Three Tiered License

[JVisgaitis]

I don't see any other threads on this. What does everyone think of the whole three tiered license arrangement? Anyone have any idea what it means by getting help from some of the larger publishers to guarantee a product? I don't mind the whole 3 tiered thing, but I doubt that Erik or Chris want to bothered with my little company when they have their own things to worry about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm concerned that this is a step backwards. The Book of Erotic Fantasy might not have been my cuppa, but the fact that it exists for those who enjoy it is very worth preserving. Likewise, this whole shadowy cabal "assuring quality" gives me the heebie-jeebies in a Big Brotherly sense. If I don't make my stuff cleave to what they want, they'll just deny me their liscences, and all the goodies that go along with them.

I suppose it's within their right to do so. I'm perhaps overly paranoid. But I don't like having to let some organization get power over what I can do or say.

I'm sure it'll be fine, and I'm perhaps a bit of a libertarian extremist in this respect, but I'm not a fan of it as far as I've been told. I don't like any group being allowed to say over what sees the light of day. The BoEF was beautiful, contraversial, troublesome, annoying, useless....a host of things that pushed the envelope. To *not* push the envelope seems a sad loss (though not one that the majority of gamers would miss, I suppose).

 

[gothmaugCC]

Sounds like its thier solution to try and keep a zillion 4th edition companies from popping up overnight and flooding the market, like when 3rd ed. appeared. Its great news for Paizo and other big established 3rd party comapnies, but its probably death to all the small basement companies out there who might want to try thier hands at producing a product.

SO are new 4th edition publisers going to have to print under the umbrella of an establised 3rd party publisher? Better question, how much is it going to cost to get "permission" to print under another comapnies umbrella? I love paizo's work, but I would hate to have to pay for approval from them or another company to print a product that supposedly will have an "open gaming liscence".

Sounds to me like the new OGL will be very restrictive to new publishers as a "quality control measure", or so WoTC says. Its just another way for them to control the market. I'll be very intrested to see how Paizo, green ronin, and the others handle this information.

In all honesty, WoTC may have signed thier own death warrant. They are essentially forcing the all 3rd party comapnies to unite under common banners. Its going to be really interesting next year

 

[Odhanan]

Wizards of the Coast will use a 'three tier' system for licenses. The d20 System logo will be - it seems - a traditional WotC trademark licensed just to some big publishers (Mongoose, Paizo, Green Ronin) while other, smaller publisher will have to ask for some support from a bigger publisher that will 'guarantee' that the smaller publishers publish 'quality' books. It seems that the main reasons for this are avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales.

Need some clarifications I think: does this bit refer SPECIFICALLY to the d20 System Logo or does the whole "guarantor" thing applies for the OGL also? It seems to me to be the former, but a clear statement would help.

 

[wykthor]

I'm worried. I really hope this measure doesn't interfere/delay/cancel the release of the Avadnu Primer

 

[Nifft]

Currently withholding judgment.

While I agree that the big brother feel is undesirable, I also recall the glut of crappy stuff that bloomed around the birth of the OGL. My hope is that they wish to curtail that kind of glut for 4e, and not stop the BoEF II.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Alzrius]

I'm cross-posting this from over in the OGL-d20-L forum:

This was discussed a lot at the 4E d20 meeting at Gen Con, and I was personally distressed by how many of the big names in the industry seemed to like this plan (I can be heard voicing my opinion of the idea on the audio file).

I don't like the idea. While I'm "just" a consumer, it's the principle of the thing that bothers me. Setting up a few companies as being in charge of distributing the d20 License essentially leaves all other companies beholden to them if they want in on that. It essentially gives that small group huge bargaining powers - that they'll give a smaller company the license, but that company must agree to publish them as an imprint of said larger company, at a fairly cutting deal.

True there will be other companies this smaller company could go to, but not many. And if the larger companies share notes or form anything resembling a monopoly, well, there'll be little to reduce their theoretical stranglehold on the d20 STL.

I admit that this isn't the most likely of scenarios, but as I said, my argument is one of principle. Giving a small group of successful companies police-like power over the d20 community isn't right, in my opinion.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of people who say that principle shouldn't be a factor; that businesses are there just to make money, and that's what really matters. And besides, smaller companies can just avail themselves of the OGL directly.

Well, that's all true enough, and at the end of the day imprinting smaller companies could make more of a profit for the bigger companies, but the littler publishers lose out. The d20 logo does provide easier at-a-glance recognition for casual buyers, and not being able to use that will hurt sales for the small companies that need those sales the most. Likewise, if they want to sign on with a larger company, they face being in an extremely weak bargaining position.

Giving a small group of companies the right to decide what is and isn't d20 is certainly optimal for them; it's everyone else I'm worried about.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's an interesting proposition, since a lot of smaller companies have products of quality far surpassing many of the bigger companies.

And especially since in some cases, "bigger" just means "the capacity to shovel a bigger pile of crap."

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm pretty sure this license restriction applies only to the d20 trademark license. I expect the OGL to remain unaffected. But those intending on publishing under the OGL are probably going to have a wait a bit for the SRD. It probably won't come out for public consumption until July 2008 (after the core books come out) at the earliest.

I imagine that the publishers on WotC's shortlist will get it early plus the right to use the d20 trademark license.

I think this is an attempt to make the d20 trademark license valuable again. It was heavily devalued with the d20 glut. It won't be a measure of compatibility only, but now also a measure of quality.

The key thing is what hoops have to be jumped through to get that logo on your books? Do those companies have the manpower to approve books? Will there be a fee?

Most small PDF publishers can probably go with OGL and it won't make a whit of difference in their online sales. I think what this will do is primarily impact the actual book trade. Distributors will probably just not carry anything that doesn't have the d20 trademark logo on it.

 

[Keith Robinson]

Need some clarifications I think: does this bit refer SPECIFICALLY to the d20 System Logo or does the whole "guarantor" thing applies for the OGL also? It seems to me to be the former, but a clear statement would help.

A very good question. I thought that it was specifically talking about the d20 License, which means that I'm still assuming at this point that there will be an OGL that anyone can use.

On the whole policing thing, I thinks it smacks of a kind of corporate cronyism. As has already been pointed out, who is to say whether a product is worthy of a license or not, other than WotC themselves? And do those companies really want the hassle of undertaking that task? Either way, I can only see it as acting to stifle creativity and restrict competition, as new companies will have a much harder time getting off the ground, as will independant projects.