New GSL Announcement

[Scipio202]

Well, as a consumer, I ask myself. What do I want? Do I want 4e published by WoTC and supported by a few companies that focus solely on making 4e, or do I want a gazillion companies whose primary focus is something else, and then they make some 4e on the side, because that is where the money is? Do I want the 3PP writers to focus on one system and thus hopefully being better at writing crunch and adventures for it, or do I want them to write for one system one day, another the next, etc.

Thats how it looks to me as an outsider to the industry, please, don't take it for more than that.

This seems the most important aspect of this debate. Each game system is enriched by the ongoing investment of finite design/development resources. I think its quite reasonable to think that there is a synergy in quality and usability between products. For example, campaign worlds are appealing because there is so much more depth and detail. Each new product makes all the associated products more valuable/usable.

Having 50% of the companies focus on 4E/GSL products, and 50% of the companies focus on OGL products may mean better quality products for *both* 4E consumers and OGL consumers than most companies spending part of their resources on each sub-market.

WotC wants buy in from at least a chunk of publishers, and is offering a deeper brand affiliation than ultimately came about under the STL in exchange. If other publishers want to stick with what they are doing, more power to them. This seems like a perfectly reasonable business strategy.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

They probably didn't expect such blantant "freeware" versions of their games such as the online SRD, the repurposing of Unearthed Arcana, etc.

John, this is just getting tiresome.

WotC posted the SRD online, FOR FREE, themselves. Theirs was the first blatant freeware.

IT IS STILL THERE, TODAY, ON THEIR WEBSITE.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

 

[Orcus]

Some of us AREN'T consumers. Some of us are businesses that have had a major part of our operational plans in a constant holding pattern since January, and would just like to know if this all-or-nothing rumor is true or not, so we can get on with our livelihoods.

Not asking for legal opinion, not asking for exact language -- just asking whether or not that's the intention of the license -- which they obviously know.

GM,

It is.

I dont know the full paramaters. But we will have to choose on a company by company basis, not a product by product basis, or so I have been specifically told by Wizards.

Here is what I know:

*company by company, not product by product
*support 4E OR support 3E, but not both
*This was a specific and intentional business decision by Wizards, it is not some unforseen accidental consequence of the license.

Here is what I dont know:

*if you go 4E, what is the mechanism to prevent use of 3E?
*if you go 4E, can you return to 3E and simply never use 4E again?
*if you go 4E, that clearly means you cant support more 3E products, and you have to sell off backstock of d20 products in 6 months (because they are revoking the license), but what does that mean for PDFs or backstock of old products? Can we continue to sell them? In other words--can I continue to sell old OGL products so long as I am not creating new ones? This to me is the biggie--this is the "backstock" question.

Clark

 

[JohnRTroy]

Just because they expected it Wulf, doesn't mean (a) everybody in the company agreed or (b) they didn't change their minds once they saw it. Not everybody is Ryan and how many companies follow the ideas of one man.

I'm really sick of people saying "WoTC knew what they were doing" when they made it viral. Yeah, maybe, but perhaps they now see negative effects and want to change their minds. When Andy Collins expressed disappointment about what happened to Unearthed Arcana, they probably didn't think the "egalitarian nature" of the license would bite them on the ass.

 

[mxyzplk]

Man, and when I was just getting ready to sing songs about love and peace, too. It's as if WotC were deliberately trying to stir up hostility.

Eh, I don't think it's trying to stir it up as much as not really caring if they do. It's the Microsoft/RIAA/GM/American Airlines theory of business. Customers are sheep and they'll buy what you tell them to.

If you keep up with the news on Hasbro, this isn't unusual. The Scrabulous lawsuit, the clue.com lawsuit, the Constructible Strategy Game patent war vs. WizKids, the Magic "tapping" lawsuit. They are aggressive about maintaining exclusive holds on everything related to any of their game lines, by patent, trademark, lawsuit, license, or any other means.

Half a million Facebook users play Scrabulous every day - Hasbro obviously doesn't care about angering them, so they're definitely not going to care about the couple thousand D&D players who are sufficiently plugged in to see and understand the GSL.

Read n Learn:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/11/hasbro-tries-to-shut-down-scrabulous/
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/1226253
http://www.patentarcade.com/labels/Lawsuits.html

And let's get it out of the way cause I know the yes-men are chomping at the bit - yes, it's their God-given corporate right under US law to do all this. But it still sucks.

 

[Nellisir]

I didnt "mention" it.
I related it to all of you as it was told to me.
I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.
But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.

Sorry. Related. Reported. Paraphrased. I was trying to hedge for my own comfort, not to imply a lack of truthiness or assertion on your part.

I think I'm gonna take a break for a few weeks (hey, the smilies are different!). Go read War & Peace or something.

Thank you Scott and Linnae for your patience and participation in this and a myriad other threads. It is appreciated!

Nell.

 

[Orcus]

Well, if you want to "make a difference", probably the best way to get Scott/Linae to listen and have something fruitful to take to the internal WotC meetings is to say "It's really important that the GSL allows X, Y and Z for the following reasons.

I've tried that, since the news. My feeling, at least as to this issue of "choose 4e or 3e" is not changing. I've given up on trying to change that. The inclusion of that term was a complete surprise to me, and I have a funny feeling Wizards knew it would be

My hope is there will be some clarification on the related issues, like backstock and ability to keep selling pdfs of old products so long as we dont make new 3E products, for instance.

Heck, I hope they come in and say "Clark is on crack, he totally misunderstood what we told him, even though we said that it was 'company by company and that you had to choose one or the other and you cant make 3E products ever again once you make a 4E product.' Yes, we used those words, but we were overstating and we actually meant it is product by product." In fact, I've begged them to come in and say that.

Clark

 

[mxyzplk]

The situation is reminds me of, is the IBM PC example. I'm using the IBM PC example because I feel it fits the OGL/GSL situation best, and it's probably why they are changing the OGL.

The long story short--IBM created the PC. What ended up happening is it had a profound effect on the industry. The problem was IBM didn't defend their property as much. Because the IBM PC was easily cloned, it became a commodity. The "silicon beast" (as the book mentions) gobbled up everything else. It then turned on IBM and thus ate up its line.

Now let's keep in mind something--was the PC revolution good? Yes, for the industry, but not for it's creator.

Here's the problem though - good for the industry but not the company is a fallacy. I won't rehash my big spiel on this, but here it is. http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/the-economics-of-open-gaming-an-open-letter-to-wotc/.

Let's take your example. No, IBM didn't get "all PC revenue." But because the entire computer sector boomed as a result of that openness, they boomed with it! Check out Dell vs IBM. $37B market cap vs $172B. If one company controlled ALL PC sales, they wouldn't be $172B; Dell accounts for 31.4% of US PC sales. And that would be with the assumption that the competition and its effect on price and quality hasn't had a huge positive effect and that, if it was "All IBM" today, we'd be using the equivalent of crappy 486es.

Also relevant - Apple has 6.6% of the US PC market share. Yay for being closed. ?

 

[amethal]

Our plan for 3E pdf supplements was for books that were planned as 3E books (like Tegel and Slumbering Tsar, etc) that got pushed back and now will be 4E books.

That's good news!

 

[Oldtimer]

To be honest, the OGL reminds me of a situation in the book "In Search of Stupidity", which covered a lot of the tech industry. It shows a lot of fascinating subjects, including how Borland, Ashton-Tate, IBM (twice), etc, made really dumb mistakes that hurt their businesses, sometimes permanently. The author brings up good points like the myths of Microsoft having shoddy products, for instance. (Microsoft gets some criticism in the book, but the key fact is they got so big because they had really good products and the other guys made several mistakes).

The situation is reminds me of, is the IBM PC example. I'm using the IBM PC example because I feel it fits the OGL/GSL situation best, and it's probably why they are changing the OGL.

The long story short--IBM created the PC. What ended up happening is it had a profound effect on the industry. The problem was IBM didn't defend their property as much. Because the IBM PC was easily cloned, it became a commodity. The "silicon beast" (as the book mentions) gobbled up everything else. It then turned on IBM and thus ate up its line.

IBM tried to stop this by creating the PS/2, with enough patents and legal protections. However, the clones became too powerful and prevented them from re-obtaining dominance. It then ate their mainframe business as well. (Macintosh learned from this--Steve Jobs said "NO" and reversed course when they were gonna allow Mac clones).

What I see similar is that Wizards released their D&D rules under an OGL, but not seeing the damage it could do. They probably didn't expect such blantant "freeware" versions of their games such as the online SRD, the repurposing of Unearthed Arcana, etc. Despite people claims of "It's Viral" being consider a benefit, no profitable company wants to commoditize their product unless the price of the product is smaller than any supplementary service they can do, or they are in a bitter "price war". It's simple economics.

They also saw their brand weakening. So, one possible reason for the GSL replacing the OGL for 4e, is that they are trying to release a new version of D&D before their brand gets weaker. I see the GSL as a way of strengthening their brand.

Now let's keep in mind something--was the PC revolution good? Yes, for the industry, but not for it's creator. So, I see this as WoTC trying to prevent themselves from weakening their D&D brand. I see nothing wrong with this. While the OGL was good I think it was a little too good and suspected it wouldn't last forever. I can see this, just like Orcus can prefer the OGL personally but be accepting of the GSL being better from WoTCs standpoint.

You really start to sound like a broken record.

I was there during the PC revolution. It was my day job. And you've got the story backwards. IBM was the leader of the PC revolution up until the moment they decided to close the design with PS/2. It wasn't the open design that killed them - that is what made the PC win over all the other designs - it was their decision to close it. Many companies were designing personal computers in those days. If IBM hadn't done the IBM PC an open design, it wouldn't have caused a revolution. The mistake was to panic and try to "put the genie back in the bottle".

If you want to give history lessions, I suggest you do them correctly.