Is the GSL unfair to the consumer?

[Sigurd]

This is not an accusation. It is a question.

Specifically, are the concurrent publication restrictions against the interest of the RPG consumer?

Do the restrictions represent unfair market fixing by a monopoly player in a niche of the publishing industry?


It seems to my, uneducated opinion, that it is one thing to place conditions on the use of a new license but another to orchestrate the reduction of choice for the consumer and no little hardship in the destruction of product lines and publications for other companies.

If I like 'Blotz D20'. Does the GSL interfere with or unfairly remove Blotz from the market place? I can expect never to see Blotz 4ed, can I expect to see Blotz OGL?


Sigurd

 

[Admiral Caine]

Yes, yes it is. At least from a certain perspective. And this is a point of view that I've often tried to put forth, but it seldom catches any attention.

You see, it's unfair, but not illegal. In fact it's supported by the law. Unfortunately it is the way business functions. The relationship is entirely between WOTC and the 3rd Party.

The consumer only gets a voice through sheer economic determinism. Our only recourse is to withold our spending dollars.

If we don't like the GSL, our choice is not to buy 4E products, and given an opportunity, to explain why.

Then the choice goes back to WOTC.

The problem is getting enough support, in the form of sheer numbers of people doing likewise, in order to have a meaningful effect. If Hasbro can't see the harm, then chances are they'll ignore it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

No.

Compared to say the license for using second edition... oh wait, there was no such license.

Is it restrictive compared to the feast that was the original OGL? Oh yeah.

But seriously, if you want to see restrictive, make a fan site converting Palladium's Rifts to say, Rolemaster/Spacemaster and see what happens.

 

[Man-thing]

The license itself does nothing to the consumer. The consumer may not be presented with the kinds of choices they are used to but that's a decision the 3PP need to make. It would be good to talk to them though, I think Paizo did an excellent job of this.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes. This new license is not only so restrictive as to narrow the thriving third-party community, but it's also a direct attack against the existing OGL community.

The GSL is unfair to the consumer.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Yes. This new license is not only so restrictive as to narrow the thriving third-party community, but it's also a direct attack against the existing OGL community.

The GSL is unfair to the consumer.

Only if you assume the 3rd party community feels forced to go 4e.

The OGL community should continue to make kick-ass games, and compete the old-fashioned way, creating products that a different and actual alternatives to D&D.

I think the OGL community is so scared that 4e D&D is going to dominate and there's nothing they can do, that consumers are "sheep" or that publishers going for the GSL will "sell out" the "spirit of open gaming" for the 4e system.

The true high road in my opinion is to make a competing alternative that is NOT D&D. If consumers feel unfairly taken advantage of, they will go for OGL compatible 3e products. Nobody has a right to a free open version of 4e. But they can't take away the OGL away unless you agree.

Consumers would also be benefited if there wasn't a D&D "monoculture", instead more strong alternate games like Storyteller or Warhammer. So I'm actually hoping we'll see more publishers create truly original stuff and benefit consumers with those alternatives.

Maybe this is a good thing in the long run. I hope Paizo offers something for the disenfranchised classic D&Der. I hope companies start developing their own systems. And I hope some accept the GSL and get to play with WoTCs toys.

 

[Sigurd]

I am not talking about the whole GSL. I recognize that WOTC has the right to license its products.


I am talking specifically about the provision that restricts GSL licensees from also publishing OGL material or material for 3\3.5. It is an outright manipulation of the consumer's choice.

By comparison, If microsoft had gone after WINDOWS 98 publishers when it released XP businesses would have been in an uproar. Why should a publisher be allowed to limit my choice as a customer?

I have the expectation that game material I buy will run a usual life cycle. There are many many D20 books, that I don't even know about, that I might want to purchase. I wont be able to because this license will force them off the market. I say 'force' because of WOTC's overwhelming market presence in the store channels and their monopoly position in the RPG publishing industry.

 

[Yair]

Yes, but only to the extent that it limits 3p from publishing for the OGL anything they touch on through the GSL. That's unfair to the consumers of OGL-based products, like Pathfinder.

Otherwise, no, the GSL isn't unfair to the consumers. It doesn't provide the options the OGL would have, but that's not being unfair.

It is unfair to the publishers, who need a crystal ball to determine what changes WotC will make to the license and SRD, are obliged to serve as agents of WotC whenever it pleases, must pay WotC's legal and other expenses, and must abide by many strictures idefinitely (long after the license would be terminated); as well as limiting their ability to do what they could otherwise do under copyright/trademark laws. But that's a different issue.

 

[Pinotage]

Yes and No. It entirely fine for WotC to run their business the way they do and handle their licenses the way they do.

One of the things I've picked up about this is that the d20 license has been revoked, in other words, all products bearing the d20 logo need to be updated or removed from the market within 6 months. That means, as a consumer, that everything that used the d20 license might, quite frankly, disappear by the end of the year. Now there are time constraints on the consumers spending over the next 6 months. Always wanted a copy of a particular d20 product but never bought it - now you have to since it might just well be gone by the end of the year.

I think the GSL is too restrictive. I don't think it will take off nearly as well as people think. I think 3rd party support is likely to dwindle, particularly from established companies that stand to lose all their old lines.

Pinotage

 

[Admiral Caine]

Sigurd,

This is a subjective question that can't be answered in absolutes.

I still maintain it's unfair to consumers. Other posters can easily spend all day explaining why they think it's not. The problem is the definition of fair, itself, is highly subjective.

The position that just because the GSL offers less choices than the OGL does not make it unfair.. is defendable. Defined in absolutes of what is legal and what is illegal, I can understand someone saying it is fair.

I don't think it is. As a consumer I feel harmed by the fact that there is potentially less chance of superior products being produced for 4E, due to lack of healthy industry competition. My position is that I want choice, and the natural increase in quality that comes with it. Sounds unfair to me.

But I'm not required to buy 4E, or anything that I don't like. That's the counter-argument of why it is fair.

To paraphrase Pontius Pilate, "What is fair?"

Consider that many legal arguments and decisions fall under the definition of "perception by a reasonable standard." You will notice that WOTC puts in the GSL specific clauses that some parts of the license (like the definition of "what is a product line") as being firmly under their interpretation. Leaving no room for someone to sneak a "reasonable standard" in there any where. They nipped that right in the bud.

What is fair, and what is allowed under law, are two different things. And fairness itself, is a subjective term.

EDIT: I took some unnecessary snark out my original post. If you saw it and were bothered by it, my apologies.