I agree with that, since DDI wouldn't actually be putting out an online D&D game, just a few tools to make life easier for the DM. However, it is a good point and kind of speaks to those who speak of the legality and ethics of some of Wizards' practices.

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with this turn of events. I don't want the online game table adjudicating rules. Otherwise, why would you even really need a DM, other than to set up the scenarios? Also, a lot of people like to house rule, and that would be next to impossible with an application that tried to adjudicate rules.

And finally, I'm glad they aren't trying to program in rules functions, because it's one less thing to have massive bugs and prevent the program from moving beyond the vaporware stage.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

I don't mind a lack of rules adjudication, but I'd like to see reference tools for the DM, such as the ability to call up monster stats or a specific rule for combat/movement/whatever. As it stands that isn't going to be possible.

Of course, what I'd really like is to see the game table. That wouldbe a good start.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not sure I agree with that, since DDI wouldn't actually be putting out an online D&D game, just a few tools to make life easier for the DM. However, it is a good point and kind of speaks to those who speak of the legality and ethics of some of Wizards' practices.

Its a cop out explanation. Unless it is an extraordinarily unusual license, then it has a revocation clause, or at the least, an expiration date. If WotC wanted to, they could pull back rights sufficient to put out this sort of function, but they don't. They prefer the money they get from their licensees.

Saying "our hands are tied" is just a lame attempt to evade responsibility for decisions they have made.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

But if they pulled back the rights then they'd get the same kind of outcry as what happened when they pulled Dragon/Dungeon, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc. Plus, Wizards is not a software company, despite adding onlne features to the game. Pulling such licenses does nothing to help them.

In this situation, "our hands are tied" is a very valid explanation (IMHO).

 

[Tewligan]

And finally, I'm glad they aren't trying to program in rules functions, because it's one less thing to have massive bugs and prevent the program from moving beyond the vaporware stage.

Yeah, I suspect that this is the real reason they aren't planning to program rules into DDI, regardless of their noble claims of being nice to their licensors.

 

[Storm Raven]

In this situation, "our hands are tied" is a very valid explanation (IMHO).

No, it isn't. Because their hands are not tied. They choose to continue the licenses, probably becasue they like getting the money the licensees pay them. Now, I'm not saying that they are not perfectly within their rights to do so, but for them to claim that this situation is somehow beyond their control is disingenuous to say the least.

And the comparison to the Dragon and Dungeon situation is silly. Those publications were well-liked by many gamers with long pedigrees as existing products. Name the loved computer software package that would be eliminated by pulling the license for the software portion of D&D. Because I'd like to get hold of that.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

No, it isn't. Because their hands are not tied. They choose to continue the licenses, probably becasue they like getting the money the licensees pay them. Now, I'm not saying that they are not perfectly within their rights to do so, but for them to claim that this situation is somehow beyond their control is disingenuous to say the least.

Semantics. This is a game designer talking, not a politician or a lawyer. His wording might not be as exactling as one would like, but you can get the gist of what he's saying.

And the comparison to the Dragon and Dungeon situation is silly. Those publications were well-liked by many gamers with long pedigrees as existing products. Name the loved computer software package that would be eliminated by pulling the license for the software portion of D&D. Because I'd like to get hold of that.

• Neverwinter Nights
• Neverwinter Nights 2
• The expansions for both, including user mods
• Historically, the gold box games from the early 90s
• Arguably, the Temple of Elemental Evil (I loved it)
• Any new game in development based on the license
• Any potential new game that could be in development

 

[Duvall]

For those of you with a short memory, you might not recall that Hasbro sold the D&D electronic rights to Atari (Infogrammes) some time ago. Last year those rights were extended to 2017 with the press release saying (in part):

"the extension until 2017 of the exploitation of the intellectual property rights to the Dungeons & Dragons universe, under an exclusive license covering all interactive formats, including online and wireless."​

So they simply can't "pull the license back" as some of you suggest.

 

[buzz]

And let's not forget all the rest, among them DDO, D&D Tactics for PSP, D&D Heroes for Xbox, Baldur's Gate, etc, etc.