A nice followup to Chris Dias' letter to WotC

[pemerton]

Except of course, WOTC was at the time already taking PR hits for a variety of things.

<snip>

SO in essesnce, they got what they wanted while stringing folks along, but not nearly the bad publicity of coming out and saying "NO 3RD PARTY PRODUCTS!" and still got the same results- no real third party support.

I don't know whether WotC uses inhouse counsel for drafting the OGL, or pays external lawyers - but either way, I think that releasing the GSL would be pretty expensive public relations. So I don't really think this is a plausible explanation.

The GSL is what it is - an experiment - as I described in my previous post.

 

[pemerton]

I have no counter to the comment; it's just a very intelligent post I wanted emphasize.

Thanks!

There was some communication from WOTC leading up to the release of 4E that claimed the GSL stricter guidelines was a byproduct of 3PP titles being released of poor quality but still boasting the D&D banner. This may also be true, but the specifics of the GSL seem to be more about IP protection rather than product quality (just my opinion).

I think that IP protection has to be seen as a big part of it. I also think that "quality", in the form of "preservation of game integrity" (to borrow Frylock's phrase from the other recent threads on this topci), is part of it.

I don't want to make assumptions, but the present evidence can allow some educated guesses.

<snip>

The GSL prevents a "licensed" product from copy-pasting rules and from altering defined terms, including races and classs. The GSL also prevents the "licensed" company from creating a computer program or online database using D&D definitions. At the same time, the DDI and Character Builder are created, allowing WOTC a further edge.

What remains, I think, an open question is this - is WotC actively hostile to 3PPs doing these activities outside of the GSL framework? The tentative answer might be "no" - given that various 3PPs are doing this to some extent - but I think matters might become a bit different if someone had a serious go at "cloning" 4e (whether in published or electronic form).

 

[Vigilance]

I don't know whether WotC uses inhouse counsel for drafting the OGL, or pays external lawyers - but either way, I think that releasing the GSL would be pretty expensive public relations. So I don't really think this is a plausible explanation.

The GSL is what it is - an experiment - as I described in my previous post.

I agree, I don't think it was PR.

Remember, one of the "selling points" internally at WOTC for the OGL back in the development of 3rd edition was "hey, these guys will write adventures, those are least profitable products!"

Of course, 3PPs could figure that out just as easily as WOTC, and so, while there were adventures made, there was also a lot of those OTHER books, the much more profitable player-focused "splats".

So I feel, with the GSL, WOTC tried to *really* have their cake and eat it too, and write a license that de facto limited 3PPs to those least profitable of products, adventures.

Except they seem not to have anticipated that there was a THIRD option other than "make anything we want" and "make adventures to support 4e":

Make Nothing for 4e.

Given that the OGL was still there, companies like Green Ronin and Paizo and RPGObjects could just keep on keeping on supporting the games they always had.

While the OGL certainly had some unintended consequences WOTC didn't like, it was on the whole a HUGE benefit to them for exactly the reasons Dancey initially proposed.

The player network moved to d20 in DROVES. It became the common tongue of RPGs. If you had a niche "long tail" rpg idea, you were much more likely to use d20, since you understood it, and the majority of players understood it.

If your idea was crazy to begin with, you can make it more appealing by at least letting people know the underlying system is solid, and that they won;t have to break their brains too much learning it.

This meant everyone was dealing with WOTC's rules all the time, and much more likely to find something of merit there to make them check out the "official stuff".

WOTC gave all that up for the chance at a few more adventures, and it failed spectacularly.

I'd also argue that a lot of the mechanical changes in 4e, which were very unpopular, were specifically designed to prevent a 3PP from "OSRIC-ing" 4e and reverse engineering it under the OGL.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

What remains, I think, an open question is this - is WotC actively hostile to 3PPs doing these activities outside of the GSL framework? The tentative answer might be "no" - given that various 3PPs are doing this to some extent - but I think matters might become a bit different if someone had a serious go at "cloning" 4e (whether in published or electronic form).

I don't think so either. If I was to speculate--not assume--I would wager that their heart was in the right place with the 3.0/3.5 OGL, but a side effect of the OGL was the release of products that one could say abused its spirit. There were products released that only copied and pasted the OGL rules word-for-word and marketed for a lower price. Fairly certain that wasn't what WOTC had intended. I imagine the GSL had humble beginnings. It was a modified SRD. I had NO issue with not being able to copy and paste rules. I didn't even have an issue with them sternly defining terms. It was the clauses that enforced exclusivity to 4E--that your game couldn't exist for another system (some went so far as to say this applied to all your products)--that didn't make sense. If your GSL was pulled, there was wording that implied that WOTC could pursue legal action if you moved your IP to another system. WOTC claimed this was an attempt to encourage more 4E products. It backfired.

In fact, all the evidence does point that WOTC's business shift is more geared towards securing D&D exclusivity and dominance in the market place by limiting its license use. My argument is that this is one extreme against the policy from 10 years ago, and though they don't have to come all the way back, stepping a few paces towards the center could go a long way with 3rd party companies. All I am saying is that you can create 4E products with the GSL limitations...so why can't their be benefits other than having a name on a seldom seen partnership page, a GSL forum, and the right to put the D&D logo on the bottom right of your back cover? The answer is that WOTC has a business model and objectives which preclude that. Oh well. Worst case scenario, nothing changes.


h they don't have to come all the way back, stepping a few paces towards the center could go a long way with 3rd part companues. All I am saying is that it has been proven that you can create 4E products with the GSL limitations...so why can't their be benefits other than having a name on a seldom seen partnership page, a GSL forum, and the right to put the D&D logo on the bottom right of your back cover?

 

[the-golem]

All this discussion on the ups and downs of the GSL, makes me wonder. ZEITGEIST and Santiago are definately something new. Worlds of their own, in their own right. It makes me wonder, how is ENPub doing this? Did they embrace the GSL, or say to heck with it, like Goodman Games and KenzerCo did?

I'm honestly curious.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How come no one suggests $$¢$$ ?

If you really want a race/class in the cb then ask wotc, how many man hrs is it to update and what is the hour rate? Then offer to pay that + 15% for the right...

 

[Dannager]

How come no one suggests $$$ ?

If you really want a race/class in the cb then ask wotc, how many man hrs is it to update and what is the hour rate? Then offer to pay that + 15% for the right...

...that's not how this works.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

...that's not how this works.

Wait what? I know in other business it is common to BUY licenses not have open ones... Why can't it work that way? You get a benefit that you pay for that will make your product more popular...

And wotc isn't risking anything sounds like a win won



Edit infact I just last month did a report for my company on just this type of cost benefit and my thought was it was not wOrth it because the cost would eat up more then 3/4 the expected profit

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

An arugment could be made that if WOTC included all GSL content on the CB as part of Character Builder, it would not only encourage people to buy the 3rd party product but also encourage players of that game to subscribe to the DDI as well. None of my players subscribe to the DDI, though I do. Some of them are old fashioned and prefer the pencil, while others are playing Amethyst techan characters. They may be inclined to pay for the service if they could create and maintain their 3PP characters. Fans supporting 3rd party companies may extend that support to the DDI if they knew their favorite products were on there. However, I must admit I cannot see the potential revenue balancing the cost involved in doing this. I have dealt with web-programmers and they can often charge obscene amounts of money.

One idea would be for WOTC to open the CB to user-defined content. Then volunteers (also DDI subscribers) could enter all sorts of 3PP content without WOTC lifting a finger to do any of that themselves. The Monster Builder had the right idea but I feel WOTC could go further. I know my players would pay for a character builder with that capacity...but they're also easy to manipulate.

Then the last question would be how much revenue a 3rd party could potentially lose if their all their content was available online via a service they didn't control or receive revenue from. WOTC takes revenue from subscribers, justifying their content on the DDI. A 3rd party company would not see a dime of that and would be dependand on DDI subscirbers feeling charitable enough to purchase your book.

All of this is food for thought.

 

[pemerton]

I would wager that their heart was in the right place with the 3.0/3.5 OGL, but a side effect of the OGL was the release of products that one could say abused its spirit. There were products released that only copied and pasted the OGL rules word-for-word and marketed for a lower price.

I think Dancey anticipated this back when the OGL+SRD was released, but expressed the view that players would always prefer WotC's PHB, because WotC had the capacity to produce the highest quality book at the lowest price.

While the OGL certainly had some unintended consequences WOTC didn't like, it was on the whole a HUGE benefit to them for exactly the reasons Dancey initially proposed.

<snip>

WOTC gave all that up for the chance at a few more adventures, and it failed spectacularly.

I don't have access to any information other than what I learn from reading these boards. But on that basis I think it must be the case that WotC disagrees with you about the overall benefits derived from the OGL+SRD - because otherwise their behaviour in relation to 4e and the GSL would be irrational by their own lights.

I feel, with the GSL, WOTC tried to *really* have their cake and eat it too, and write a license that de facto limited 3PPs to those least profitable of products, adventures.

Except they seem not to have anticipated that there was a THIRD option other than "make anything we want" and "make adventures to support 4e":

Make Nothing for 4e.

I suspect that they did anticipate this as a possibility - hence my description upthread of it as an experiment.

If I understand you right, your preferred hypothesis is that WotC thought that the OGL was good, but that a tighter licence that permitted only adventures would be even better, and believed that under such a licence a signficant number of 4e-supporting adventures would be produced.

I certaintly have no superior evidence on which to exclude this hypothesis - it just seems to me more plausible, because imputing to WotC a less underdeveloped business acumen, to hypothesis that they were in fact OGL+SRD sceptics, but wanted to try something else in the neighbourhood to see how it worked out.

What I tend to see as the not-fully-anticipated factor affecting 3PP uptake of the GSL is the dominance of DDI in shaping player uptake of 3PP splats.

I'd also argue that a lot of the mechanical changes in 4e, which were very unpopular, were specifically designed to prevent a 3PP from "OSRIC-ing" 4e and reverse engineering it under the OGL.

I think this is fairly plausible - although my own view, as a person who didn't play 3E but started playing D&D precisely because of the changes that 4e brought, is that many of those changes are independently motivated by considerations of good game design.