D&D 5E Hope for an open GSL?

[Gryph]

One thing I love with press releases like this are finding the small clues. Mearls specifically mentioned 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' immediately after the GSL so that tells me that's a hint as to future plans.


link. There's more about the book which gives me hopeful feelings about the future of 4E Open Gaming.

The wikipedia article would seem to offer more support for WoTC doing more public beta testing (which they claim they are going to do) than sharing of the IP when the product goes to market.

I think it would be very difficult to place a value to WoTC of the network effects of the OGL. The value to the player base is fairly apparent, but how much Wizards realized in additional sales of their own products from the availability of 3PP products will always be a matter for debate.

 

[Jawsh]

The wikipedia article would seem to offer more support for WoTC doing more public beta testing (which they claim they are going to do) than sharing of the IP when the product goes to market.

I think it would be very difficult to place a value to WoTC of the network effects of the OGL. The value to the player base is fairly apparent, but how much Wizards realized in additional sales of their own products from the availability of 3PP products will always be a matter for debate.

"How much" will be a matter for debate, but we can say one thing with certainty: it was more than zero. What did it cost WotC to make this happen? The lawyers' and Ryan Dancey's salaries, which they were paying anyways.

Oh, and that intern that converted the files to *rtf for the website. Does anyone remember that guy? He wrote a few blogs about it.

 

[Mark CMG]

Could you do this on your own web site without the GSL? Sure -- as long as you run the risk of being C&D'd or sued because you're little fish. Everyone who isn't WotC doesn't want to take that chance, even hint at it, especially not in this litigious day and age.

And lest we forget, the GSL and anything produced under it, will no longer be legal to distribute (for the producer/publisher), or put online, once WotC decides to pull the plug on the license.

 

[Gryph]

"How much" will be a matter for debate, but we can say one thing with certainty: it was more than zero. What did it cost WotC to make this happen? The lawyers' and Ryan Dancey's salaries, which they were paying anyways.

Oh, and that intern that converted the files to *rtf for the website. Does anyone remember that guy? He wrote a few blogs about it.

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.

 

[Griego]

I'm with [MENTION=6061]grimslade[/MENTION] here. From the bean counters' perspective, they made D&D open and then Paizo used the OGL to eat their lunch! Pathfinder is outselling D&D! I would be astounded if WotC produced a new license anywhere near as open as the OGL is.

 

[Nylanfs]

And on speaking as to whether PCGen helped or hurt sales. The way we design our datasets we only include the one or two line description text & any mechanical values that affect the character*. We have had many of the users have said that they have specifically purchased a book because they read the description and were intrigued.

*Except for the dataset based on the SRD/RSRD/MSRD.

 

[Hussar]

Look, I have no idea if things like the SRD had any net effect. I don't.

But I bet that WOTC does.

The thing is, sure, it's great when the Hypertext SRD helps to sell a PHB. But, at the end of the day, those two products aren't really in competition, at least not directly. They do complement each other nicely.

However, the SRD does directly compete with the Compendium. Or, rather they would if 4e were open. It takes a HELL of a good product to compete with free.

Again, I have no idea. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue at all. But, considering the reactions of publishers to other effects of OGL, I would think that its an issue. Look at Green Ronin's reaction to a Hypertext SRD of their open content to see that it's hardly WOTC alone who is concerned.

It's funny. Back before 4e, anytime someone suggested a wiki of Open content, numerous publishers would show up and call everyone a bunch of thieves who just want to rip them off. Now, those same publishers are being hailed as the vanguard in the Open movement. You get away with it now because no one is publishing 3e stuff particularly anymore and I imagine sales of 3.x material is pretty much done.

But roll back to about 2005 and watch reactions to the idea that anyone else's content, other than WOTC's should be made available.

Again, I'll ask the question. Does anyone think that 5e sales for WOTC (and, as the IP holder's their sales are the only ones that count here) would be driven to the tune of half a million dollars a month simply by making 5e an OGL system?

Because that, right there, is the bottom line.

 

[Jawsh]

However, the SRD does directly compete with the Compendium. Or, rather they would if 4e were open. It takes a HELL of a good product to compete with free.

I will grant that there is some overlap by people who want to look up rules questions online. But really, the Compendium does different things. The Compendium lets you manipulate and sort and filter and create. The Compendium is software; the SRD is data.

Also, the Compendium isn't the only thing subscribers are paying for. I don't think WotC expects players would subscribe for just the rules and nothing more. A subscription comes with access to exclusive content from Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

Look at Green Ronin's reaction to a Hypertext SRD of their open content to see that it's hardly WOTC alone who is concerned.

I am not aware of Green Ronin's reaction. If they read the OGL, they should not be surprised.

Again, I'll ask the question. Does anyone think that 5e sales for WOTC (and, as the IP holder's their sales are the only ones that count here) would be driven to the tune of half a million dollars a month simply by making 5e an OGL system?

Where did you get that number? Surely it doesn't need to be that high.

Still, I think it's possible, but I don't have evidence, and I'm not a fortune teller.

Edit to add: Also, WotC isn't the only one that counts. Many of the people who would benefit from an OGL are also WotC employees. Even if it isn't a great deal for the bottom line, an OGL will grant a greater degree of success to Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, and others within WotC. People who know the rules well, and then go on to publish 3rd party stuff that supports WotC's game.

 

[Hussar]

The half a million dollars is what the 4e DDI generates right now. 67k subscribers as I type this, and that's only the confirmed subs. It could easily hit almost 100k. That's half a million dollars a month.

An OGL 5e would see character builders (we saw this for 4e within MONTHS of 4e's release, even if it wasn't legal), online rules compendiums, and online tools (a la the Hypertext SRD - again, something that only took months to get up and running) being set up very quickly and quite possibly for free and, also quite possibly, just as functional as the DDI setup.

If 5e is OGL, then there would be nothing WOTC could do about that.

So, the OGL has to be worth half a million dollars a month before it's really worth doing. Because a closed system like 4e, even with the fractured fan base, is pulling in that kind of money.

Again, the OGL and online tools don't play nicely together.

You might even wind up with a situation like in 3e where only the core rules are OGL and everything else is closed. So, the DDI tools continue to grow and grow, building on material that WOTC publishes, while the 3PP get left in the cold. And, you'll see all sorts of resentment festering if that happens. OGL supporters will constantly be beating on the DDI walls trying to get 3pp products into the DDI.

I can't really see that the return would be worth it to be honest. If WOTC gives up tool based DDI, then it will work. But, so long as WOTC wants to have tool based subscriptions, and monetize the rules, it won't play together with an OGL system.

 

[Tallifer]

Really all I want is for a licensing agreement which allows the publishing of adventures, adventur paths, campaign settings and new monsters. Paizo published adventures for the Third Edition, but it ceased when it was told that it could not publish stuff for both editions. Conversions also for many of the great old adventures and paths like Dragonlance.

I would also like a more flexible Character Builder, which would allow us to import classes, feats, powers, et cetera from wherever. It would certainly make for better homebrew campaigns, which I think most of us run. Heck even when I run a published adventure because of lack of time, I still set it in my own worlds.