-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
WOTC, Scott, Where in the World is the GSL
- Thread starter Arksorn
- Start date
frankthedm
First Post
Publishers don't have it yet?. Good grief. The books have been finalized for an unknowable amount of time and have now been sent to the printer for days. I have great difficulty seeing any reason why the 3rd party publishers do not have their PDFs other than calculated and deliberate reasons. :\
Glyfair
Explorer
It's clearly not an issue with the rules not being ready. It's an issue with the license not being ready.frankthedm said:
Given the timing of the delay, I got the impression that someone at WotC was listening to the discussion and griping about the license and ran something they saw with their legal team. The legal team then decided to pull back the license to make sure that issue (or issues) were addressed and bulletproof. That was, of course, 100% speculation.
Last edited:
Orcus
First Post
Glyfair said:
Dont feed the speculation please. That is only one of 100 different possibilities and it casts things in a negative gloom and doom sky is falling kind of light. I just dont think that is fair to Scott and Linae and to Wizards.
I mean, yes, the license is delayed and no one likes that. But you've got to remember, we are talking about the company that created open gaming and has supported open gaming. I'm still not sure why the company that opened up so much of their content and has been so cool and flexible always gets looked at like this mega-evil-cabal of Bill Gates clones.
Orcus said:
I think it's mostly because while it's the same company, it's different PEOPLE. The folks who really pushed the OGL are long gone. A company doesn't really exist -- only people do.
I don't think WOTC is made up of mega evil Bill Gates clones. I *do* think that many of the people inside the company did not understand the license as well as people outside the company whose livlihoods depended on it and who were part of the original development process on the semi-public OGL mailing lists. I think they coasted for the bulk of the 4e development process on the assumption they could change a few sentences in the OGL and that would be that. I think they -- and Hasbro's lawyers -- were taken aback by public comments on the nature of the license. I also think that they didn't realize the complexities of 'just release a new license' vis-a-vis the issue of older content.
At this point, it may well be that they cannot find a way to make a license which serves the twin goals of protecting their IP and encouraging the creation of third party products, without imposing on them the costs of approval. I think the GSL is going to be very, very, different from the OGL. I do not think it will allow for any kind of non-commercial use of 4e -- bringing back the customer relations issues we saw during the days of 2e and Lorraine "We have tradmarked 'Armor Class'" Williams. I think it's going to contain a lot of clauses which will worry many publishers, especially those with thriving independant D20-derived lines. I suspect we're going to see a lot less creativity and imagination in the first wave of 4e products, as there will be a real fear of 'stepping out of line'. Unlike the OGL/STL, there will be no way for publishers to 'push the envelope' at the cost of foregoing the logo/branding; this will give WOTC tremendous control over content, and the ability to shut down any product they don't like -- or which competes with them. We will also very likely NOT see a PCGen 4e, or any similar product, as they will undermine DDI.
It's going to be a much duller first year. The kind of ingenuity, excitement, and sense of fun which characterized the first year or so of 3e will not, in my opinion, be present. This may be waht WOTC want -- keep everyone focused on producing modules and nothing but. However, I think it will hurt 4e in the long run, especially if Pathfinder can establish itself as the new 3e standard bearer.
While I'd like to say "We'll know soon", I don't know. I never would have guessed it would take until nearly April to release the GSL...and it still hasn't been released. It's been "soon" since at least the beginning of March. It's, what 75 days until release now? If it were released tomorrow, that would be 4 months or so to get a product ready for GenCon.
Orcus said:
Well, why does the company that essentially created the mass-market PC by making their OS available to multiple hardware vendors, and has been incredibly open and flexible in providing APIs and software development tools get looked at like this mega-evil cabal?
Joshua Randall
Legend
Because this is the Internet and it's cool to spew vitriol and hatred.
= = =
Also, getting stuff through a company's approval process often takes a long time. The approval processes may be in place for very good reasons, but the delays are still painful, both to employees and to customers.
That seems to be what's happening here.
= = =
Also, getting stuff through a company's approval process often takes a long time. The approval processes may be in place for very good reasons, but the delays are still painful, both to employees and to customers.
That seems to be what's happening here.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
drothgery said:
Because at one time, PC vendors were forced to charge people for a MS OS if they bought a computer, whether the customer actually wanted it or not. The so called "Microsoft Tax".
griff_goodbeard
First Post
I've got zero vested interest in the GSL, but for some reason I find this topic fascinating, so I thought I'd chime in again.
From what I've gathered from this thread and others dealing with this topic is that back when 3.0 was dawning and the OGL was being hammered out initially that a handshake agreement existed between WotC and several of the prominent 3rd party publishers that allowed them to begin working on material even before the OGL was finalized. Is this the case or am I mistaken?
If so, it seem there is no such "gentleman's agreement" this time around. I find this curious, especially since (at least on the surface), it seems the OGL was a great success, and from what I've read here on ENworld there doesn't seem to be any acrimony between WotC and Paizo, Necromancy, ect.
I was wondering if this is attributable to a change in the management philosophy at WotC, or perhaps it's it's due to the nature of the GSL? Another thought I had was that perhaps WotC still isn't sure what it wants to make "open" and what it wants to protect; and are erring on the side of caution till they get it hammered out.
From what I've gathered from this thread and others dealing with this topic is that back when 3.0 was dawning and the OGL was being hammered out initially that a handshake agreement existed between WotC and several of the prominent 3rd party publishers that allowed them to begin working on material even before the OGL was finalized. Is this the case or am I mistaken?
If so, it seem there is no such "gentleman's agreement" this time around. I find this curious, especially since (at least on the surface), it seems the OGL was a great success, and from what I've read here on ENworld there doesn't seem to be any acrimony between WotC and Paizo, Necromancy, ect.
I was wondering if this is attributable to a change in the management philosophy at WotC, or perhaps it's it's due to the nature of the GSL? Another thought I had was that perhaps WotC still isn't sure what it wants to make "open" and what it wants to protect; and are erring on the side of caution till they get it hammered out.
Similar Threads
