What is it about the GSL that is really a deal breaker?

[dmccoy1693]

but it's clear that no amount of arguing about it is going to change dmccoy's mind until hard proof is provided,

I've seen my ex's lawyer pull out some amazing stuff intended to screw me over. Mind you, I currently have an excellent lawyer who has countered her efforts, but that has not always been true. So I've learned the hard way to always assume the legal system is slanted against the little guy, the one that can't afford a long fight.

Legal proof is not what I need. Its proof from Wizards that they will not enact doomsday type scenarios, and Wizards has gone to great lengths to really break all of their own earned trust over the past year-year and a half. I don't see any sign of that changing any time soon.

 

[Scribble]

The OP asked "What is it about the GSL that is really a deal breaker?" As a freelancer and as someone who has done serious investigation into starting his own RPG company, I'm telling you what is a dealbreaker to me. Dismissing my concerns, because YOU don't feel that my concerns are a big deal, is counterproductive at best.

If you feel that I was attempting to dismiss your concerns, then I apologize, as that was not my intention, and further, not my place, as your business is yours to make decisions for, not mine.

What I was saying was:

I feel that for the benefit of coming to terms with a situation, and what can be done to fix it, stating your concerns about what is, is much different then predicting what will be.

Stating this is problematic because X COULD occur, is much different then saying this is problematic because x WILL occur.

The first I think allows for problems to be located and discussed. The second promotes arguments and statements made based on feelings, and not facts.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Look how many people have sued, and won, against things like phone companies, despite having signed a contract saying they agree to be held to the things they are now suing about? Just because the companies signed on to the GSL doesn't make them slaves to the will and whim of WoTC with no recourse.

At what cost? See, that's part of the issue. A large corporation has a budget and staff lawyers, plus they can pay outside counsel. What hasn't really been discussed here is that WotC, at the appearance of a breaching product, can file for the injunction. Whether they get it or no, the costs alone to appear and defend against this are high. An IP lawyer, or someone in a related field, might be expected to charge $175-$300 an hour to defend one of these cases. What small publisher can afford that?

 

[dmccoy1693]

At what cost? See, that's part of the issue. A large corporation has a budget and staff lawyers, plus they can pay outside counsel. What hasn't really been discussed here is that WotC, at the appearance of a breaching product, can file for the injunction. Whether they get it or no, the costs alone to appear and defend against this are high. An IP lawyer, or someone in a related field, might be expected to charge $175-$300 an hour to defend one of these cases. What small publisher can afford that?

THANK YOU!!! That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. Wizards has a huge warchest compared to even Goodman Games or Mongoose (let alone someone like Alea or other PDF/POD only publishers). Wizards can just keep dragging out a court battle long before it even gets to the court room and can keep going long after a company that is aledgedly in violation of the GSL runs out of money to fight a court fight.

That's what I was trying to get at when I said "You're saying that you believe Wizards will ever allow the situation get to the end of the trial. I am saying that that is not a likely strategy for Wizards, no matter how solid Wizard's case it."

 

[Corjay]

So you're saying that they want to crush small publishers?

 

[dmccoy1693]

So you're saying that they want to crush small publishers?

Crush, no. Wear them down into a fine powder, yes. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a strategist. And to me Wizards actions (combined with the license) have been working towards very specific goals.

1) Increase the value of the D&D name while devaluing everyone elses.

2) Increase their own market share while making it harder for others to be on equal footing.

3) Make the environment as unfriendly as possible.

4) Untimately resulting in 5E with no free license.

Allow me to explain. (and remember, Wizards today is very different from the Wizards of the GSL)

How do you increase the value of the D&D name?

• Get it out there. In order for the name to have value, it must be recognizible. So it has to be everywhere. Creating the d20 logo was a mistake. It made the d20 logo recognizible, not D&D. So wizards is giving away their logo. It helps sell their licensees books while making the D&D name more recognizible.
• Make sure the name represents consistant quality. McDonalds isn't known for quality, but their IP has value because its consistant. The GSL has quality standards. Well, how many products need to be of low quality before the company is in violation of the GSL? That is not spelled out. Mongoose's early stuff was considered very low quality. They got better, but would the current Wizards find them in violation of the GSL for their low quality? I don't know, but hold that thought.
• Make your product a higher price. This one is odd, but true nonetheless. Microsoft's products aren't known for quality, but they sell. And they're usually more expensive. But if I see a $300 piece of microsoft software sitting next to some other company's software that costs $50 (esp if I never heard of the other company's software), I'm going to assume the Microsoft one is better, simply because it costs more. My girlfriend is an IT person and she's proven to me time and again that that is not true, but it is a hardwired assumption. Alea may make excellent products, but they are so cheap that one could assume that Wizard's products MUST be better (and that difference in pricing is reflected in their pricing).

How has Wizards increased their own market share and made it harder for other companies to be on equal footing.

• The rules were mostly ready back in Dec, when they said they were putting them into binders. Hell, the rules were complete enough for them to go into beta testing in Sept last year. But no 3rd party company saw them until customers did. The license was mostly done, if not completely done in Jan, but no one saw it until after the rules were seen. Why? Companies turned in NDAs so they wouldn't have talked. So what was the problem. Wizards attempted (successfully?) to make 3.5 a dead market. With every player and company waiting to see the 4E rules, few released products and fewer still bought products. How many LGSs want to take a chance on going back to selling products for a system that haven't sold well in a year? How many publishers want to try that? (Necromancer does it as a hobby and Orcus doesn't even want to.) Six months ago, if Green Ronin, Paizo and Necromancer all rejected this license, how many customers would be looking forward to 4E? That was their plan. It worked well for them. Customers evaluated 4E based on what they saw instead of what their favorite company did. Had companies seen the license back in Jan, their 4E PHB sales would have been sharply lower.
• Wizards product catelog for next year includes power cards. Does the GSL allow for 3PPs to produce power cards? No. That's a big no no. Wizards is still trying to launch their online version of 4E. Will 3PPs be allowed to sell their products there? GSL says no websites or online versions of their products, except PDF books. Will the DDI be an exception to this? I didn't see this in the GSL so until I hear otherwise, I'm assuming no. Can you produce minis? No. Well can you produce minis of your stuff and just not have the logo on it? No, there's no mixing of GSL and non-GSL products (as per the GSL). So if you made a monster called an owllion, you can't make a mini of it. So Wizards is going to be selling products in areas that their licensees simply cannot.

How do they make the publishing environment unfriendly?

• The GSL is a rather 3PP unfriendly document. I've stated possible scenarioes in previous posts. (I'm rushing since it's almost 1am here).

Lastly can you find a company that believes with all their heart that 5E will have a free license? Can you find one that believes it beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[Corjay]

I forked that discussion over to "Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?", so please continue that discussion there.

Let's get back to discussing deal breakers, instead of WOTC's motives.

 

[pemerton]

Can you produce minis? No. Well can you produce minis of your stuff and just not have the logo on it? No, there's no mixing of GSL and non-GSL products (as per the GSL). So if you made a monster called an owllion, you can't make a mini of it. So Wizards is going to be selling products in areas that their licensees simply cannot.

I don't follow. Why can I not write a book about owllions, published under the GSL and using the SRD monster templates, and then release a mini of an owllion? The mini wouldn't have to be a GSL product, so clause 5.5 wouldn't apply.

I couldn't include a stat-card with my mini, though.

 

[jmucchiello]

Get it out there. In order for the name to have value, it must be recognizible. So it has to be everywhere. Creating the d20 logo was a mistake. It made the d20 logo recognizible, not D&D. So wizards is giving away their logo. It helps sell their licensees books while making the D&D name more recognizible.

Um, you can find Scott Rouse quotes where he admits the d20 logo had no value. So the d20 logo didn't help licensees sell books. Not really. In 2000, yeah, new companies got into stores on the d20 logo. But since then, it's had no value. Creating the d20 logo was a mistake but it doesn't support your conspiracy the way you think it does.

Make sure the name represents consistant quality. McDonalds isn't known for quality, but their IP has value because its consistant. The GSL has quality standards.

So did the d20STL. This is not a new restriction. How does the GSL having the same restriction as the d20STL make your case for you?

Make your product a higher price.

Um, most products cost more today because paper and shipping prices have gone up. Pricing of WotC has not really gone up faster than pricing on other RPGs. What data are you using for this?

Wizards attempted (successfully?) to make 3.5 a dead market.

Simply announcing 4e did this. Jerking around the 3pps access to 4e had nothing to do with this. Most did not release products after the 4e announcement because they didn't expect to make sufficient sales for a dead product line. Remember, they thought they were moving to 4e with WotC. Had the rules been made available to them, there would be no Pathfinder and little other support for 3.5 today.

Can you produce minis? No.

This was also forbidden under the d20 logo. Again, nothing new here.

 

[Ranger REG]

So what makes the GSL more attractive than the d20STL + OGL combo?