D&D 5E Hope for an open GSL?

[trancejeremy]

A quick comparison on the above - 3.X has OGL, sells very well.
4e has GSL, sales poor enough that WotC began talking internally about 5e in 2010....

So, yes, the OGL does make a difference.

The Auld Grump

Yeah, but that's not a very fair comparison, because 4e had marketing that deliberately antagonized fans of the previous editions and a radically different game design, breaking with many conventions of D&D.

4e is also basically competing with its predecessor under the guise of Pathfinder, which is basically D&D 3.75 (only with much higher product quality than most of what WOTC churned out for 3.0 or 3.5).

It was almost like WOTC drove fans to Paizo. The OGL issues, while real, are pretty minor, IMHO.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yeah, but that's not a very fair comparison, because 4e had marketing that deliberately antagonized fans of the previous editions and a radically different game design, breaking with many conventions of D&D.

4e is also basically competing with its predecessor under the guise of Pathfinder, which is basically D&D 3.75 (only with much higher product quality than most of what WOTC churned out for 3.0 or 3.5).

It was almost like WOTC drove fans to Paizo. The OGL issues, while real, are pretty minor, IMHO.

For the fans, yes, but apparently at least some folks at WotC were surprised when 3PP did not jump on board with the GSL - and for the 3PP, who made 3.X as popular as it was , the GSL was the poison pill.

I have many times the 3PP material than I do WotC - but bought WotC material to support the 3PP material that I bought to support D&D.... It fed upon itself.

Hell, if 5e manages to be cross compatible with Pathfinder then I may buy 5e material for a game that I bought to support 3PP material that I bought to support D&D.... Which is much more than I can say for 4e.

The Auld Grump

 

[Kingreaper]

Well, the lawyers were probably not on salary. That type of review is routinely performed by specialized outside counsel. There is also some non-zero amount of lost sales attributable to the SRD.

I actually agree with you that the net realization was probably greater than zero. Whether the net is enough greater than zero to convince a corporate suit that the goodwill to the player base justifies the nuisance factor (and reflexive fear of piracy) seems unlikely to me.

Pathfinder's sales numbers will be a strong, internal counter-argument to having a true OGL for the new edition. I think the best we can hope for is a more equitable GSL.

The thing is: The evidence says that they can't afford a 6th edition. 6th edition isn't something they're planning on, because if 5th fails, they're dead.

As such, the "Pathfinder Possibility" of an OGL is irrelevant.

Either they succeed, in which case nothing like pathfinder exists because 5th ed doesn't end.
Or they fail, in which case they don't care what other people do with the SRD, because they're out of the market entirely.

 

[SiderisAnon]

The thing is: The evidence says that they can't afford a 6th edition. 6th edition isn't something they're planning on, because if 5th fails, they're dead.

See, I think you're dead wrong there. Only if 5th edition succeeds will there will be a 6th edition.

If 5th edition fails -- which to me means loses money or makes so little that Hasbro finally cuts D&D -- then there will be no more editions and no more books from WoTC. (Someone else could buy it, but that's outside the scope I think.)

If 5th edition succeeds, then they will make 6th edition so that they can sell players all of the core books all over again.

Game ENTHUSIASTS create new editions of the game to improve the rules and do things they love with the games. Game COMPANIES make money. Selling most of the existing people a new edition of the core books makes more money for the company, and makes what business types can point to as likely to happen money. That income is all that matters to the company itself. (Because companies aren't people, they're constructs for making money.)

It doesn't matter what the enthusiasts at WoTC want if the suits decide that a different route means making money. The enthusiasts can be all about making the game better, but it really doesn't matter unless they make the money to keep the lights on and the doors open.


Yes, a more fun game should sell more. I'm not saying that making money can't also be about making a better game. However, a successful 5th edition guarantees a 6th edition, just as the successful 3rd guaranteed the 4th and a successful 4th guaranteed the 5th.

 

[Kynn]

A quick comparison on the above - 3.X has OGL, sells very well.
4e has GSL, sales poor enough that WotC began talking internally about 5e in 2010....

So, yes, the OGL does make a difference.

The Auld Grump

Actually, you're committing some serious logical errors there.

You might as well say "3.x didn't have dragons with boobs, 4e did, therefore dragons with boobs are the cause of 4e losing money!"

Plus, talking about 5e internally in 2010 doesn't really tell us much of anything in terms of how successful the OGL was -- we have zero evidence that, for example, they were talking about "hey, what if we brought back the OGL?"

If it were as simple as you make it out, there would be no need for 5e, they could just declare 4e to be covered by the OGL and presto, problem solved.

Right?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Actually, you're committing some serious logical errors there.

You might as well say "3.x didn't have dragons with boobs, 4e did, therefore dragons with boobs are the cause of 4e losing money!"

Plus, talking about 5e internally in 2010 doesn't really tell us much of anything in terms of how successful the OGL was -- we have zero evidence that, for example, they were talking about "hey, what if we brought back the OGL?"

If it were as simple as you make it out, there would be no need for 5e, they could just declare 4e to be covered by the OGL and presto, problem solved.

Right?

Wrong, actually, by their own statements they have decided that they need to address the OGL/GSL issue.

They have acknowledged that problem. The question is whether the method that they use to address it is any better than the stinking pile that was the GSL.

* "We'll have more information on the GSL as it relates to the next edition in the near future. Personally, I have a copy of 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' on the shelf at work From my days as a programmer and as a freelance RPG designer, the bulk of my work involved open platforms which did a lot for a game that relies so much on individual creativity." - Mike Mearls.

* "And although of course no one can possibly speak with actual authority of the future on this topic, I can assure you that the OGL issues that plagued 4th Edition's release are lessons that did not go unheeded." - Bruce Cordell.

* "I think that an open license speaks to how people think about D&D, and in some ways it is a big part of the game’s culture. We want people to feel like we’re making an effort to include everything that they love about the game, and we’re exploring options for third party publishers." - Mike Mearls.

Paizo kept not only the rules architecture from 3.5, they also kept the OGL.

Which game is selling better? By many accounts, Pathfinder.

And Paizo has stated that supporting the OGL is part of the reason of that success.

WotC has already stated that by the end of 2010 they had already noticed that sales had peaked well before the expected end of the lifespan of the game. 3PP stayed away from the GSL in droves.

Even Necromancer Games, an early supporter of 4e, abandoned the engine after seeing the GSL.

Pathfinder's sales have been steadily increasing. The peak for 4e hit early, I do not know if Pathfinder will match that peak volume. But I do know that continued sales are favoring Pathfinder. Total sales over the period?... I do not know.

My actual expectation is that WotC will try something like the GSL, and that 5e will fail.

But I will accept that dragons with boobs is causing 4e to fail, as long as it means that WotC will get rid of dragonboobs....

The Auld Grump

 

[Sirot]

Where are the statistics for how well Pathfinder and D&D are selling coming from?

 

[Kynn]

Wrong, actually, by their own statements they have decided that they need to address the OGL/GSL issue.

They have acknowledged that problem. The question is whether the method that they use to address it is any better than the stinking pile that was the GSL.

* "We'll have more information on the GSL as it relates to the next edition in the near future. Personally, I have a copy of 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' on the shelf at work From my days as a programmer and as a freelance RPG designer, the bulk of my work involved open platforms which did a lot for a game that relies so much on individual creativity." - Mike Mearls.

* "And although of course no one can possibly speak with actual authority of the future on this topic, I can assure you that the OGL issues that plagued 4th Edition's release are lessons that did not go unheeded." - Bruce Cordell.

* "I think that an open license speaks to how people think about D&D, and in some ways it is a big part of the game’s culture. We want people to feel like we’re making an effort to include everything that they love about the game, and we’re exploring options for third party publishers." - Mike Mearls.

Paizo kept not only the rules architecture from 3.5, they also kept the OGL.

Which game is selling better? By many accounts, Pathfinder.

And Paizo has stated that supporting the OGL is part of the reason of that success.

WotC has already stated that by the end of 2010 they had already noticed that sales had peaked well before the expected end of the lifespan of the game. 3PP stayed away from the GSL in droves.

Even Necromancer Games, an early supporter of 4e, abandoned the engine after seeing the GSL.

Pathfinder's sales have been steadily increasing. The peak for 4e hit early, I do not know if Pathfinder will match that peak volume. But I do know that continued sales are favoring Pathfinder. Total sales over the period?... I do not know.

My actual expectation is that WotC will try something like the GSL, and that 5e will fail.

But I will accept that dragons with boobs is causing 4e to fail, as long as it means that WotC will get rid of dragonboobs....

The Auld Grump

So, just to note, you think that the main factor in the success or failure of 4e D&D was the OGL vs the GSL?

Do you think that 5th edition could be avoided by simply taking 4e, dragon boobs and all, and putting that under OGL? Would that action allow WotC to recapture market share from Pathfinder?

If so, then why aren't all those smart folks at WotC using that solution?

If you disagree, then doesn't your disagreement mean you don't really think the only difference between 3.x and 4e was the OGL/GSL?

You made a statement that basically said "3.x succeeded because of OGL, 4e failed because of lack of OGL, therefore it's proven that OGL caused it." Do you want to step back from this illogical statement, or are you willing to say that 4e would outsell Pathfinder if they left the system the same but added OGL?

 

[Mark CMG]

So, just to note, you think that the main factor (. . .)


(. . .) then doesn't your disagreement mean you don't really think the only difference (. . .)

I see what you did there. You took his position where he prioritized one factor potentially highest in WotC moving on from 4E then turned it around and claimed he made it the single factor in 4E not working out for them. You've ignored discussing the quotes regarding the OGL use for 5E from those working on 5E in favor of suggesting he debates the ridiculous scenario that WotC might drop all of this 5E nonsense and go back to supporting 4E but re-release it as an OGL rather than a GSL supported ruleset. Then you finish up by putting something you've awkwardly paraphrased in quotes, something he didn't actually say, and challenge him to either support the quote or decry it, thereby quasi-validating your own position no matter which tack he might choose to take from your two options. That's quite a bit to squeeze into a single post that accuses someone else of logical speciousness but, like Worf, I admire gall.

 

[Kynn]

I see what you did there. You took his position where he prioritized one factor potentially highest in WotC moving on from 4E then turned it around and claimed he made it the single factor in 4E not working out for them. You've ignored discussing the quotes regarding the OGL use for 5E from those working on 5E in favor of suggesting he debates the ridiculous scenario that WotC might drop all of this 5E nonsense and go back to supporting 4E but re-release it as an OGL rather than a GSL supported ruleset. Then you finish up by putting something you've awkwardly paraphrased in quotes, something he didn't actually say, and challenge him to either support the quote or decry it, thereby quasi-validating your own position no matter which tack he might choose to take from your two options. That's quite a bit to squeeze into a single post that accuses someone else of logical speciousness but, like Worf, I admire gall.

Actually, if you go back to his original comment on this, he's saying that:

(a) 3e had OGL.
(b) 4e didn't have OGL.
(c) 3e succeeded where 4e didn't, and
(d) that was because of OGL.

That's just not supportable.