OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Ranger REG]

Why are we talking only about two possibilities, the 4e using the OGL or being completely closed to publishers? If WotC decides to not use the OGL for 4e, it would more likely use an alternative licensing scheme that has the same purpose of expanding the market, but which gives more control to WotC. A free but non-open license, or one that only costs enough to pay for an additional WotC staffer to oversee it, might serve WotC's interests better.

A free but non-open license, and WotC is footing the bill to operate a reviewing committee? They barely keep up with their own current payroll roster, or did you forget how many layoffs they had in the past 5 years?

And how would this reviewing committee be reviewing third-party books seeking d20 label or somesuch? Will they just oversee that the product do not violate the license, which is what they're doing now without a reviewing committee, or will they themselves get involved in the design process as well, marking in red pens that this stats are wrong or this paragraph is boring and demand a rewrite?

I mean, if it is the latter, it may ... hah! ... cut down the mediocre quality products we have during the d20 boom. But the designers of the product may have to surrender their creative integrity and freedom to WotC. In the end, it's no longer a third-party product but a WotC product.

It may also cut down the flood of d20 products because of the pipeline going through the committee, but publishers can't wait for WotC especially when the longer the product is in review, the more his business will cost everyday. Worse yet, if WotC can't review their product in time, they have to reschedule with the printing company, and they may miss critical selling periods, like having advanced copies available for GenCon.

This wouldn't affect stand-alone OGL products that have their own player base, like M&M, True20, and maybe AE, but would allow some 3rd party companies to continue to produce support for D&D fantasy games. It would also allow WotC to not create a SRD, since they could just contractually inform the publishers they license what parts of books they were and were not authorized to use.

Yeah, but the beauty of the SRD is that you can use them without having to ask permission from WotC.

 

[Turjan]

A free but non-open license, and WotC is footing the bill to operate a reviewing committee?...snip

We have that already now: the d20 STL. That's actually one of the assumptions that have been already made several times (I'm not sure whether in this thread, but definitely in one of the many parallel threads). This would imply putting the restrictions of the d20 STL - i.e., product cannot be used on its own, content control - and maybe additional restrictions and combine this with the OGL material. This would make sure that 3rd party product stays in a supplementary role and cannot be competitive. That's more of a conventional licensing model with a few free elements.

 

[Michael Tree]

A free but non-open license, and WotC is footing the bill to operate a reviewing committee? They barely keep up with their own current payroll roster, or did you forget how many layoffs they had in the past 5 years?

And how would this reviewing committee be reviewing third-party books seeking d20 label or somesuch? Will they just oversee that the product do not violate the license, which is what they're doing now without a reviewing committee, or will they themselves get involved in the design process as well, marking in red pens that this stats are wrong or this paragraph is boring and demand a rewrite?

I doub't such a thing would be completely free, but there are several fee structures that would make it still viable for publishers. One way to cut down on the application workload would be to set an application fee, to pay the reviewers and ensure that only publishers serious about their work tried to use it.

I doubt that, if such a thing were used, that it would be as hands-on as you suggest. It would probably require a product proposal from the publisher, detailing the focus of the book, and maybe rough chapter guidelines. This would allow WotC to prevent products that might compete with their upcoming products, and keep a good balance of adventures and other products they want other companies to produce.

Either that, or they could just contact the major d20 publishers directly and create individual licensing deals.

 

[Turjan]

I doub't such a thing would be completely free, but there are several fee structures that would make it still viable for publishers. One way to cut down on the application workload would be to set an application fee, to pay the reviewers and ensure that only publishers serious about their work tried to use it.

I don't think that a paid for license makes ecnomic sense at the moment. What I hear about print runs of most 3rd party publishers would make the amount that could be paid that low that this wouldn't cover the administration costs of WotC. The alternative: License yes, companies able to use the license: none.

I doubt that, if such a thing were used, that it would be as hands-on as you suggest. It would probably require a product proposal from the publisher, detailing the focus of the book, and maybe rough chapter guidelines.

Something like now would probably sufficient. Strangely, a free license might be the cheapest for WotC. With enough companies in the boat, they are policing each other. It's often strange what envious competitors do. You probably heard the 'Paranoia XP' story, to take a non-d20 example.

 

[Ranger REG]

I doub't such a thing would be completely free,

Maybe the OGL, as long you don't view the D&D and d20 labels as crucial to your publishing business.

but there are several fee structures that would make it still viable for publishers. One way to cut down on the application workload would be to set an application fee, to pay the reviewers and ensure that only publishers serious about their work tried to use it.

I doubt that, if such a thing were used, that it would be as hands-on as you suggest. It would probably require a product proposal from the publisher, detailing the focus of the book, and maybe rough chapter guidelines. This would allow WotC to prevent products that might compete with their upcoming products, and keep a good balance of adventures and other products they want other companies to produce.

Either that, or they could just contact the major d20 publishers directly and create individual licensing deals.

With the exception of companies that acquired licensing for a particular brand from WotC (i.e., Dragonlance), I can count in just one hand that actually desired getting a royalty-based license for the use of D&D and WotC labels.

I don't exactly see other companies vying for those, not when the current royalty-free Trademark License is the lesser of two evils (the other being royalty-based; i.e., sharing your revenue with WotC).

Maybe customers would want that in order to slow the flood of poor-quality d20 labeled products, but not publishers.