GSL news.

[thecasualoblivion]

Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.

I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.

In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.

Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.

That sounds like they might do the exclusivity contract(use the GSL or the OGL, not both) thing, but hand out some exceptions for established stand-alone games like M&M, True20 ect.

 

[tomBitonti]

If WotC is trying to ensure that 4Ed doesn't get into a fight with 3.5 based games & products, it makes business sense for them to try to get the major 3.5 producers to bail on the OGL and go 4Ed/GSL all the way. Without support from WotC and the top 3PPs, 3.5Ed based games and products will be devalued because of market saturation. After all, how many people will want to buy a 7 year old game supplement for a game no longer in print? Extant copies- the as-yet unsold and the resale/used market- will be sufficient to supply the demand for that old supplement.

And a devalued older product is at a competitive disadvantage to a "new & improved" entry into the market.

By pressing the OGL/GSL issue, WotC could avoid the "New Coke" problem.

In the automobile world, this was called "planned obsolescence."

In the software world, its called "upgrading." Heck, even my computers of choice (Macs) don't have as much of the backwards compatibility they were once famous for.

However, as stated a few posts above, there may be less to this than we think.

Not getting a fight is avoiding competition. Competitive markets are all about getting into fights, and allowing that to select the best and lowest cost products.

3.5E products are devalued no matter what. But why kill them off, except to scrape out an extra 10% of sales? I just don't understand why WoTC is so *eric's granda's filter* bent on killing 3.5E. Unless it would be more than 10%.

I thought that automobile obsolescence was about making sure the parts wore out at about the same time. You've spent too much on a part if it lasts longer than all of the others. (Or lasts a lot longer than all of the others. I can see that you would want certain parts to fail last, or to not fail very often, which might force you to make ithose parts to last on average a lot longer.)

Maybe, WoTC is making choice that is truly in my best interest (and 4E is superb!), and is simply making that decision for me (and for all of the gaming companies out there). I don't think that is appropriate.

(A reason that I can think of for preventing production of 3.5E products is to reduce the back-transfer of 4E ideas to 3.5E. If a company produces a couple of 4E products and uses that to pay for their learning all about 4E, what would be stopping them from adapting those ideas to 3.5E and creating a transitional book?)

(On the other hand, why didn't WoTC do this themselves? I have to say that having transitional products seems like a big win, keeping the existing fan base happy while making it breathing-air easy to move up to 4E.)

---

I am interested in the defensibility of my statement of being harmed by their licensing terms. Could this statement be successfully argued?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not getting a fight is avoiding competition. Competitive markets are all about getting into fights, and allowing that to select the best and lowest cost products.

Again, its the marketing lesson of New Coke.

New Coke was supposed to replace Classic Coke, however, despite outperforming both Pepsi and Classic Coke in countless taste tests, the new product failed miserably, and is now only available in limited markets as Coke II.

Why? Because Classic Coke (and Pepsi, for that matter) still had a huge following, and people didn't want a replacement. Classic Coke was popular, and, doggone it, good enough (thank you, Stuart Smalley). Since it was still a viable product in its own right with continued production, it continued to sell...while New Coke sat on the shelves.

WotC (if they are trying to kill 3.5) is trying to avoid competing with its own product. 3.5, whatever flaws it has, is THE 800lb gorilla in the RPG market. Devaluing it in some way, shape, or form is simply good marketing strategy.

Yes, the mere presence of 4Ed devalues 3.5 somewhat, but as the saying goes, "If you strike a king, strike to kill." The mere existence of other games cuts into 4Ed's potential market share, but the continued existence of the robust & popular 3.5 in its various forms is the single biggest threat to 4Ed's success.

I thought that automobile obsolescence was about making sure the parts wore out at about the same time.

Nope- its an artifact of marketing.

Its a way of making products just good enough to last and gain/maintain market share & goodwill...until the next model is introduced that has just enough features & changes that the previous model is somehow less desirable to the buying public. That way, there is a constant churn of new sales to keep the company's revenue up. Its one of the major reason automobile body styles change, for example.

And in the RPG world, its one of many reasons why new editions get released. Sure, there are innovations in this game or that which should be incorporated or emulated in other games, or accretion of less-than-ideal mechanics or rulings that drive redesigns...

But the business of RPGs means that the companies need to keep sales of their big-ticket items rolling- in WotC's case, the Core 3- to maintain a healthy bottom line. And generally speaking, that means new editions.

 

[SteveC]

I see this issue is still hanging out there without an official answer on the policy. That prompts me to make a suggestion. It's a suggestion coming from someone who's looking forward to 4E and genuinely likes the people who are behind it, and hopes it will do well.

The GSL and its relationship to the OGL is a big deal to many people in your online audience. It's not a big deal to gamers as a whole, but the reason that WotC is updating the license in the first place is to deal with those companies and individulals for which this is a large issue.

My suggestion: get this done and taken care of. I have heard that 4E has had over a million dollar development budget. If that's so, what is the problem with getting this issue resolved? Companies who spend tiny fractions of 4E's development cost seem to be able to handle customer relations issues in a more timely and, I have to say it, professional manner.

When news of the "poison pill" hit Boing Boing, the problem left the world of OGL caring companies and gaming nerds, and went out into the larger Internet community. If I were in public relations for WotC, I would have had a release ten minutes after the story broke saying how this was a misunderstanding and that something would obviously be worked out. Not doing so is rather bush league, I have to say. Yes, I know that the people involved have been traveling and been involved with their own projects, but not controlling this issue immediately is just not professional. If I were in Hasbro, and I heard about the issue (which I might, Boing Boing gets a lot of hits) you would be certain I would be on the phone to WotC in about 30 seconds and getting something put out, travel times and convention issues notwithstanding.

I love the game, I love the people involved, but as a business person myself, I have to say that this is beyond believable at this point. Get and answer out and put this controversy behind us! Sometimes you need to say tough stuff to the people you respect the most ... I'm sorry if this comes off as overly harsh, but in a business sense, this lack of communication is insane.

--Steve

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanks SteveC!

I think that was a pretty eloquent restatement of why the delayed GSL release is a big negative for WotC.

Simply put, its bad business, harms relationships within the industry, and is overall bad PR.

 

[pawsplay]

Why? Because Classic Coke (and Pepsi, for that matter) still had a huge following, and people didn't want a replacement. Classic Coke was popular, and, doggone it, good enough (thank you, Stuart Smalley). Since it was still a viable product in its own right with continued production, it continued to sell...while New Coke sat on the shelves.

Plus, it failed to satisfy Coke's most ardent fans. Most people did not care much, or could not tell the difference, they just liked the label. But there was a solid following of people who really enjoyed Coke and resented losing it. Whereas there was no corresponding following of existing New Coke fans. Well, until after the fiasco, when New Coke had a second life as an alternative product....

 

[The Little Raven]

The key difference between the New Coke and D&D 4th Edition situations is simple: There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.

 

[pawsplay]

The key difference between the New Coke and D&D 4th Edition situations is simple: There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.

And there were other market leading alternatives, such as Pepsi and RC Cola? And it's a beverage? And it wasn't an early 20th century invention? and....

 

[SteveC]

Thanks SteveC!

I think that was a pretty eloquent restatement of why the delayed GSL release is a big negative for WotC.

Simply put, its bad business, harms relationships within the industry, and is overall bad PR.

Thanks, Danny. That was very hard to say, because I really like the people who are behind the game. D&D's launch is going to be a big thing, and I hate to think it will be negatively affected by this situation. Boing Boing is read by a lot of people who aren't gamers, many of whom are the new audience WotC is looking for. Let's get this resolved one way or the other and move on!

--Steve

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There weren't years of complaints built up about problems with Classic Coke like there are with 3rd Edition.

Actually, there were- that's one of the big reasons why Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, RC and other sweeter sodas were actually able to enter the market and succeed. In Pepsi's case, enough to actually challenge Coke for #1, which was what prompted the market research into New Coke.

But that's not the point- the point is that it can be extremely difficult to compete with your own successful product, be it a physical product like a car, RPG or soft-drink, or a service, like actors complaining about being "typecast."

3.5/D20, in all of its forms, is hugely successful. 4Ed's best chance of success is if that competitor is swept from the marketplace.