Matt James
Game Developer
Jon,
So your organization is/was specifically interested in using proprietary elements of 4e?
So your organization is/was specifically interested in using proprietary elements of 4e?
Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias
- Thread starter Wicht
- Start date
- Status
Perram
Explorer
Matt,
The GSL is the only official option open to support D&D 4e, and while I applaud the publishers efforts to continue to support it outside of those constraints, it shouldn't be the expected course of action. Choosing to use the official channels to support the game should not be a blow against your product.
I'm not surprised to see so many publishers jumping ship, and DEM's complaints about lack of support of any kind. Your suggestion to go completely on your own to the point of even abandoning the license... does not help anyone who's complaint is that other companies in the fantasy market publishing for a rival game get an automatic advantage because they are receiving direct support.
WotC obviously doesn't have to either care or do anything. I don't know if they would be better off doing so or not at this point.
The GSL is the only official option open to support D&D 4e, and while I applaud the publishers efforts to continue to support it outside of those constraints, it shouldn't be the expected course of action. Choosing to use the official channels to support the game should not be a blow against your product.
I'm not surprised to see so many publishers jumping ship, and DEM's complaints about lack of support of any kind. Your suggestion to go completely on your own to the point of even abandoning the license... does not help anyone who's complaint is that other companies in the fantasy market publishing for a rival game get an automatic advantage because they are receiving direct support.
WotC obviously doesn't have to either care or do anything. I don't know if they would be better off doing so or not at this point.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
JBE has no interest in skirting around a free and open license intended to produce an environment safe for publishers. While others publishers may have the legal knowledge to do that without getting into hot water, we are less confident to do so 100% of the time. We understand all 3 licenses (GSL, OGL and PF Compat License) are are confident to be safe 100% of the time within these licenses. Outside those licenses is a different matter entirely.
Matt, since you are advocating going around the license, I highly recommend you start your own company and do so yourself. Business is not child's play, but a serious matter. If a business does not want to do a risky maneuver, no one should be pushing them to do otherwise.
Last edited:
Matt James
Game Developer
Jon,
Thanks for the lesson. I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of the industry--I really do. Take a look at the actual license if you get a moment, and browse some of the larger publishers that use 4e content without subscribing to the GSL. If I can muster him away from his other duties, I'll try to bring my attorney in on the thread--or at least get him to put up another article. He's a convention organizer here in the DC area, and specializes in IP law.
The trenches are dug on this topic, and I don't know if many people will budge. With that being said, the original 'open letter' changes little with its sense of entitlement.
Thanks for the lesson. I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of the industry--I really do. Take a look at the actual license if you get a moment, and browse some of the larger publishers that use 4e content without subscribing to the GSL. If I can muster him away from his other duties, I'll try to bring my attorney in on the thread--or at least get him to put up another article. He's a convention organizer here in the DC area, and specializes in IP law.
The trenches are dug on this topic, and I don't know if many people will budge. With that being said, the original 'open letter' changes little with its sense of entitlement.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
It doesn't matter. JBE is not interested in going non-license. We play nice.
From your prospective. From my prospective as a publisher, it is asking for Wizards to do the minimum to be apart of the 21st century of social marketing (which they do do for themselves, how hard would it be to mention once per week on facebook "I'm reading XXX from XXX publisher. Its really good." While that may sound like entitlement to you, it is basic business practices in this day and age.). It is also asking for a reason to stick around, to feel valued. Paizo gives us 3rd party publishers a real sense of value that I can hear is lacking in the open letter to Wizards. I feel for the author. The only thing that separates me from him is 1 decision.
Matt James
Game Developer
Best of luck in your endeavors then.
The issue is that you haven't demonstrated that doing so will benefit WotC. Clearly it would benefit you; and appear to strongly believe that it will benefit them. But they clearly disagree, and it would require verifiable data and causation to make this any more than an exchange of personal opinions.
Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence (assuming the research ultimately DID show that, which is by no means certain) would sway their stance. But an open letter signed by potential beneficiaries of such a move is not going to convince anyone; you have to conclusively show that WotC would be a beneficiary.
Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.
Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence (assuming the research ultimately DID show that, which is by no means certain) would sway their stance. But an open letter signed by potential beneficiaries of such a move is not going to convince anyone; you have to conclusively show that WotC would be a beneficiary.
Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.
The issue is that you haven't demonstrated that doing so will benefit WotC. Clearly it would benefit you; and appear to strongly believe that it will benefit them. But they clearly disagree, and it would require verifiable data and causation to make this any more than an exchange of personal opinions.
Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence (assuming the research ultimately DID show that, which is by no means certain) would sway their stance. But an open letter signed by potential beneficiaries of such a move is not going to convince anyone; you have to conclusively show that WotC would be a beneficiary.
Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.
Perhaps some dedicated research which indicates profit to a reasonable degree of confidence (assuming the research ultimately DID show that, which is by no means certain) would sway their stance. But an open letter signed by potential beneficiaries of such a move is not going to convince anyone; you have to conclusively show that WotC would be a beneficiary.
Given that there were sizeable camps at WotC against having the GSL at all (Scott Rouse had to fight to get it) and who clearly believe that it is not in their interests, it'd be an uphill battle.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
You just demonstrated my second point for me (the one about the 1st party's view of their licensees).
But it's an observation, not an argument. It's not a useful point. What you need to do is illustrate in convincing terms why you think that they are wrong (in terms other than "it would benefit me"). Telling them what their opinion is isn't an awful lot of use.
- Status
Similar Threads
