JVisgaitis said:
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.