How about a deadline to WotC?

[thecasualoblivion]

I agree with your earlier post, so I'll drop the whole childish thing. But this ... I just can't get behind. I can't say that anger is never a valid response to a "business decisions". Business decisions are based on what is best (usually most profitable) for a business. However often this can result in detrimental effects to consumers, especially when desires and profitability collide. If I believe I have been misled or deceived ... it being a "business decision" does not invalidate my anger over it.

Instead of WotC telling people, that the GSL was going to be a totally different beast than the OGL, they kept it under wraps for as long as possible (until 3 wks after the release date of the 4e core). Was this a good business decision? I would think so with how unhappy most were with it. Now if I bought the 4e books under the assumption it would be open, why shouldn't I feel anger about it, especially if it was planned knowing that it would be dissapointing to some people who bought 4e assuming (from past experiences, actions and set expectations) that 4e would have strong support from 3pp's and the GSL would be, if not the same, very similar to the OGL.

Honestly, now I'm back to wandering and waiting about the new GSL, only this time I'm holding off on DDI, and majority of the books until I find out... since I know now.

They did say that the GSL was going to be a totally different beast than the OGL. They specifically said that 4E was not going to be released under the OGL, and that the GSL they intended to release for 4E was going to be similar to the d20 STL, not the OGL. While some of the parts of the GSL rubbed open gaming fans and companies the wrong way, that the GSL in no way resembled the OGL wasn't any sort of surprise.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree with your earlier post, so I'll drop the whole childish thing. But this ... I just can't get behind. I can't say that anger is never a valid response to a "business decisions".

True. Never is too strong. There are many business decisions in which the parties are known personally to one another, even on a one-to-one basis. And business decisions are often made irrationally, and can be made to spite another person. It happens.

But not in a case like this. Taking personal offence at this decision seems off-base to me.

 

[Morrus]

True. But I'm under no obligation to give them money either. They may want to think on that when wondering about expectations.

Absolutely. I fully support your right to choose what to purchase. I may even be persuaded that WotC may be making an innefficient or sub-par business decision, if presented with more evidence. What I won't be persuaded of is that they are guilty of any moral wrongdoing.

 

[Cadfan]

Again... subjective. Honestly who are you to decide if someone's anger is valid or not?

Who are you to say that my frustration with people who feel personally offended by WOTC isn't valid?

If you really believed your own words you wouldn't be in this thread criticizing people for being frustrated with the sense of entitlement exhibited by those who believe that WOTC had some sort of obligation to extend the OGL to 4e, or to provide certain amounts free online content.

 

[Imaro]

You are choosing to be offended. I certainly didn't name you or direct any opinion about you to you, nor am I consciously aware of your stance on Open Gaming or this issue.

Emphasis mine. Morrus, I was going to leave this alone at first, but isn't this just an ad hominem attack, where instead of addressing the arguments of those who do feel anger about the current GSL you instead resort to calling them childish. If another poster had said ... "Those who get angry about people disparaging 4e are childish." would this or would this not be an ad hominem attack, because it could use the same logic you use above in the first paragraph to make it clear it was directed at no one specific. How, if at all, is it in anyway different from what you posted.

As for me, I am dissapointed that so few 3pp have chosen to go 4e, and itis affecting my decision to fully invest in 4e, though I'll still play with the core... and I'm actually becoming more and more interested in Runequest and the Michael Moorcock games since I like sword and sorcery anyway, and Mongoose, IMHO, has some positive business practices I like.

I'd say hypothetically a person would be childish if they accused them of a moral wrongdoing and tried to insist that you were "owed" the product at the price you were used to; and that the mature reaction is simply not to purchase to goods if they don't want to pay the price asked.

And I'd say hypothetically that someone who characterizes peoples attitudes and or personality rather than addressing their argument probably will shut down any type of meaningful discourse right there.

 

[Imaro]

Who are you to say that my frustration with people who feel personally offended by WOTC isn't valid?

Where did I say this?

If you really believed your own words you wouldn't be in this thread criticizing people for being frustrated with the sense of entitlement exhibited by those who believe that WOTC had some sort of obligation to extend the OGL to 4e, or to provide certain amounts free online content.

Huh? Who am I criticizing about being frustrated? Where has this frustration even been brought up, and where have I addressed it? I started out addressing a broad characterization about a group of posters who feel a certain way about the way the 4e GSL turned out. What I'm now doing is discussing like everyone else, I mean no one forces anyone to read or post in a thread, and the minute I get tired or frustrated I'll walk away... seems simple enough to me, so how does this contradict anything I've said?

 

[Morrus]

And I'd say hypothetically that someone who characterizes peoples attitudes and or personality rather than addressing their argument probably will shut down any type of meaningful discourse right there.

You asked if I'd consider such a person childish. I responded by saying "yes, under X circumstances". If you didn't want me to answer your question, thats fine, but I wish you'd made it clearer that was the case before I answered it.

I didn't really follow the rest of your post, unfortunately. I'd be happy to respond to it if you could clarify?

 

[Fifth Element]

but isn't this just an ad hominem attack, where instead of addressing the arguments of those who do feel anger about the current GSL you instead resort to calling them childish.

While I disagree about Imaro about WotC in this thread, I agree with this. The 'childish' comment and the resulting discussion really wasn't necessary and didn't add anything. It just fanned the flames by calling people names. (Hey, that rhymes.)

 

[Morrus]

While I disagree about Imaro about WotC in this thread, I agree with this. The 'childish' comment and the resulting discussion really wasn't necessary and didn't add anything. It just fanned the flames by calling people names. (Hey, that rhymes.)

It was a direct answer to a question; it wasn't out of the blue or anything. It also didn't feature the word "childish", although it did contain an observation that a sense of entitlement is a trait often shared by children. It was, moreover, not directed at anybody here; it was simply an anwer to a question asked, which was: "Why is it that some people believe that because WOTC decided to close up their product, and provide a different 3PP use license, that WOTC has violated their rights?"

Anyway, you are correct; the thread is now digressing. Let's get it back on track, folks.

 

[Imaro]

True. Never is too strong. There are many business decisions in which the parties are known personally to one another, even on a one-to-one basis. And business decisions are often made irrationally, and can be made to spite another person. It happens.

But not in a case like this. Taking personal offence at this decision seems off-base to me.

And not once have I said you or anyone else was wrong for feeling like that. In fact I can totally respect that and get behind it... However I can also understand someone being disappointed, angry, etc. by this decision, and it doesn't seem that crazy to me... It just seems like no one is telling the people who are cool with the way it went down, they should be angry... but the one's who are cool with it seem like they have to prove to others they have no right to be angry... and again, who are you to decide this as far as someone else goes?