If so, the move would kill as much of 3.5 as possible and isn't a move that benefits the game, it just benefits WotC. It is also a slap to those who do no wish to change, but hope that some companies might provide conversions. It would alienate their 'fired customers' even more, as if saying, 'we want to render as much of your 3.5 material useless as possible and limit the chances that you might ever see additional supplements for the game you invested in'.That's what shocks me.
I wouldn't put it past them. They seem to go out of their way to piss off these people. Either that, or they're phenominally incompetent when it comes to customer relations.
If so, the move would kill as much of 3.5 as possible and isn't a move that benefits the game, it just benefits WotC. It is also a slap to those who do no wish to change, but hope that some companies might provide conversions. It would alienate their 'fired customers' even more, as if saying, 'we want to render as much of your 3.5 material useless as possible and limit the chances that you might ever see additional supplements for the game you invested in'.
I wouldn't put it past them. They seem to go out of their way to piss off these people. Either that, or they're phenominally incompetent when it comes to customer relations.
The next adventure arc in Dungeon magazine (such as it is) is designed to help end 3.5 campaigns -- WotC is stating exactly that. They do want 3.5 to disappear. IMO they'll do anything necessary to facilitate that.
And yeah, their PR is phenomenally incompetent :)
Here's the big difference though: I know what I'm talking about, you're going off what you saw once on Boston Legal. You will forgive me for not giving your opinion greater weight and credibility. If you know of a structure that can bypass an affiliates clause without resorting to complex and esoteric vehicles, I'm all ears.
I wasn't presenting a legal argument I was disagreeing with the certainty of your conclusion - nice job of pushing a bunch of buzz words together though. I am not as certain of the result and the impossibility of getting around such a clause as you are.
I agree the clause you contemplate is not a restraint of trade clause, my bad. The golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", IMO it has frequent application in the legal system.
You dont tolerate people not just accepting your opinion do you? Why would you make the Boston legal comment in ignorance? It was wrong and unecessary. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything. I accept your view as based on experience and education specific to drafting affiliation clauses and structures attempted to be used to avoid them. I guess we will soon see the licence and what happens then.
I wager the OGL drafters never contemplated what was published under it.
Well, as Sebastian is so fond of pointing out, he is an attorney...I doubt empathy and compromise are very useful traits in his field. ;)
This thread rocks; I'm going to burn in the afterlife for just browsing it.... :)
The next adventure arc in Dungeon magazine (such as it is) is designed to help end 3.5 campaigns
People can't do that by themselves? Isn't it usually accomplished by a big showdown? Or is the arc filled with advice for DMing the "Rocks fall. You all die!" scenario? How to make people hate your old campaign world so you can introduce a new one?
This thread rocks; I'm going to burn in the afterlife for just browsing it.... :)
Never thought about lantern archons? Did you ever ask them if they're in constant agony? You should do that before living an honest and virtuous life so you can go to heaven.
I don't know the exact terms of the new license, but if I ran a gaming company I would be very wary of signing up for any license that gives a competitor (WotC) any real measure of control over my company or my product.
They should not accept any license that:
* Can be unilaterally cancelled by WotC/Hasbro for any reason;
* Imposes creative restraints on your products;
* Gives WotC the power to "vet" your products before publication;
* Requires any sort of exlusivity, or the agreement not to publish under any other license.
Don't sign anything that puts the fate of your company/product in someone else's hands.
|
I don't know the exact terms of the new license, but if I ran a gaming company I would be very wary of signing up for any license that gives a competitor (WotC) any real measure of control over my company or my product.
They should not accept any license that:
* Can be unilaterally cancelled by WotC/Hasbro for any reason;
* Imposes creative restraints on your products;
* Gives WotC the power to "vet" your products before publication;
* Requires any sort of exlusivity, or the agreement not to publish under any other license.Don't sign anything that puts the fate of your company/product in someone else's hands.
That is the very nature of a licensing agreement. Hasbro has the license to make Star Wars toys but Lucasfilm has significant input on all of the creative aspects of the toys.
And I guess that the real heart of the matter is that d20/OGL/GLS publishers were never supposed to be competition - they were supposed to extend the brand. When a company licenses the intellectual property of another company then there should be no competition and the licensee is beholden to the licensor. That is just the way it works.
The problem starts when the licensee, say Paizo, produces a much better product than the licensor. That's why we will never see a Age of Worms hardcover, a Dragon Compendium II, or other related items. Paizo, Goodman, Malhavoc, Green Ronin and others proved that the license holders were capable of producing material that was so good, it could draw customers away from WOTC.
If there are non-compete clauses, that's why they'll be strengthened.
That is the very nature of a licensing agreement. Hasbro has the license to make Star Wars toys but Lucasfilm has significant input on all of the creative aspects of the toys.
And I guess that the real heart of the matter is that d20/OGL/GLS publishers were never supposed to be competition - they were supposed to extend the brand. When a company licenses the intellectual property of another company then there should be no competition and the licensee is beholden to the licensor. That is just the way it works.
The OGL was only of value because the licensees were *not* beholden to the licensor. The OGL companies were hardly in business to make money for WotC. It was simply a matter of enlightened self-interest on both sides.
WotC is run by a corporation. Corporations regard all other companies producing similar products to be competitors.
You simply cannot have the future of your company in the hands of a competitor. From what I can see so far of the GLS, it would be suicidal for Paizo to accept such a license. Unless they want to spend the rest of their uncertain existence trying not to tick off WotC/Hasbro, and not become so successful that the corporate bosses see them as a threat to be eliminated.
The corporate world doesn't run on goodwill. Now less than ever. And the recent history of Dragon, Dungeon, Dragonlance, etc., certainly reveals that WotC is not slow to yank licenses if they see it as being in their interest.
To quote Bob Herzog...this whole thing raises more red flags than the Kremlin on May Day.
|
|
The OGL was only of value because the licensees were *not* beholden to the licensor. The OGL companies were hardly in business to make money for WotC. It was simply a matter of enlightened self-interest on both sides.
You are correct that the OGL companies were not beholden to WotC in a financial sense but they were beholden to them insofar as they had certain restrictions on the use of the SRD and the ability to use the d20 logo.
WotC is run by a corporation. Corporations regard all other companies producing similar products to be competitors.
In some cases this is true and in others it's not such a bright line. Companies often partner to produce products in the same space or the produce products for each others customer base - Apple and Microsoft are an example.
You simply cannot have the future of your company in the hands of a competitor. From what I can see so far of the GLS, it would be suicidal for Paizo to accept such a license. Unless they want to spend the rest of their uncertain existence trying not to tick off WotC/Hasbro, and not become so successful that the corporate bosses see them as a threat to be eliminated.
The corporate world doesn't run on goodwill. Now less than ever. And the recent history of Dragon, Dungeon, Dragonlance, etc., certainly reveals that WotC is not slow to yank licenses if they see it as being in their interest.
Again, that is the nature of a license agreement - and they are not automatically suicide.
Business does not run on good will. Business runs on contracts and other binding agreements. If this new license meets Paizo's needs and WotC's needs then they will agree to it. If it does not meet both party's needs then they won't.
To quote Bob Herzog...this whole thing raises more red flags than the Kremlin on May Day.
Or it may not. That is for the lawyers and the business stakeholders to determine and negotiate. What may look to us like a bum deal may actually work just fine for the corporate entities involved.
|
|
The problem starts when the licensee, say Paizo, produces a much better product than the licensor. That's why we will never see a Age of Worms hardcover, a Dragon Compendium II, or other related items. Paizo, Goodman, Malhavoc, Green Ronin and others proved that the license holders were capable of producing material that was so good, it could draw customers away from WOTC.
If there are non-compete clauses, that's why they'll be strengthened.
I think that you won't see Age of Worms because WotC, more than likely, owns the IP.
But you are correct - when a licensor and licensee compete in the same space things can get messy. Look at what happened to Power Computing when Steve Jobs cam back to Apple. Power Computing was making Mac clones through an agreement with Apple. Trouble is that they made better hardware than Apple and started to get to be very popular. Jobs ended the clone license and bought Power Computing. He put those folks to work building his new G4 machines.
I do not believe that WotC is worried about competition in the module biz. I think they want to avoid stand alone games and alternate rules sets. That cuts too close to their core business.
The problem starts when the licensee, say Paizo, produces a much better product than the licensor. That's why we will never see a Age of Worms hardcover, a Dragon Compendium II, or other related items. Paizo, Goodman, Malhavoc, Green Ronin and others proved that the license holders were capable of producing material that was so good, it could draw customers away from WOTC.
If there are non-compete clauses, that's why they'll be strengthened.
I think that you won't see Age of Worms because WotC, more than likely, owns the IP.
But you are correct - when a licensor and licensee compete in the same space things can get messy. Look at what happened to Power Computing when Steve Jobs cam back to Apple. Power Computing was making Mac clones through an agreement with Apple. Trouble is that they made better hardware than Apple and started to get to be very popular. Jobs ended the clone license and bought Power Computing. He put those folks to work building his new G4 machines.
I do not believe that WotC is worried about competition in the module biz. I think they want to avoid stand alone games and alternate rules sets. That cuts too close to their core business.
You're right about the IP ownership (nice example, by the way). But Paizo has proven that those particular products, the Paizo APs and the Dragon Compendium, sold beautifully. Much better than most 3rd party products. Why wouldn't WOTC release their sequels if they own the rights? They'd make a ton of money.
Because they're afraid that customers would realize that Paizo, not WOTC, produced the original content and that may drive people to check out and purchase Paizo material, not WOTC.
And before you bring it up, of course they have every right to do this. It may even be a prudent business decision. I acknowledge this, as much as I want to see these products.
I think most of us realize that the totally open (comparatively speaking) OGL is very much responsible for growing the RPG market from a small and very much dying niche market to a much larger, thriving, if still niche, market. The new gaming license has the potential to throttle things down again.
|
The philosophy of the OGL license was that even in competing, other comapnies DIRECTLY supported the growth of WotC. And they were right.
How many people played 3rd edition without buying a single WotC book? While I'm going to be attacked for lacking verifiable and objective data, the simple fact is that the point of the OGL was to build sales of WotC by having competitors support their product, creating a more unified player base, which resulted in more sales for the largest company in that group - WoTC.
Now, WotC did screw a bunch of things up. They may have gotten greedy, they may have been willing to accept low quality products for market, and they may have been unable to find a good product line to be profitable after so many players had EVERYTHING they could possibly need for the game.
Now, WotC's solution is to create a 4th edition, and have the same or similar problem in the near future. And I have no doubt that they realize this. However, this time they may be able to produce more types of product (stealing lines from competitors that appeared profitable in 3.5 under the OGL). This is certainly their right, and as a company, many expect this kind of behavior.
I, for one, will not support it. WotC doesn't have to share their game with the world. But there are a lot of good reasons to do so. The Open Gaming License was not a mistake. The GSL may not be terrible, but I can't see it being as good. And since companies will be facing the same situation 5 years down the road... Well, who's to say that 5th edition will be open?
I think April 2007 marked the end of the Golden Age of gaming. And like most people, we didn't really have perspective at the time for WHY it was ending. And I think the game is still fun, and I know I'll continue to enjoy it for years to come. But part of the Golden Age mentality is being unaware of the coming 'hard times'. And while there may have been too much poor product from too many other companies that 'dilluted' brand recognition, I think options are good. I don't own the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but if someone else publishing it gets more people buying PHBs, and a few dozen other books (supporting the hobby) than it is a good thing.
IMO, certain games belong to the players and certain games belong the company. D&D is a game that belongs to the players. It was designed ot be a general fantasy toolkit. Players took that toolkit and make their own worlds. Traveller was a toolkit to make your own universe and Mongoose has worked out a licencing agreement with Marc Miller to allow the Traveller system to be OGL. Star Wars is a game that belongs the company. While people do add to the Star Wars universe in their own games, the game is still the tied in setting.
The OGL was suppose to allow companies to fill the infinite gaps that WotC couldn't fill because those markets were to small. i.e. Dreamscarred Press just announced a setting today were there is no arcane or divine magic, only psionic. That, IMO is brilliant because that is a niche WotC will never cover.
What made the OGL different from most other commonly known/heard of licences out there is that the licenceholder was putting out material as well. WotC licences the Star Wars universe, but you don't see Lucasarts putting out a Star Wars RPG. MWP licences Serinity, but you don't see Universal studios putting out a Serenity RPG.
So yes, while it is licenced, it is still different territory then "common" licences. Sebastian, please don't hit me to hard for my legal inaccuracies.
Or it may not. That is for the lawyers and the business stakeholders to determine and negotiate. What may look to us like a bum deal may actually work just fine for the corporate entities involved.To quote Bob Herzog...this whole thing raises more red flags than the Kremlin on May Day.
Well, there absolutely has to be ironclad rules written into the license limiting how WotC can terminate the license, and *when* they can do it, and *why* they can do it.
Otherwise, Paizo will be right back to the situation they were in when their main business was publishing Dragon and Dungeon under license. If they hadn't had the foresight to have GameMastery and Pathfinder waiting in the wings, they'd be out of business now.
Paizo wants to do more than just publish modules so gamers will buy rulebooks from WotC. They're creating a world. They might want to do rules expansions. Will the GLS limit companies to only doing adventure modules? Will it allow licensees to produce products that might directly compete with WotC products? If Paizo wants to do a sourcebook on, say, giants, and WotC is also planning to release such a book, will they be able to make Paizo kill the project? Will Golarion be killed if WotC decides it's undercutting sales of Forgotten Realms or Eberron products?
I just don't want to see a situation where WotC becomes Paizo's boss. I don't think Paizo wants that either.
|
|
I just don't want to see a situation where WotC becomes Paizo's boss. I don't think Paizo wants that either.
I agree 100%. I do think the OGL served its purpose but it also had a bit of an unintended blow back on WotC with OGL games like the WoW RPG and other stand alone games. I also fear that this new license may have swung too far the other way.
I trust Paizo's lawyers and business leadership to be the judge of that.
|
|
I think most of us realize that the totally open (comparatively speaking) OGL is very much responsible for growing the RPG market from a small and very much dying niche market to a much larger, thriving, if still niche, market. The new gaming license has the potential to throttle things down again.
Yep. I worry about that too.
Then again we now have a larger number of healthy RPG companies publishing their own games. That diversity was lacking when 3E launched way back when. So hopefully the industry is protected in some respect from shrinking too much too fast.
I also fear that this new license may have swung too far the other way.
I think all of us fear that. If there's one thing that will kill 4E faster then anything else, its the licence. Love it or hate it, if none of the 3rd party publishers convert over because of WotC's licence, that won't be good for the industry.
|
|
I also fear that this new license may have swung too far the other way.I think all of us fear that. If there's one thing that will kill 4E faster then anything else, its the licence. Love it or hate it, if none of the 3rd party publishers convert over because of WotC's licence, that won't be good for the industry.
I think if that happens - a lack of 3rd party support - then the license will be negotiated and revised before it kills 4E.
I think if that happens - a lack of 3rd party support - then the license will be negotiated and revised before it kills 4E.
Never assume that a smart business decision can overcome pride or the need to save face.
Never assume that a smart business decision can overcome pride or the need to save face.
Ain't that the truth.
Spoken like a true blue collar worker, even if you aren't.
Ain't that the truth.
Spoken like a true blue collar worker, even if you aren't.
*blushing Kobold* thank you.
Now they will put you on Mount Celestia and as punishment for your deed you have to write "My little Pony" RPG adventures for all eternity.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo!
::Stops all 4E freelance::
I recoil in horror at the thought of the twisted scariness of a Nick Logue take on My Little Ponies. Didn't anyone posting on this thread see Jason Nelson's 'Avinash' Round 2 entry in the RPG Smurfstar competition?
Actually, it isn't all bad... here's some inspiration for you during your exile, Nick!
http://www.brunching.com/pornorpony.html
Ken
|
Otherwise, Paizo will be right back to the situation they were in when their main business was publishing Dragon and Dungeon under license. If they hadn't had the foresight to have GameMastery and Pathfinder waiting in the wings, they'd be out of business now.
I'm a big Paizo fan, but it doesn't really take much foresight to know that a license for a limited period is going to terminate.
Paizo is a business, so of course they came up with a plan of what to do if the licenses were not renewed. That's what businesses should do.
I do admit to being surprised by what a darn fine plan they had, but I now have every confidence Paizo will make the right decision about 4th edition (whatever that decision turns out to be).
I'm a big Paizo fan, but it doesn't really take much foresight to know that a license for a limited period is going to terminate.
Paizo is a business, so of course they came up with a plan of what to do if the licenses were not renewed. That's what businesses should do.
I do admit to being surprised by what a darn fine plan they had, but I now have every confidence Paizo will make the right decision about 4th edition (whatever that decision turns out to be).
And if they sign up for the new GSL and its gets pulled out from under them...what do they do then?
Hopefully they're already working on a 3.5 or 3.75 fallback plan...that is, unless the GSL requires an agreement never to use the old OGL.
Hopefully they're already working on a 3.5 or 3.75 fallback plan...that is, unless the GSL requires an agreement never to use the old OGL.
If that were true, I doubt they'd sign it.
Who would sign up to a license that can be terminated but that makes you agree not to use the alternative?
I can see it: Paizo signs to the CGL, a year later wizards pulls the license, and they're stranded, not being able to use any version of D&D.
Actually, I think that wizards would pull if off if they could. They want to be the best guys around and they know they can't do that by becoming better.
I just don't want to see a situation where WotC becomes Paizo's boss. I don't think Paizo wants that either.I agree 100%. I do think the OGL served its purpose but it also had a bit of an unintended blow back on WotC with OGL games like the WoW RPG and other stand alone games. I also fear that this new license may have swung too far the other way.
I trust Paizo's lawyers and business leadership to be the judge of that.
I was just struggling w/ a thought about "Paizo's lawyers". Maybe someone can answer this for me. My understanding is that Paizo has ponied up the $5K to see the GSL and the new rules, but haven't received them yet. My question is, I'm not aware of Paizo having a "staff lawyer"; like you'd see in small print when something is published (e.g., Publisher Erik Mona, CEO Lisa Stevens, Attorney X, etc.). So if Paizo is under an NDA, how does that apply to an atty who might be hired on what I'm imagining would be a contingency basis (i.e., you're not part of Paizo, but we're hiring you to check out this legal document and give us some advice)? Is the hired atty under the NDA to the same degree that Paizo is? Is that all covered simply by atty-client privilege??
Here's another thought. If Paizo doesn't have a "go-to" atty for this matter, what would be the chance they'd hire an atty who not only knows NDA's (and has written them), but is also a D&D player and a fan of Paizo? Yes, a long-winded way to get around to inquiring if Paizo would hire Sebastian to look over this new stuff :) I'd be willing to chip in for the legal fees, and maybe some others would too. Sort of like how Wolfgang got people to help him pony up the $5K to get an early look at the GSL etc. You know, it takes a village...
Thoughts?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Such a decision made me think, "Why would the heart of the game (the fluff, not the rules) change?" And the only reason I could come up with was that the heart of the game was OGC with but a few exceptions.
The only way to prevent potentially migratory customers using the new rules itineration while continuing on with the old fluff (and hence, 3rd party products) is to make all the old OGL no longer usable in conjunction with the new GSL. I expect something like "No material previously released under an OGL can be used in conjuction with GSL material." Also, such a clause cuts out the possibility of simply taking old OGC, updating it, and re-releasing it in a market flood.
Also, looking forward to 5e, the only way to reduce customer migration resistance in the future is to currently create a license that is revocable and one which cannot be used with other open licenses. We'll see if I'm right. I hope I'm not, but it's what I fear.
Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press
Nice to know that my worst-case scenario nightmares have spread to other publishers.
--Erik
So if Paizo is under an NDA, how does that apply to an atty who might be hired on what I'm imagining would be a contingency basis (i.e., you're not part of Paizo, but we're hiring you to check out this legal document and give us some advice)? Is the hired atty under the NDA to the same degree that Paizo is? Is that all covered simply by atty-client privilege??
Attorney client privilege refers to communications between an attorney and clients. A private document (such as the new SGL) given to an attorney under attorney-client privilege is not itself specifically protected. The emails, meetings, phone discussions, etc regarding the document are covered under the privilege. The attorney however, would be ethically bound not to disclose the private business dealings of the client including the documents like the SGL unless and until they became the subject of litigation or the client waived the disclosure. (And if the client were still subject to an NDA, waiving the disclosure is violation of the NDA without WotC's permission.)
Or so I'm told by the attorneys that work for me. I may have this wrong as I'm not an attorney.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I was just struggling w/ a thought about "Paizo's lawyers". Maybe someone can answer this for me. My understanding is that Paizo has ponied up the $5K to see the GSL and the new rules, but haven't received them yet. My question is, I'm not aware of Paizo having a "staff lawyer"; like you'd see in small print when something is published (e.g., Publisher Erik Mona, CEO Lisa Stevens, Attorney X, etc.). So if Paizo is under an NDA, how does that apply to an atty who might be hired on what I'm imagining would be a contingency basis (i.e., you're not part of Paizo, but we're hiring you to check out this legal document and give us some advice)? Is the hired atty under the NDA to the same degree that Paizo is? Is that all covered simply by atty-client privilege??
Paizo thankfully doesn't *require* a full-time attorney, but we do have a go-to guy.
And generally, attorney-client privilege covers the situation, though some NDAs do specifically have "your lawyers are allowed to see this" clauses.
Ok, thanks to Varianor and Vic for your responses. I think I have the gist of it now.
Nice to know that my worst-case scenario nightmares have spread to other publishers.
Just curious, because I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the existing OGL (version 1.0a) already make it impossible to use OGC released under it to be used in conjunction with another license? Section 2 of the OGL reads "This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License." Again, I may be reading this section entirely wrong but it looks like there'd be no way to use OGC from the existing OGL with another license.
My understanding is that Paizo has ponied up the $5K to see the GSL and the new rules, but haven't received them yet.
I am not trying to nitpick with you... But in an attempt to reduce the amount of misinformation:
Paizo is not required to pay the $5K to see the GSL.
As far as I am aware, they are either in limbo about the NDA, or waiting to receive the GSL. (Likely the later.)
After they study the GSL, likely by visiting their "go-to" guy, if they wish to continue then they will have to pony up the $5K.
Of course... They could have paid early... But I doubt it. ;-)
Very interesting post here by Chris Pramas.
Very interesting post here by Chris Pramas.
Yes, Most interesting indeed.
I think the big question is whether any of the prominent third party publishers will decide to just skip 4E and the GSL and continue to publish 3.5 material. I think Paizo is best positioned to pull this off but it would be a gamble for sure.
Emphasis mine.
EDIT: You know, the one person I haven't heard weigh in on this development is Clark/Orcus/Necromancer. I wonder what his thoughts are. Has he posted somewhere and I just missed it?
Such a decision made me think, "Why would the heart of the game (the fluff, not the rules) change?" And the only reason I could come up with was that the heart of the game was OGC with but a few exceptions.
The only way to prevent potentially migratory customers using the new rules itineration while continuing on with the old fluff (and hence, 3rd party products) is to make all the old OGL no longer usable in conjunction with the new GSL. I expect something like "No material previously released under an OGL can be used in conjuction with GSL material." Also, such a clause cuts out the possibility of simply taking old OGC, updating it, and re-releasing it in a market flood.
Also, looking forward to 5e, the only way to reduce customer migration resistance in the future is to currently create a license that is revocable and one which cannot be used with other open licenses. We'll see if I'm right. I hope I'm not, but it's what I fear.
Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat PressNice to know that my worst-case scenario nightmares have spread to other publishers.
--Erik
Forgive my ignorance, but if Joseph Browning's worst-case scenarios are right, does that mean 3e campaign settings under the OGL would not be usable for the 4e GSL?
|
|
Very interesting post here by Chris Pramas.
Thanks for posting that Andrew, I was just about to do the same.
What Chris Pramas says here and what was said by Mr. Browning here:
Such a decision made me think, "Why would the heart of the game (the fluff, not the rules) change?" And the only reason I could come up with was that the heart of the game was OGC with but a few exceptions.
The only way to prevent potentially migratory customers using the new rules itineration while continuing on with the old fluff (and hence, 3rd party products) is to make all the old OGL no longer usable in conjunction with the new GSL. I expect something like "No material previously released under an OGL can be used in conjuction with GSL material." Also, such a clause cuts out the possibility of simply taking old OGC, updating it, and re-releasing it in a market flood.
Also, looking forward to 5e, the only way to reduce customer migration resistance in the future is to currently create a license that is revocable and one which cannot be used with other open licenses. We'll see if I'm right. I hope I'm not, but it's what I fear.
Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press
in conjunction with discussions I have had with my friends on the subject have really dampened my excitement for 4e.
My pendulum keeps swinging I guess.
I went from being very doubtful, to very excited, and back again based on convincing arguments from both sides of the aisle and for different reasons. In the end, putting a damper on the vision of the OGL seems foolish to me. I support Wizards taking a tighter control of their IP but its obvious these kinds of extreme steps would only be detrimental to third party support of the new edition.
And the silence from Wizards is a bit disturbing. Their inability to release information in a timely manner pretty much insures most publishers will not be able to release material at Gencon. What's the point of an early buy-in if publishers aren't getting the head start they need?
Ack! This has all been said before. I know that. I am just a bit unsettled is all. The market is holding its breath and this current state of affairs is doing more harm than good. A number of publishers have reported a stalling in their 3e sales. Many gamers are simply waiting to see where the bigger companies fall before they commit. And that decision will determine the future for a lot of smaller outfits. In some cases it could mean the difference between folding or continuing to publish. I'd venture to say those companies that have already made the jump without looking for what might be hiding in the water hasn't helped matters. None of what is currently happening with the GSL is really boosting consumer confidence.
|
|
And generally, attorney-client confidentiality covers the situation, though some NDAs do specifically have "your lawyers are allowed to see this" clauses.
Edited for legal accuracy
The attorney's duty of confidentiality prevents a lawyer from disclosing confidential information (such as Paizo's financial status, future plans, etc) in a non-court setting (like idel chatter with friends) while the attorny-client privilege is an evidentiary rule which prevents disclosure of confidential, usually legal related, communications in open court (what the attorney said to the Paizo staff members concerning the hypothetical breach of contract lawsuit, etc).
Also, it's not a very a good idea to tell someone "you have to sign this document before you can see X, but you CAN'T consult a lawyer." Courts are not very friendly to such tactics...
|
|
I think the big question is whether any of the prominent third party publishers will decide to just skip 4E and the GSL and continue to publish 3.5 material. I think Paizo is best positioned to pull this off but it would be a gamble for sure.Emphasis mine.
For the record, even as a total outsider, I totally agree with Chris' estimation. From all the buzz out there I get the impression that Paizo is one of the few companies that has not seen a big dip in their OGL product lines since the 4e announcement. The real question is: "Can they maintain high sales in face of the 4e release?"
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
From all the buzz out there I get the impression that Paizo is one of the few companies that has not seen a big dip in their OGL product lines since the 4e announcement. The real question is: "Can they maintain high sales in face of the 4e release?"
To be fair, our main product line debuted the same weekend as the 4E announcement, so sales couldn't possibly go down since then! But yes, our two largest distributors have told us that Pathfinder is one of the few 3.5 products out there that's doing well for them right now.
On the other hand, we suspect that the real problem isn't a lack of interest from customers—it's that the edition uncertainty has led a lot of brick-and-mortar retailers to be extremely conservative when ordering 3.5 products right now. In short, these retailers just aren't giving their customers the option to walk into the store and pick up 3.5 stuff. And since retailers aren't stocking it, people are coming to paizo.com to buy it instead. We're actually fairly happy with recent sales levels of 3.5 products from other companies.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
And generally, attorney-client confidentiality covers the situation, though some NDAs do specifically have "your lawyers are allowed to see this" clauses.Edited for legal accuracy
The attorney's duty of confidentiality prevents a lawyer from disclosing confidential information (such as Paizo's financial status, future plans, etc) in a non-court setting (like idel chatter with friends) while the attorny-client privilege is an evidentiary rule which prevents disclosure of confidential, usually legal related, communications in open court (what the attorney said to the Paizo staff members concerning the hypothetical breach of contract lawsuit, etc).
Also, it's not a very a good idea to tell someone "you have to sign this document before you can see X, but you CAN'T consult a lawyer." Courts are not very friendly to such tactics...
Thanks—not only am I not a lawyer, but I don't even play one on TV.
|
|
On the other hand, we suspect that the real problem isn't a lack of interest from customers—it's that the edition uncertainty has led a lot of brick-and-mortar retailers to be extremely conservative when ordering 3.5 products right now. In short, these retailers just aren't giving their customers the option to walk into the store and pick up 3.5 stuff. And since retailers aren't stocking it, people are coming to paizo.com to buy it instead. We're actually fairly happy with recent sales levels of 3.5 products from other companies.
That's interesting, and makes a whole lot of sense.
My local store has stopped getting in a lot of new product. They do carry Pathfinder at least. Interestingly enough the store has been transition for a while. At one time they sold lots of 3.5 material and comic books. I would say a full 90% has been given over to miniatures gaming.
Another local store, The Guardtower, is a bit far out for me now so I am not sure what kind of product they are currently carrying.
To be fair, our main product line debuted the same weekend as the 4E announcement, so sales couldn't possibly go down since then! But yes, our two largest distributors have told us that Pathfinder is one of the few 3.5 products out there that's doing well for them right now.
While that may be true, is it safe to say you haven't seen a major drop in sales as the 4e PR machine churns into it's 6th month? If this is the case, I think that is impressive.
I am also happy to hear that 3.5 products are selling well on your site. That means the hesitation I spoke of earlier is part flawed perception on my end and, as you said, not a customer based issue. But it does herald "interesting times" ahead. It makes me nervous for fantastic companies, like Paizo, that face a fracturing fanbase. I don't envy the choice you have to make.
Nice to know that my worst-case scenario nightmares have spread to other publishers.
--Erik
You have a strange usage of the word "nice." :)
joe b.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
While that may be true, is it safe to say you haven't seen a major drop in sales as the 4e PR machine churns into it's 6th month? If this is the case, I think that is impressive.
Pathfinder bucks the trend because retailers know that the people who buy it want their copy every month, so lowering their orders would be a mistake. However, we have seen softening in the GameMastery Modules line at retail.
I am also happy to hear that 3.5 products are selling well on your site. That means the hesitation I spoke of earlier is part flawed perception on my end and, as you said, not a customer based issue.
No—your perception isn't flawed. I'm not trying to say 3.5 sales aren't down—we know they are. Even if paizo.com is selling twice as many copies of a 3.5 product as we used to, if all of the other retailers are buying half as many, there's still a downward trend. I'm just trying to say that we think the reason has more to do with retailers being nervous than with customers not being interested.
|
|
Hey Vic, just to add some chipper news I walked into my FLGS and saw Pathfinder 3 under the big "Recommended!" sign. The guy that runs the joint said it has sold well and it's the next thing he's going to run. We swapped little known facts about goblins while he rung me up.
So you're getting shelf time in the Tampa Bay area.
|
|
No—your perception isn't flawed. I'm not trying to say 3.5 sales aren't down—we know they are. Even if paizo.com is selling twice as many copies of a 3.5 product as we used to, if all of the other retailers are buying half as many, there's still a downward trend. I'm just trying to say that we think the reason has more to do with retailers being nervous than with customers not being interested.
I see. I guess what I am saying is I assumed that customers were simply not interested and that was the cause of the slump. In that way my perception of the situation may have been off. But by what you are saying it seems the burden might lay with the retailer. Which makes sense, they are nervous about the edition change. They don't want to stock their stores with product that may not sell. But such a stance might be mistake if there is still a demand.
In the end, I don't know what these retail owners are facing and what data they are looking at so I could be wrong with that last statement.
Small retailers appear to be hanging on for dear life, sometimes transmuting their focus into other product types just to remain solvent. Larger chains only carry the stuff that really sells for them. There can be no denying that online vendors have changed the way both of those business models operate. Setting aside the edition fears for a moment, do you think the way people buy rpg products is changing? In addition, do you think 4e will stave off this degredation of retailer confidence or is the whole market shifting more towards direct/online sales?
Well I know the local book/music/movie store here has been buying used copies of books. For a while there would be one or two, but the last time I was there it was obvious someone had just sold their collection. My point is that some retailers might be selling more 3.x material than it appears because they are reselling material from people that are jumping ship early.
If Paizo was going to see weakness in sales it would probably not be during Rise of the Runelords (though I would guess that like Dungeon issues featuring higher level adventures in the APs, there would be some retail softness for issues 4-6 compared to 1-3) for reasons stated by Vic, but in future iterations of the Pathfinder series and in the Gamemastery modules. For example, I plan on moving to 4e in June, but I've bought all of the Rise of the Runelords issues as well as every Gamemastery module released so far; I plan to continue buying the Gamemastery modules until at least mid-year as well as the next installment of Pathfinder. My purchasing habits are certainly helped by a dearth of new WoTC products that I want, but come June 2008, I can't devote all of this money to two separate systems. This is one of the reasons that I am not a subscriber, because I didn't want to be hooked into to anything.
Another reason, is that I already have more 3.5e adventures (approximately 50 issues of Dungeon, several DCCs, all the Gamemastery modules, some Bleeding Edge, all of the WoTC 3.5e adventures) than I can possibly need if I want to continue running a 3.5e game after the release of 4e.