New GSL Announcement

[Kevin Brennan]

On the flip side of this, the beancounters would say "well yes, but we've ALREADY spent X amount, and we only need to spend .3 X more now. May as well not have that money be wasted"

Sunk cost fallacy. That money is gone no matter what, all that matters is whether even .3X cost is less than the benefits. I suspect it's not.

 

[xechnao]

I know this is not likely to make much of a difference, but I would suggest that WotC look hard at the amount of internal resources and energy they're devoting to trying to sort out the GSL, the ongoing negative publicity that they're getting from it, and the likely investment required to sort out all the remaining issues, and really ask themselves if the marginal benefit from preventing the publication of a few competing products really exceeds that cost. I think it's very unlikely that the positive benefits of the GSL over just putting 4e under the OGL would justify the drain on resources that it's causing.

If I thought WotC would take me up on it I'd even offer to help them with the business case.

I do not believe that they suffer due to this negative publicity as you have been thinking. They are instead drawing more attention. The most important for them is to gain max attention around 4e launch. Along the bad news that will be drawing these people, the good ones will pass along and hopefully prevail.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

(You can see an example of the argument in this thread, and even this OGF archive .) Some publishers are a bit afraid of ripping occuring--but right now the OGL is the only method of the license.

It's my theory that the GSL won't have that viral nature built in, or it will be more restricted or controlled. And it's just my belief that licenses such as the BSD is better than the GPL--let the person creating the work decide. But perhaps I'm wrong. I am willing to admit that.

Seriously, it is quite clear you are terrified of someone using your work without your permission (even though you would never be materially harmed or even notice it), I kind of guess I can understand that. I mean, the GNU type Open Source License came about in an environment where about 80%+ of the people that support or adhere to it only write code for internal use. In other words, they don't write commercial software that gets sold.

Barring all that, you cited a post from theRPGSite that was posted in 2006. By RPGPundit himself. Which was a re-posting from a blog entry of his that was a year old at that point.

Mr Fantastic can't stretch that much.

(EDIT: Thanks to the mods for keeping this open just a touch longer than the 1k mark. I had to point that out.)

 

[Tao]

Hey... haven't posted around here in a while, but I've been lurking and this was enough to bring me out of the woodwork.

The truth is, whatever harm the OGL may have done to Wizards of the Coast, it allowed their game system to dominate the market for almost a decade with little or no serious opposition. For every ripped copy of UA there were a dozen or so solid products (like Iron Heroes, True20, Iron Kingdoms, etc) that kept the attention and focus of the vast majority of gamers and game developers on the d20 system. If the d20 system hadn't been open and accessible the same people who developed innovative d20 products would have simply been developing completely alternate rulesets, and likely would have split the gaming industry even further and cost Wizards a much greater portion of the market.

I would hope that by now Wizards has realized that in the gaming industry, size only matters so much. They are walking a very tight line at the moment between bringing their partners closer and pushing them into the realm of competitors. Sadly, with the bulk of a large corporation at their back, I don't know if the S.S. WotC is maneuverable enough to keep up with changing trends in gaming should they create too many competitors. If they expect to stay on top, they need to forge the alliances that will keep them there, even if it means bending over backwards.

Again, this is only my own personal opinion... and I would hope that its something thats already been expressed within the hallowed halls of WotC.

 

[xechnao]

Hey... haven't posted around here in a while, but I've been lurking and this was enough to bring me out of the woodwork.

The truth is, whatever harm the OGL may have done to Wizards of the Coast, it allowed their game system to dominate the market for almost a decade with little or no serious opposition. For every ripped copy of UA there were a dozen or so solid products (like Iron Heroes, True20, Iron Kingdoms, etc) that kept the attention and focus of the vast majority of gamers and game developers on the d20 system. If the d20 system hadn't been open and accessible the same people who developed innovative d20 products would have simply been developing completely alternate rulesets, and likely would have split the gaming industry even further and cost Wizards a much greater portion of the market.

I would hope that by now Wizards has realized that in the gaming industry, size only matters so much. They are walking a very tight line at the moment between bringing their partners closer and pushing them into the realm of competitors. Sadly, with the bulk of a large corporation at their back, I don't know if the S.S. WotC is maneuverable enough to keep up with changing trends in gaming should they create too many competitors. If they expect to stay on top, they need to forge the alliances that will keep them there, even if it means bending over backwards.

Again, this is only my own personal opinion... and I would hope that its something thats already been expressed within the hallowed halls of WotC.

What if Wotc plans 5E to sell on the basis of a different system? You do understand that it will have an even harder time to do it if what you have been saying here goes on. OGL was a good move under the certain conditions of 10 years ago. It seems not this time.

 

[Morrus]

The truth is, whatever harm the OGL may have done to Wizards of the Coast, it allowed their game system to dominate the market for almost a decade with little or no serious opposition.

That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise. Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?

If the d20 system hadn't been open and accessible the same people who developed innovative d20 products would have simply been developing completely alternate rulesets, and likely would have split the gaming industry even further and cost Wizards a much greater portion of the market.

To be fair, there are hundreds of those despite that.

I would hope that by now Wizards has realized that in the gaming industry, size only matters so much.

I think it matters more than you do!

They are walking a very tight line at the moment between bringing their partners closer and pushing them into the realm of competitors.

Sure, but even as competitors, they, combined, only make up a small percentage of the market.

If they expect to stay on top, they need to forge the alliances that will keep them there, even if it means bending over backwards.

I agree it would be nice; I strongly dispute your assertion that it's necessary for them to maintain their massive market share.

 

[pawsplay]

No, you missed my point. The only license for D&D now is the OGL. There is no other license, so anybody using it has to agree to the viral terms. My point is I believe the true freedom for the publishers would be to let the publishers choose whether or not to make it viral, and make that inherent in the license. Granted, PI can help prevent it, but let them make that choice by default in the new license. I'm kind of saying let it be "opt out" instead of "opt in" by default.

What are you talking about? Publishers don't have to designate anything OGL they don't want to, and there's no question of opt-in or opt-out; the licenese requires you to clearly indicate what is OGC and what is not.

 

[2WS-Steve]

That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise. Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?

I'm sure that D&D would be the big dog no matter what -- but prior to 3rd edition there was massive fracturing of game systems in the market -- all these publishers have their own little game.

We've seen some of that return in the last couple years -- but even now there's an awful lot of material around the core mechanic. Moreover, we're seeing islands form around splinter OGL systems -- so you have a group of publishers doing M&M and another group doing d20 Modern.

Even a few people doing open content for Shadows of the Century and I won't be surprised to see extensive support for Mongoose's Traveler.

This is a lot different than the 90s -- and I think we're finally getting to the point where we're seeing a nice balance of experimentation in RPG design and supporting well-tested and relatively widely-used games.

 

[Psion]

That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise. Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?

This isn't an either or situation. D&D likely would have had a dominant position on the market either way; that doesn't mean that the OGL didn't contribute to its success, perhaps even priming the market for 4e (by preventing jaded players from moving too far away from the tree, as it were.)

 

[Tao]

I guess I should clarify my early post. I'm not trying to insinuate that Wizards is wrong for limiting their gaming license nor do I believe that they haven't weighed the relative advantages and disadvantages of the OGL. I am simply pointing out that there definitely were advantages, in my own opinion.

That's an interesting view; clearly WotC believes otherwise. Where do you derive the conclusion that the OGL is what made D&D the big dog - as opposed to, say, ownership of the established brand name combined with far greater resouces?

I don't doubt the impact of having an established brand name and resources, nor did I intend to imply that those wouldn't factor into their market share. The fact that many other game designers were actively promoting their line for them couldn't have hurt though. I don't think you or I or even Wizards of the Coast's head honchos can truly attribute their success to any one factor. We can, at best, make estimates based on our own observations.

To be fair, there are hundreds of those despite that.

Absolutely. But there is really no system that I am aware of that attempts to do exactly what D&D does. The majority attempt to fill a niche that isn't yet filled by a major gaming system. No one has seriously tried making a game for that specific genre (mid-high fantasy) and that specific style (primarily dungeon crawl and linear adventure), because it was easier to just make a campaign setting or adventure module using the d20 Open Content and call it a day. If its no longer easier to play by their rules (both literally and figuratively), someone may actually be crazy enough to develop a serious competitor to D&D and challenge their market share. I don't know how well it would go over, but it appears as though Paizo is tentatively stepping up to the plate with the possibility of a "3.75". Maybe others will do the same. No way to tell for sure.

I think it matters more than you do!

Meh. Blizzard was a latecomer to the videogaming market. Marvel Comics was a latecomer to the comicbook market. Google was a latecomer to the search engine market. They did alright for themselves. Talent sells. Right now a lot of the talent, even if they aren't working for Wizards of the Coast is still working for Wizards of the Coast. I am hardly predicting an apocalypse on WotC's horizon. Rather, I am stating the possibility that their actions will create more competitors: possibly more serious competitors. Honestly, I am sure that this is something that was considered by people at all levels of Wizards of the Coast when the new GSL was drafted. Its simply a risk they were willing to take.

I agree it would be nice; I strongly dispute your assertion that it's necessary for them to maintain their massive market share.

I didn't say that it was necessary. The only thing necessary to maintain a massive market share is making a good game that people like to play. They could do it without anyone at all if they wanted, and I don't doubt that they would still do very well for themselves. I am simply saying that if they make it too hard to work with them they will more than likely find people on the other side of the fence. Even this isn't necessarily a bad thing for Wizards of the Coast, since any growth in the roleplaying industry tends to lift everyone involved. More variety in game lines could attract a bigger crowd.

Keep in mind, I am not even saying it will cost Wizards anything. There is the possibility that if people step out of Wizards shadow, the whole industry will grow in ways that attract new players and a larger market. Personally, I don't mind a little bit of fracturing in the market. It could push everyone involved to new heights. There's a lot of speculation at this point, and only time will tell how it turns out.



As for me personally, I fully plan on supporting 4e when it comes to my own publishing endeavors. I have a good working relationship with Wizards of the Coast and have put a lot of work put into a setting for 4e. I have also begun to lay the groundwork for a game that I hope will be viable under the non-fantasy d20 OGL. If it is not possible under that OGL, I already have another system on the backburner that I am willing to run with to make it happen. I'm willing to be pretty flexible, and hopefully it works. If not, its still getting published.