Goodman is clearly going to the GSL.

[jgerman]

Goodman is not going with the GSL for the products they're releasing in August, it's simply not possible. Under the GSL you can't release until Oct 1.

They've either:

a) Brokered a separate licensing agreement with WotC. In which case the selling off of 3e properties could still be part of the deal they made.

or

b) Are going copyright. In which case GG could very well just be planning on concentrating on 4e support and are moving that direction.

or

c) Are going non-GSL initially and switching to GSL down the road.

 

[jaerdaph]

It's also rarely as difficult as some publishers make it seem Some friends and I were discussing this last night and concluded that one guy, given a month, could perform all of the necessary editing for an entire line (or two) of PDF game products, given access to the source files. To put things in context, we all work in IT and have desktop publishing or coding experience (e.g. there was a time when I edited roughly 20,000 images per week for commerical distribution via print and web).

Yeah, but that's why you guys aren't in management. I wouldn't pay a guy for a month to do this unless there was a good enough return on the investment. 3.5 is out, 4e is in. Are there really enough 3.5 sales opportunities left in those old products now for me to justify the expense? If you were going to spend manpower on this, would it be better spent converting to 4e? It makes perfect sense to sell these off as is for a substantial discount instead.

 

[jdrakeh]

First, is there a link to their announcement? I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, particularly in regards to how long we have before the d20 DCC's go away permanently.

Check the RPGNow page for DCC products. There's a large announcement at the top of the page.

I'm also dubious because if they're just cancelling sales of their DCC PDFs, why not their other d20 PDFs?

I'm, guessing it may be because they hope to convert the existing DCC catalog for future distribution under the GSL, which they can't do if they continue to distribute the d20/OGL versions of those products. They have, after all, already made it clear that they plan on releasing new DCC products that are compatible with 4e, so this seems like the next logical step, to me.

Yeah, but that's why you guys aren't in management.

Actually, several of us have management experience, as well We considered pay and felt that this kind of editing was something that any capable Adobe user could do (and would be willing to do) in addition to their normal day to day duties for a nominal fee. Really, the work involved is not anywhere near as intensive as some publishers have made it out to be.

[Edit: As for 'selling off' PDF products, that fails to take advantage of the best and most recognized reason for making PDF products available in the first place (namely, the 'evergreen' status of such publications).]

 

[The Lost Muse]

c) Are going non-GSL initially and switching to GSL down the road.

Seems to me that WotC won't go for this option.

 

[jgerman]

Seems to me that WotC won't go for this option.

I wouldn't think so either, but I wanted to be thorough

It's certainly possible that WotC offered GG a temporary license to get them to October 1st. I'd say that was unlikely too, but Goodman may have really wanted to have product at Gencon so went to Wotc and worked something out. With the agreement that that license would expire down the road.

Unfortunately we don't have enough information to figure any of this out. All we really *know* is that Goodman is releasing stuff in August, products cannot possibly be GSL.

 

[Alzrius]

Check the RPGNow page for DCC products. There's a large announcement at the top of the page.

Ah, stupid me, I was looking on their homepage for information.

I'm, guessing it may be because they hope to convert the existing DCC catalog for future distribution under the GSL, which they can't do if they continue to distribute the d20/OGL versions of those products. They have, after all, already made it clear that they plan on releasing new DCC products that are compatible with 4e, so this seems like the next logical step, to me.

That just seems to fly in the face of what we know, though. Their existing 4E-compatible products have several indicators that they're not using the GSL. It thus makes little sense to just remove the OGL DCC line - particularly if other d20 products are being kept.

 

[jdrakeh]

. . . particularly if other d20 products are being kept.

You keep saying this, but it's worth mentioning that the retention of one product line has no direct bearing on the decision to stop publishing another, completely unrelated, product line under the OGL. The GSL does not require that a publisher cease to sell all OGL products that they carry, only products in those lines that that are being converted for distribution under the GSL.

That is, if you have X product and Y product, both being distributed under the OGL, and want to convert X product for distribution under the GSL, you must cease to distribute X product under the OGL. You are not required to stop distibuting Y product under the GSL. Y product, in such cases, has absolutely no bearing on X product, and the GSL has no effect on Y product.

As far as flying in the face of everything we already know, my assumption doesn't do that either -- it contradicts a lot of other assumptions. The fact is, that we know almost nothing about Goodman's arrangement. I'm sticking with Occam's Razor, here. I think it's likely that they could have a special agreement with WotC that allows them to jump the October 1st start date, but that still requires them to cease publishing the DCC line under the OGL (as per the terms of the GSL).

I don't know why many folks seem to think that "They have a wildly different license that contradicts every aspect of the GSL!" is a more likely scenario here

 

[Alzrius]

Down boy.

I keep mentioning that Goodman Games isn't (apparently) touching their other d20 product lines in response to jaerdaph's idea that Goodman is canceling their DCC products only because it's not cost-effective to remove the d20 logo and then re-upload them. I'm saying that if that were true, they'd be announcing the end of all of their d20 product lines, which they don't seem to be doing.

I think that Occam's Razor isn't that Goodman has a special agreement with WotC. That doesn't seem like the simplest solution. The simplest solution is that they're just not using the GSL at all. That assumption is based on that the product covers don't have the D&D logo on them, which is the big reason to use the GSL, and because their listed rules set information on their product pages is that they're using the "4E" rules, and not the "Dungeons & Dragons" rules.

Simply put, the products themselves don't seem to be GSL products. However, taking down their d20 DCC products sounds like something that the GSL would make them do. Hence, it's uncertain which direction they've really gone.

Either way, there's no need to get snippy over it.

 

[jaerdaph]

I keep mentioning that Goodman Games isn't (apparently) touching their other d20 product lines in response to jaerdaph's idea that Goodman is canceling their DCC products only because it's not cost-effective to remove the d20 logo and then re-upload them. I'm saying that if that were true, they'd be announcing the end of all of their d20 product lines, which they don't seem to be doing.

Just want to point out that the number of Goodman products with the d20 logo other than DCCs is far less than the total number of DCC products, and updating those *might* be a cost effective for them.

 

[jdrakeh]

I keep mentioning that Goodman Games isn't (apparently) touching their other d20 product lines in response to jaerdaph's idea that Goodman is canceling their DCC products only because it's not cost-effective to remove the d20 logo and then re-upload them. I'm saying that if that were true, they'd be announcing the end of all of their d20 product lines, which they don't seem to be doing.

Well, you just mentioned it in direct response to my assertion that they were likely discontinuing the DCC line to comply with the terms of the GSL or a similar license that prohibits the distribution of a given game line under the GSL and the OGL simultaneously. You specifically said that this scenario is unlikely because Goodman wasn't discontinuing their other d20 products.

My point was that the failure to discontinue other d20 products does not make it any less likely that another, completely unrelated product line, is subject to an agreement that forbids its continued publication under the OGL. If anything, it makes that scenario more likely (or, at least, it makes it more likely that the DCC line is affected by some condition that does not afflict Goodman's other d20 product lines).

The simplest solution is that they're just not using the OGL at all.

Hmm. . . you may be right.

Either way, there's no need to get snippy over it.

I don't believe that I was. I think you're reading italics as anger, when it's merely emphasis.