Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)

[BryonD]

I think we can agree that any foray those two companies had made into 4e, had the GSL been much more acceptable, would probably have been half-hearted, considering they have their own line of games.

That is crazy talk.
They would either go for the best possible quality or not go at all.
That choice would depend on the market. And who knows how that choice would have gone were it not for the GSL. (Paizo made their call early, kudos for their foresight) The GSL just made other issues moot.
But the claim that they would go in half-hearted is absurd and rather insulting to their professionalism.

Further, if GR were doing 4E AND M&M, that would support 4E a hell of a lot more than GR doing M&M and NOT 4E.

 

[Jack99]

That is crazy talk.
They would either go for the best possible quality or not go at all.
That choice would depend on the market. And who knows how that choice would have gone were it not for the GSL. (Paizo made their call early, kudos for their foresight) The GSL just made other issues moot.
But the claim that they would go in half-hearted is absurd and rather insulting to their professionalism.

Further, if GR were doing 4E AND M&M, that would support 4E a hell of a lot more than GR doing M&M and NOT 4E.

Sorry, language thingy there. When I say half-hearted, I meant by the amount, not the quality.

And I agree, I think Paizo made the smart move. Eric, or whoever is the brains over there, knew from history that quite a few players always refused to switch over, and for the first time ever, here was the possibility of catering to those players, giving Paizo a much larger cut than they could every hope for, making magazines or adventures for WotC's game. I also think it was planned way before it was announced, and that the "it's because WotC was slow"-excuse is just that, a convenient excuse.

 

[Scribble]

That choice would depend on the market.

What I find interesting is people talking about companies choosing not to sign the GSL aggreement as if instead they're signing something that says they will never use the GSL.

Ever.

I think that choice will be based on the market as well. If the market seems to be suggesting that people are making lots of money utilizing the GSL, I'm sure many companies will change their tune.

Not that I'm suggesting the GSL WILL achieve this outcome... I just find it interesting.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry, language thingy there. When I say half-hearted, I meant by the amount, not the quality.

Ah, fair enough.

I think if it sold well enough they would drop everything else and do that. I don't think that would happen. But again, it is market thing.

Still, I think GR doing M&M and one single 4E product would be some small amount better for WotC than GR doing no 4E product.

 

[BryonD]

What I find interesting is people talking about companies choosing not to sign the GSL aggreement as if instead they're signing something that says they will never use the GSL.

Ever.

How did you get that from my post?

 

[Voadam]

And its also a physical sale too. Check their website. Just as the d20 license expiration says. Stuff in their warehouse cannot be sold, stuff in the product chain is considered sold. PDFs is just them trying to sell as much as they possibly can before the d20 date expires.

Now if they're trying to do a large print run of something, that might motivate them to sell off some stock quicker by having the sale now as opposed to Nov-Dec.

www.goodman-games.com

The PDF sale came first. This physical book sale is a more recent extension of that pdf sale after their ennie nomination. It does not include any of their other numerous d20 logo physical books, just as the pdf one does not apply to their other d20 logo pdfs and they do not say they are retiring anything besides the DCC OGL product line.

In celebration of our ENnie nominations for “Best Adventure” and “Best Cartography”, our sale on 3.5 DCC modules is extended to include print products!"

and

The End is Near Sale
Later this year we will be discontinuing our 3.5 Dungeon Crawl Classics, and until then you will have a golden opportunity to purchase what’s left at a great price.

It still looks to me like this is due to a plan to put out a GSL DCC which will require the cessation of any sales by Goodman of the DCC product line.

 

[Voadam]

Still, I think GR doing M&M and one single 4E product would be some small amount better for WotC than GR doing no 4E product.

GR is doing one single 4e product. Their 4e character sheets. Put out under the OGL and not the GSL.

 

[Scribble]

How did you get that from my post?

Sorry didn't mean to attribute that you were specifically saying that. You were just talking about the market driving their actions as far as 4e products without the GSL were concerned, and I think the market would/will still dictate their actions for products for 4e with the GSL.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I find interesting is people talking about companies choosing not to sign the GSL aggreement as if instead they're signing something that says they will never use the GSL.

Ever.

I would bet that a lot of companies would sign a GSL that wasn't so one-sided and (frankly) potentially damaging to the company signing. It isn't WOtC that these companies are saying No to. It is the GSL as written.

If enough folks refused to buy into a non-OGL 4e, I'd bet beans that WotC would eventually say No to the GSL, too.

Thinking about this more, I am imagining that the reason WotC is so adamant about the product/line OGL thing is concern that portions of 4e will become OGC by this sort of admixture. And, if you wanted to kill off the OGL, I can see why this might be worrisome.

But I still believe that there has to be a more equitable GSL possible. Just like I think the Gleemax terms of usage are utterly craptacular.

YMMV.


RC

 

[DaveMage]

And one should always make what's best for the bottom line rather than what one is passionate about, right?

WotC taught you well.

This line of thinking is terribly misguided.

Generally speaking, in order to remain in business and produce what you're passionate about, you need to remain profitable.

You are correct - and I agree with you. You are, however, misinterpreting my post, which meant to indicate that *only* doing what's best for the bottom line (as opposed to making what you're passionate about) is not the best way to operate.

And it was very snarky of me to respond like this to Charles Ryan, so Charles, please accept my apology - I was out of line.