What is WOTC's Vision For The GSL?

[AllisterH]

As has been said many times before, by keeping people in the D&D "space", as opposed to moving to non-D20 games. It also keeps people in the hobby itself, based on WOTCs late 90s marketing studies.

Since all but a tiny percentage of players of 'spin off' D20 games DON'T already have a PHB, the loss to WOTC is minimal, and the benefit of keeping gamers "close" is great. (Not to mention, as Mike Mearls has noted, serving to train the next generation of designers. Also also, it keeps game companies from investing heavily in house systems which fragment the market and pull people from D&D. Also also also, any innovations in design can then be used by WOTC, without any R&D costs.)

The only problem is that ths is VERY theoretical. Especially with things like True20 and M&M which are as similar to 3.x as GURPS is to HERO. Yeah, they're point-based but really, they ain't the same game

I think that's WOTC thinking. Sure, those True20 players bought the original PHB but since True20 is as compatbile with 3E as GURPS is with HERO, WOTC is NOT going to be able to sell them splatbook X.

As you pointed out, the d20 goal was to keep everyone playing d20 (and let's be blunt, Dancey meant D&D). So even if D&D didn't produce something you wanted this month, next month if they did, since you were still playing d20 you could easily add splaybook of the month to your game and voila, WOTC gets money.

Everyone wins in that scenario.

I think we basically agree on what the goal of d20 was. I think we disagree on if things like True20 and Conan were actually EXPECTED goals of the OGL.

Settings, adventures and monster books, yes.
Rule books that are basically their own games? eh.....not so sure.

 

[JohnRTroy]

As has been said many times before, by keeping people in the D&D "space", as opposed to moving to non-D20 games. It also keeps people in the hobby itself, based on WOTCs late 90s marketing studies.

But using the stockholder statement, as a stockholder, I'd want hard proof of that, such as financial statements proving this. Let's keep in mind that a lot of these statements come from one man, Ryan Dancey, who has in the past made several predictions about gaming, and who has left WoTC and shut down the Open Gaming Foundation.

I'm not debating the OGL success or merits here, just the fact that those statements don't seem to be enough to provide evidence of financial benefit to the stockholders. And the OGL is a wholesale giving away of much of the D&D's own IP, so there are potential drawbacks.

As a stockholder, I'd want to see if this license should be continued. The big sales success of 4e might tell me these licenses aren't as important, and Wizards attempt to re-strengthen their brand is paying off.

Granted, I am critical of stockholders, because the attitude in the US is the bottom line each quarter is more important than a companies mission statement, or the long-term health of a company. But there is a responsibility to them as well and it can't be denied. Discussion of Open Gaming as a concept might be hard to translate into plausible tangible benefits to a stockholder. Right now it's more theoretical than empirical.

 

[phloog]

This thread has got me imagining scenarios, and I'm thinking about this one right now:

Most of these assumptions could be bogus, but here goes for discussion.

Assume: There are still those individuals who believe/know that having some form of openness benefits WOTC in the form of maintaining a large customer base.

Known: Companies MUST take action in the best interest of the shareholders, and cannot take actions which could in any way harm the stock value.

Belief: 'Harming Stock Value' is so loosely defined as to frighten most company leadership out of doing anything that could in any way be interpreted/accused of harming value.

Belief: Sales of products for any given rule set will decline as customers grow weary (or some other effect) near the end of the 'lifespan' of that product.

Doesn't this mean that the instant a product from a non-WOTC publisher sells more than a WOTC product of a similar type, there will be a huge push internally to zap the GSL?

More interestingly, doesn't this suggest that in the future we may see a situation where, near the end of 4E, WOTC becomes mysteriously far more lenient in terms of what they allow, so that they can begin spending less on 4E in preparation for 5E?

And would this mean that for all the justifiable concern/fear about the GSL in these early days, the real problem will not happen until the end of 4E, when they use the GSL mutability to not tighten restrictions, but to loosen them, then snap it shut completely (total revocation) for 5E, causing tons of products to have to be scrapped and all to be forced to go to 5E?

This is, as always, not an accusation of evil or unethical behavior by Hasbro/WOTC, but perhaps it is just a natural result of this setup...at the end they will need to spend less on 4e to ramp up 5E, but the proper business move is to open up to others to allow continued 4e support/customer base. Then the next proper business move for 5E would be to destroy all support for 4E immediately - something I'm sure they would have loved to do for 3E, but couldn't due to the nature of OGL.

Maybe 3pps should be worried now, but more worried with each passing month.