New GSL Announcement

[AZRogue]

Sure. And then WotC would say "Hey, what, are you trying to pull a fast one on us?" and use whatever discretional revocation clause they have in the license.

That asumes the text of the license doesn't already cover that contingency, which is probably does.

It's not that bad of a "fast one" though, IMO. It seems to me that if they allowed that, just so that people wouldn't have to stop selling their old popular products to those fans who want them, the problem would be mostly solved. It would be a good workaround.

Maybe they don't want to allow it, I don't know. But it may be the easiest way to get what a lot of us want while still keeping the "company must choose the edition to support" clause. Kind of a deliberate loophole? A Gentleman's Loophole?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Most of the commentary and questions posted in threads like these are from non-publishers, and, in fact, from folks who don't particularly have a strong grasp on licensing issues, publishing, or much else beyond some half-formed ideas of what's going on.

Given the frustrations brought about by that, and given that specific information appears to be forthcoming on Monday (which, I hope, will be emailed to the publishers, rather than posted publicly), I'm bowing out of the thread -- and I suspect other publishers are doing so as well.

Yes, because we all know that only publishers should be allowed to ask questions about this (or even have opinions on it). It certainly isn't something that affects everybody involved in this hobby.

 

[BSF]

I know Gareth mentioned this a few times. The only reason why I didn't bring it up is because I think it was just something they hadn't considered and I feel like it'll be addressed. I highly doubt that they would have issues with a company publishing products for both Fudge and 4th Edition for instance. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it'll be an issue when the final license comes.

Just to be clear, I specifically chose Adamant Entertainment because of the number of products they have brought to the market across multiple product lines and genres. Products that I think do a lot to enhance the market in general.

I do hope that I haven't put Gareth-Michael in an uncomfortable position with my using Adamant Entertainment as an example of how I think exclusivity could hurt the gaming market as a whole.

I certainly hope that WotC isn't trying to aggressively drive out material for OGL games. I would prefer to think that they are in a position of needing to protect IP that they are looking to make available in the GSL. In that case, it would be better to have language that explicitly prohibits the co-mingling of GSL and OGL material.

Still, with that as a stated intent, the legal language must be carefully vetted to be sure there aren't any unintended side effects.

The exclusivity goes beyond that protection however. WotC wants committed support by the third parties. I can understand that, but I recognize that WotC's desires may run counter to my own, as a customer. Aggressive exclusivity serves me even less. Even if WotC doesn't (currently) intend to pursue aggressive exclusivity, the language might give them that option in the future.

I think it is prudent for every third party publisher to watch out for that language because it affects them as a business entity. I think it is prudent for consumers to watch out for that language because it gives WotC the potential to squash innovative products that they are afraid we might like more.

It is their license and their developed material. WotC is certainly within their business rights to do that. Many people would argue that they would be foolish not to aggressively protect those business rights.

But as a customer, I would argue that they created a great deal of good will with a strong product (D&D 3.0 at the time), and then they built upon that good will with the D20STL and the OGL. I firmly believe these decisions made the market stronger and that WotC benefitted from those developments. If WotC believes in 4.0 so strongly that they are willing to through their weight behind the product line, why do they need strong arm tactics? If 4.0 is so good that my friends and I need to play this game for our RP needs, why not let the product stand on it's own? Why does WotC need to require exclusivity?

Telling me that companies I like and respect will need to make a choice between supporting products I already like and 4.0. If companies need to make that decision, then I lose out as a customer. Because one way or the other, designers that I admire will not be able to fill my needs for products I already have, as well as any potential desires for a need with new, 4.0 products.

That garners ill will with me, counteracting the good will that has been built up over the years.

 

[xechnao]

J If WotC believes in 4.0 so strongly that they are willing to through their weight behind the product line, why do they need strong arm tactics? If 4.0 is so good that my friends and I need to play this game for our RP needs, why not let the product stand on it's own? Why does WotC need to require exclusivity?

Telling me that companies I like and respect will need to make a choice between supporting products I already like and 4.0. If companies need to make that decision, then I lose out as a customer. Because one way or the other, designers that I admire will not be able to fill my needs for products I already have, as well as any potential desires for a need with new, 4.0 products.

That garners ill will with me, counteracting the good will that has been built up over the years.

My guess is that they think they will gain further brand recognition value by their fans and perhaps this will help them with Gleemax community for now and other stuff for the future.

 

[S'mon]

With regards your other post (tinfoilhattery) - While I do certainly accept the potential pitfalls for a licensee under the GSL, to a lesser degree I believe that any company who's business is dependent (or symbiotic) on another businesses activities, should be prepared for major game-changing events at any time (case in point 3.5).

Yes, but it's one thing to publish D&D material knowing your license to do so can be revoked at any time. That may well be a fair risk to take. It's a very different thing to publish D&D material knowing your license to do so can be revoked at any time AND having eliminated all your OGL product lines, because you have eliminated all your other sources of income. The combination of unilateral revocability plus no-OGL makes this license a very risky business proposition for most 3pps, it seems to me.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Come on! I know you can't say anything about this because of the NDA, but do you have to flaunt it in front of everyone?

Knowing clark if I had to guess I would guess all the email says is that Scott is going to look into something and trying and fix it or make sure the wording is tweaked or something. My guess is that this is about the old stuff already made issue. Since that was Clarks biggest concern, not only one but biggest. Least that is my opinion.

 

[La Bete]

The combination of unilateral revocability plus no-OGL makes this license a very risky business proposition for most 3pps, it seems to me.

Hmm. Interesting point.

 

[Oldtimer]

Quite correct. I disregard that fact becuase I don't really care. GR can bring whatever products to market they wish - based on the market they work in.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are disregarding a fact that doesn't suit your arguments? GR cannot bring any product to market. True20 and GSL products being the case in point.

That you don't really care about that fact, doesn't really improve the point you're trying to make... if any.

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes, but it's one thing to publish D&D material knowing your license to do so can be revoked at any time.

A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material without a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.

 

[xechnao]

A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material without a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.

That would put you in the black list of Wotc. That is fair enough if you have put them on your black list too. But do you know anyone around here that feels this way about Wotc yet?