WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[Darkwolf71]

Cautiously optimistic here. I want my Folio of Fiends from Necromancer.

Sums it up nicely.

Here's hoping.

 

[bramadan]

Or, you know, they are trying to be helpful and fix something they did based on feedback...

I do not see why everything WotC does has to be interpreted (by some at least) as having some sinister ulterior motive.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And speculate as you like if it might be a late attempt to head off OGL alternatives to 4e, especially if sales thus far for 4e have been good but not up to what Hasbro expected given the investment in the edition change and its associated digital products.

4E would have to be a door-closing disaster for even the most successful 3rd party game of all time to be a real threat to it. You have the scales of each enterprise way, way off here.

 

[Orcus]

Actually, I think it's more simple than that.

Scott Rouse once said (IIRC) that the number one goal with the GSL was to benefit D&D. It seems that WotC has determined, based on 3pp feedback, that the GSL as written has failed to do this.

I agree. I think it is clear to anyone that, intentions aside, the GSL as it is now has completely failed to achieve its goals. People dont like failure. So we have revision.

I'm glad to see that my hope looks like it is coming true--I said some time ago that wouldnt it be great if the first change to the license was a good one, rather than a bad one like everyone feared. Looks like that is what is going to happen. I'm not taking them off the hook for prior bungling, but you have to take your hats off to them for even considering a change let alone making one.

Clark

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help.

Which, of course, ignores that Ryan Dancey pushed through the OGL because he felt it was the right thing to do for the company and for gamers.

There doesn't have to be a crisis for similar cool heads to prevail.

 

[rkwoodard]

doubtful

Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!

I am highly doubting that 4th ed is in any type of trouble, and if it was, this would not be the remeady.

But this is really good news.

RK

 

[lkj]

So either (A) The GSL has been a major PR blunder, (B) 4th edition isn't doing as well as they would lead us to believe and they're trying to create more sales by making is friendlier to 3PPs who will help drive sales by tying their own products to it, or (C) Both.

How about:

D) They actually wanted active 3PP support from the beginning, and it took the lackluster performance of the first GSL to demonstrate to certain people in the company that a more open GSL was required to achieve their goal.

I don't really see how it requires 4e to be bombing. There's good reason to want 3pp support even if 4e is doing well-- more support for 4e is presumably better for D&D in the long run. On the other hand, the more restrictive a license they can convince people to sign, the more control they have over the outcome. In short, the goal is probably as restrictive a license as possible that people will still use. They missed the mark on the first pass.

They are trying again. It'll be interesting to see if they hit the sweet spot.

AD

 

[Scribble]

I am voting for D.

I'm with you in my public support for the fight Scott and Linae have been fighting to make things happen. I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, so to speak, but I remain optimistic as I have been that the needed changes and clarifications will happen. Which, of course, will mean that Necro can then support 4E, as we have long wanted to do.

Clark

Woohoo!!!

I also have to point out the irony of someone going by the name of Orcus working with WoTC to "fix" an "evil" contract...

 

[dmccoy1693]

Cautiously optimistic here.

Ditto.

One can only wonder though if they've already soured the pot by first delaying and then putting out the initial -horrible- GSL? Whatever this ends up being, it might be too little, far too late.

I don't think it's to late. The GSL hasn't even gone live yet. I am hopeful (cautious, but hopeful nonetheless).

 

[dmccoy1693]

Bingo! Wotc would not be backtracking unless 4e needed the help. If 4e sales were rocking there would be no leverage internally with legal, I suspect, for this kind of a reversal. Of course, it remains to be seen if the actual changes are substantive or merely cosmetic. I'll guess minor changes to dispose of stock but no change to the at will termination clause, and no change to the once GSL, no OGL clauses. Lipstick on a pig, I'm thinking. Unless 4e is REALLY in trouble!

Hey, play nice. Lidda has been very good about keeping an open dialogue. Lets see what the changes are before making unfounded accusations.
[teasing]Afterwards, make all the unfounded accusations you want.[/teasing]