New GSL Announcement

[Umbran]

I dont think the OGL hurt Wizards at all.

Honest question - in business, is it not the case that one sometimes views a thing that doesn't help as much as it could/should have to have been a harm?

For instance, let's say you have a product for a new edition, and it makes it to market, but does so late. It sells, so sure it didn't actually hurt. But failing to be out in the market as soon as it opens isn't just missed revenue from the first rush of buying - it also means not establishing your name and quality in the minds of customers, making it even harder to gain a share of the market.

So, while it didn't hurt, it fails to help so much that it sure looks like it hurt, by comparison to others.

While we can really only speculate, could WotC not view the OGL in similar light? Yes, it supported them, but they may now feel that a different scheme would help them so much more...

 

[Drow_Battlemind]

Well, I made that post largely to satirize the idea of making up scenarios and then claiming they had some merit because they MIGHT have happened. I wasn't really trying to put forth the idea that some evil Hasbro executive forced WotC's hand in regards to how open 4E would be.

...even though I personally think that some degree of that is what happened.

I admit, I have had very limited access to Mr. Rouse, limited to the WotC messageboards, but the person who responded to my queries seems very different from the person who wrote that portion of the GSL.

However, having worked for a similar one-company-owned-by-another-company and the edicts that can come down from, well, from some schmuck high-up in the corporate ladder who has no real conception of how the smaller company not only works differently from the Big Business perspective, but in fact *needs* to work differently to be effective in their niche, I can easily see this as having been the case (since I have had similar policy changes dropped on me from some guy who hasn't ever been anywhere outside of an executive boardroom in decades.)

Maybe I'm self-identifying to much here, but stuff like this happens all the time in the corporate paradigm, some guy makes sweeping edicts that cannot hold water in the long-run, and finding out later that in some cases, the executive not only didn't have the practical experience to make such a call, but (in my experience) did so in order to make his own (competing) department come out ahead in order to feather his own nest.

In my case, MCI/Worldcom, in which we (our dept of MCI) were nothing more than a tax-write-off to hide a certain Worldcom executive's misuse of company funds. The multi-million dollar complex where I worked has now been gutted, sold, and is a Verizon cellular call-center.
I was never so glad as when my wife's career took off. With what she makes, I "retired" and am raising our kids. Let me tell you, raising a toddler and a teenage daughter is far, FAR less nerve-wracking and stressful as having to deal with moronic suit-and-tie types day-in and day-out was. When my son is in school, I'll get a new career, maybe something fun like silk-screening (my first job out of High-school.)

 

[Vascant]

In my case, MCI/Worldcom, in which we (our dept of MCI) were nothing more than a tax-write-off to hide a certain Worldcom executive's misuse of company funds.

*Off Topic*
Small world, I was the technical leader for a major project at ICI when WorldCom purchased the company just prior to the accounting issues. I am so glad I took my stock options and cashed out to retirement.

*On Topic*
I think this is what I find very interesting, being the technical leader for several projects in my life (Some worth millions and one billions) I cannot help but raise an eyebrow at the fact licensing issues were not handled prior to the investment. This is all part of the initial plan for such projects to get approval in a normal company. With all the glaring half steps and trips, I have to add it does not give me confidence in the new edition.

 

[Piratecat]

Whatever. Don't confuse him with facts. He's on a mission.

Tell me, do you really think you need to make a personal attack instead of discussing the argument?

(For everyone following at home, the question is rhetorical. The answer is "of course not!" Just so we're clear on that.)

No personal shots, please. You know that.

 

[SSquirrel]

In my case, MCI/Worldcom, in which we (our dept of MCI) were nothing more than a tax-write-off to hide a certain Worldcom executive's misuse of company funds. The multi-million dollar complex where I worked has now been gutted, sold, and is a Verizon cellular call-center.
I was never so glad as when my wife's career took off. With what she makes, I "retired" and am raising our kids. Let me tell you, raising a toddler and a teenage daughter is far, FAR less nerve-wracking and stressful as having to deal with moronic suit-and-tie types day-in and day-out was. When my son is in school, I'll get a new career, maybe something fun like silk-screening (my first job out of High-school.)

Yay someone else who had to suffer at MCI Worldcom. Like our AWESOME stock strike price. That had the stock stay above that price for a total of 2 days before it spiraled down by $50 steadily over the course of a year. As soon as it started going down I had told all my friends I would sell every option if it got to $5 over b/c we were never going to see the money. They all said I was crazy and to think long term. They didn't know that I was My suffering was in Iowa City, you know, the guys who got all the mail and handled all customer email heh.

 

[Zil]

Actually Gary did explicitly criticize the OGL. He was opposed to the idea that anyone could put out products compatible with D&D. I guess that he would also be opposed to the GSL, as it also doesn't involve any kind of approval process.

Back when Gary was still running the show at TSR, he was very vigorous in protecting what he considered was TSR's intellectual property. Even within the game products of the day, and also in much of his writing in Dragon magazine, there was lots of talk about how bad it was to use non-official products with the game. It's no surprise that he would have problems with the OGL. I guess we'll never know for sure what he would have thought of the GSL.

 

[SSquirrel]

I guess we'll never know for sure what he would have thought of the GSL.

Nah, I memorized Speak With Dead today, we're cool!

(nothing but deep respect for the man)

 

[Orcus]

But Orcus, didn't you once say that you understood why they would want more restrictions?

Sure. They wanted the restrictions that are in the STL (no nudity, no excessive violence, etc). That is different, in my view, than saying the OGL is bad or that the problem is that it is viral. The problem that Wizards had is that they tied their restrictions to a logo that became irrelevant.

 

[Orcus]

Maybe you're just running with the wrong crowd of publishers. Maybe you're just too close to the action-- you know, right in the eye of the storm-- to have seen the hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around you.

Whatever. Don't confuse him with facts. He's on a mission.

A couple people here complaining is hardly a "hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around" me.

Not a single publisher I have ever spoken with, nor do I recall any major publishers on the ogl lists, ever complaining that the problem was that the license was viral. Not Monte, Mona, Pramas, Steve or Stew Wieck, etc. I think I've spoken with a good deal of the major publishers and I know I;ve been active on all the ogl/d20 lists. You're just trying to elevate your issue to the level of a major issue and it just istn. Sorry about that.

 

[Orcus]

Honest question - in business, is it not the case that one sometimes views a thing that doesn't help as much as it could/should have to have been a harm?

Maybe you could cook up an example, but I would say no. Not helping as much as something should is still a help. Harm is different than help. I guess you could come up with some concept that anything that does less than 100% of its maximum possible value is a harm, but that is not that way people in business view it, I dont believe. That would be an extremely expansive and uncommon view of harm.

To me, harm is negative, help is positive. For instance, I go to sell my house. It is worth 400,000. I sell it for 500,000 but I could have sold it for 600,000 a year ago before things really got tight. That's not harm, that is failing to maximize profits. Selling for 380,000 is harm.