New GSL Announcement

[La Bete]

I think you are pulling a bait and switch on the point here.
Quality is completely after the fact for this matter.
First, if companies feel compelled to drop OGL products then there won't be anything to judge as good or bad.
Second, depending on how many publishers stay or go, the impact on the market as a whole could strongly impact the ability to survive with even the very highest of quality.
The quality issue is a red herring to the point of the highly negative impacts of a GSL assualt on open gaming.

Paizo and Necromancer are stand outs in the overall 3P OGL field and do not accurately represent the overall community. And even with that, having to deal with this kind of extra hoop-jumping will be a notable disincentive.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in the underlined text - could you I get you to clarify that please? (if you can be arsed)

I disagree - quality is really all that matters here. If (for example) Mutants and Masterminds is that good a product, it will continue to be sold and developed. The same goes for any other OGL - or indeed any 3e-based game. If they are that good, and there is enough of a market, then they will continue to thrive. If not, they won't. The market will out either way.

And regarding Paizo and Necromancer - well, if they are "standout" publishers, then I can receive quality products from them, so I (the consumer) win anyway? As regards other publishers - sure there is extra hassle if they want to go a similar route - but to be honest, again if they have a high enough quality product, then returns will be worth the hassle.

One point I will give you, is that the fact that the GSL closes off new MnM-style standalone games is a bit of a shame.

 

[robertsconley]

You seem to forget the most important thing. Most gamers don't know anything about the OGL, the GSL, nor do they care.

The only people caring are a certain percentage (depending on who you ask, it's either a fairly small percentage, or a rather large one) of posters on forums like this one, and of course the publishers.

So I really doubt WoTC will be shooting themselves in the foot, no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should be doing what they are doing, merely that I doubt that their tactics will cause a huge backlash.

You are right. In the past 90% of people buying computers are not aware of the Linux vs MS issue either. But slowly Linux is gaining ground as MS keeps shooting themselves in the foot. It is how MS beat IBM back in the early 90's as well. And both process are long and drawn out.


In short, the backlash as such will be more of a long term effect then anything immediate. But it shouldn't be discounted.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Oops, I had a premature post...

If I could find a solution that was a perfect one, I would hope that the back catalog of 3.x products could be sold FOREVER even if a publisher was releasing 4th Edition products under the GSL. Once you dip your toe into 4th Edition, there should be no going back and I understand that. Let the publishers continue to sell what they have spent so much time and effort on. Let's face it, I'm not going to continue to try and push a product for an older system if I'm doing 4th Edition, but if there is a fan out there somewhere who wants an old copy of a 3.x product let the publisher sell it to them. I sincerely doubt that a 2 year old product is going to compete with 4th Edition in the slightest.

Also, it would be nice if the PDF publishers who have hundreds/thousands of products don't need to go back and remove the logo from every single product. That's a nightmare and is an incredible time sink. For a lot of the PDFs we've done, I don't even have the original Indesign files anymore. It would be a pain for me to have to recreate all of those covers. I think everyone here will agree that the marketing power behind the old d20 Logo is pretty worthless at this point. If you are going to allow old product to remain in the channel, why can't you let a publisher hold on to and sell old stock? I can understand wanting to stop the logo from appearing on future products, but what's the harm in it still being on old products?

 

[La Bete]

If I could find a solution that was a perfect one, I would hope that the back catalog of 3.x products could be sold FOREVER even if a publisher was releasing 4th Edition products under the GSL.

I'm absolutely certain a solution to this could be found - esp for pdfs.

Not sure if the "nerd rage" comment is called for - there are some people here who's livelyhoods we are talking about. Also some people with perfectly rational beliefs - just ones that you (and I) disagree with.

 

[BSF]

Oops, I had a premature post...

If I could find a solution that was a perfect one, I would hope that the back catalog of 3.x products could be sold FOREVER even if a publisher was releasing 4th Edition products under the GSL. Once you dip your toe into 4th Edition, there should be no going back and I understand that. Let the publishers continue to sell what they have spent so much time and effort on. Let's face it, I'm not going to continue to try and push a product for an older system if I'm doing 4th Edition, but if there is a fan out there somewhere who wants an old copy of a 3.x product let the publisher sell it to them. I sincerely doubt that a 2 year old product is going to compete with 4th Edition in the slightest.

Also, it would be nice if the PDF publishers who have hundreds/thousands of products don't need to go back and remove the logo from every single product. That's a nightmare and is an incredible time sink. For a lot of the PDFs we've done, I don't even have the original Indesign files anymore. It would be a pain for me to have to recreate all of those covers. I think everyone here will agree that the marketing power behind the old d20 Logo is pretty worthless at this point. If you are going to allow old product to remain in the channel, why can't you let a publisher hold on to and sell old stock? I can understand wanting to stop the logo from appearing on future products, but what's the harm in it still being on old products?

OK, allow me to bring up yet another factor here. What about games that were released under the OGL, but were never actually derivitave of D20? As Gareth-Michael Skarka has asked earlier, why does Adamant Entertainment have to choose between supporting Spirit of the Century and D&D 4? The OGL license was put out there for anybody to use, much like the GPL was in software circles.

Your GPL software product doesn't need to reuse GPL code from previous products for you to decide to use it.

Your OGL RPG product doesn't need to reuse any OGL material from previous products for you to decide to use it.

Companies could have devoted significant R&D dollars to a game system and then released the game under the OGL because they believed in the OGL principles. Now they can't sell and support that product as well as support GSL product at the same time.

Sure, WotC can craft the GSL any way that they want to. They can exercise thier market influence and strongarm product lines out of availability. They can do those things. But I don't have to like it.

I would like to hear that such exclusivity is not part of the license. I would love to hear that the GSL was as open as the OGL, because I think that serves my interests the best. But I am just a customer. Most of the time, companies would prefer to tell me what I want, and then orchestrate the market to restrict my options.

A bit of an extreme opinion? Sure it is. But that is how it feels for me.

 

[BryonD]

I don't understand what you're trying to say in the underlined text - could you I get you to clarify that please?

If Green Ronin stops making True20 products then there is nothing further to judge as good or bad.

I disagree - quality is really all that matters here. If (for example) Mutants and Masterminds is that good a product, it will continue to be sold and developed. The same goes for any other OGL - or indeed any 3e-based game. If they are that good, and there is enough of a market, then they will continue to thrive. If not, they won't. The market will out either way.

Sorry, but that is true completely outside of the GSL conversation. The only relevant impact the GSL has is to reduce the scope of the marketplace in which these products rise or fall on their own merits. Yes, it is possible that the GSL could fail to have sufficient impact. But the GSL gets no credit for the presumption it will fail at its goal. They are directly attacking the existence of the marketplace itself. That is a negative thing regardless of any debate of quality inside that market.

And regarding Paizo and Necromancer - well, if they are "standout" publishers, then I can receive quality products from them, so I (the consumer) win anyway? As regards other publishers - sure there is extra hassle if they want to go a similar route - but to be honest, again if they have a high enough quality product, then returns will be worth the hassle.

First, you are changing the subject. The point of this part of the exchange was that smaller companies can not as easily make these kinds of arrangements. Your reply doesn't in any way address that.

Second, again, the quality debate exists completely outside of the GSL issue. Assume for 1 second that they don't have to jump through this hoop. The returns on their product already exist in this reasonable marketplace. Now you add these hoop-jumping hassles into the mix and the total revenue does not increase. There is zero return on the new hassle part of the equation. It does nothing but suck off the top of the profits.

Assume someone makes $100 a week off a product, and suddenly a $5 a week hoop-jumping expense is added. If $95 a week isn't enough to justify producing the product then the consumers lose. If the product is still viable, then the best you can say it is "only" a $5 a week harm. But it has added nothing of merit to the system.

One point I will give you, is that the fact that the GSL closes off new MnM-style standalone games is a bit of a shame.

"a bit"?? Talk about understatements.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

It looks like LPJ Design is stepping up to the plate with a free OGL 3.5 logo design.

 

[S'mon]

double post

 

[S'mon]

That seems to be a bit of a tinfoilhatish spin on things. Yes It would be possible for WotC to use the GSL to kill off 4e-supporting companies - but more likely they would use said power when they launch 5e to avoid the current kerfuffle.

I disagree with your 'tinfoilhatish' characterisation. I didn't say WoTC were _likely_ to withdraw the GSL, just that they would have the power to do so. And since GSL 3pps would have shelved and discarded their OGL product, that means WoTC would gain the power to put them out of business. That this power would likely never be used does not make it uinimportant. Nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 but they have profoundly shaped international relations over that period. Any sensible businessman looking at entering a contract needs to consider various scenarios; "What happens if the other party decides to end the contract" is an obvious scenario. In this case the answer is "You go bust, no recourse, no damages". That makes entering it a big gamble.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Hi - perhaps I wasn't clear. Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher. You seemed pretty confident with your "it's easy to be scared by the lawyers" line, so I was enquiring if you were planning a product that would be a test case - and willing to back it with cash for the lawyers.

To put it another way, if someone tries this and WotC sues them, even if they win, they lose. It's hardly a comfort to be 'right' when your company goes bankrupt from paying lawyers fees. (Unless, of course, Clark from Necromancer does it for free. ) WotC might be willing to spend the money on lawyers because, a) they probably have in-house counsel anyway, whose salaries will be paid no matter what they do, and b) it might be worth it to them just to protect their IP or set a precedent.