Actually, the delay in GSL delivery is telling us something important about license design process.
First of all, the basics of the GSL were ready around the beginning of this year - ready for the polishing and delivery to early adopters of GSL.
However, somewhere during the acceptance of the GSL prototype there has been additional involvement of someone or some management body. The result of the involvement was disastrous for the schedule of the delivery process of GSL.
I would assume that at this moment final vision of GSL was either altered or developed further... and so the documents were placed against back with their authors while third party publishers willing to become early adopters... well, they were written off as an acceptable loss or, possibly, written off as potential risk to far reaching plans.
Consider this:
- core rulebooks are incomplete/different to the point of making conversion of established game settings impossible,
- core rulebooks are released without accompanying setting material - yet again, no conversion is possible.
So, in the worst scenario, early adopters of GSL could potentially damage development of 4E setting specific material by providing solid alternatives to WotC 4E products.
Of course, one could argue that fan based settings or products by publishers willing to provide their own alternatives to missing stuff from core rulebooks, may still compete with WotC products.
Yet, could they, really?
As far as we know, fan based products are likely to be only marginally successful... and there is always legal department to take care of potential troublemakers.
While the publishers, and given the evidence of GSL incorporating elements of future WotC products, will have to play by GSL rules and, as such, may be controlled so as not to compete with future plans.
It's, of course, a conspiracy theory. After all, it's not like anyone on these forums mentioned about 7-digit investment figures and hinted about securing profits.
Coming back to license design process. If the GSL is to ensure that publishers are not able to compete with future products, it must fulfil two conditions:
- built in clauses prohibiting manufacture of competing game material
- built in timeout with mandatory license upgrade - so that farther down the road the new version of the license may protect products which are not yet scheduled. Say somewhere between two or four years.
Quite possibly that was the reason for GSL delivery delay - it must have been updated in accordance with latest version of publishing plans. And, as everyone knows, often the planning process takes longer than anticipated since it should account for most scenarios.
...
Of course, GSL may have been replaced at the last moment with a subtly updated OGL and full SRD. If that's the case, I will gladly offer sincere apologies and the cynic in me will die with a smile on his face.
Regards,
Ruemere
PS. I think I have been too long around people who work at project mangement, marketing and sales. Their pragmatism is rubbing off on me.
