All Emphasis Mine
Link
Hi All,
They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.
“We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”
I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.
Thanks,
-Mike
__________________
Gamer Zer0 (aka Mike Lescault)
Online Communities Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Yes, that is correct, they are currently making a decision about whether or not they will continue with open gaming. Don't think so? Next page on the forum thread, reaction from Orcus/Clark/Head of Necromancer Games:
Hmm. I'm disappointed by that comment. But maybe I am reading it wrong. It is inconcievable to me that they are "vetting their final policy regarding open gaming." I could believe that they are deciding how to handle the new licenses.
[snip]
I cant imagine the massive PR hit that would come from a reversal of course on those beliefs. What, would those beliefs magically disappear overnight?No, I dont think that is what the quote from Liz means. I remain convinced that Wizards is dedicated to open gaming and that we will get licenses to use content from 4E.
I think that quote, which I will admit made me nervous, was management-speak. I;ve vented. Now I am better. I still firmly believe this will work out.
That's right, one of the loudest believers that Wizards will remain faithful to open gaming is officially nervous.
Now lets here from another industry professional that isn't so optimistics (same page as Orcus' post), responding directly to his post.
I cant imagine the massive PR hit that would come from a reversal of course on those beliefs.I can. That's why I'm now believing that the "There will be no GSL" announcement will be delayed until after the core products are released to minimize what little damage the announcement will create.
Personally, I believe there will be a minor backlash but very few purchasing opinions will change because of it. Those who were going to buy 4e won't change their mind about that decision because of no open gaming, IMO. I think the same opinion is shared, but prudence would support the announcement of such for the most beneficial time in the similar manner in which the existence of 4e was denied until the most beneficial time for that announcement.
I remain convinced that Wizards is dedicated to open gaming and that we will get licenses to use content from 4E.I don't think so. IMO, the most realistic reason for any delay in the creation of the GSL is that the terms have changed from what was described in the conference call, probably because of the need to prevent the utilization of open "traditional D&D fluff" mixing with 4e rules and the new 4e fluff. I think after closely looking at what was desired by way of 3rd party support, I suspect it was realized that not having 3rd party products would be more beneficial than having 3rd party products that are supporting product fluff from older editions when the goal of 4e is to break fluff tradition. And, IMO, that break from fluff tradition was designed to prevent backwards compatibility as backwards compatibility is into an open system while forward migration is into the tremendously profitable subscription model.
We'll see if I'm right or wrong and it would be nice if I'm wrong. We'll probably know in a few months. I remember when there was discussion of a 4e OGL, then that turned into discussion of a GSL, and now we're back to "vetting our final policy regarding open gaming." This is a backwards process that has one very logical outcome. Once 3rd party material was viewed as competition instead of beneficial, as demonstrated through the creation of the more restrictive GSL concept, IMO, the ultimate fiscal benefit according to that belief would progress to no 3rd party material at all.
There are more good quotes from Orcus and others in the industry. at the link. Check it out.
Maybe they're going to abandon the GSL and simply continue with the OGL!
Maybe they're going to make a more friendly 3rd-party policy!
Maybe I won the lottery today!
;)
I wish Wizards would just come out with a final statement regarding all this. Limbo is bad for (any) business.
I wish Wizards would just come out with a final statement regarding all this. Limbo is bad for (any) business.
Don't tell the Slaadi!
Elvis Seen On Moon!
Britney is My Love-Child!
Kruelaid is spending his money of PFRPG, he won't even be buying 4E.
This is how much Kruelaid cares about WotC's positioning:
|
I actually chuckled outloud while reading that thread.
Please beleive I really do feel bad for folks like Clark Peterson and Joseph Goodman, who are good and worthy folk and designers with an honest interest in D&D (that I also respect). They will get burned by this and it could cause no end of bad feelings with many, many fans if it's true. Regardless, WotC and everything surrounding 4E has been like watching an amateur backyard circus since last August and this is just another clown falling into some lemon pie.
And, as quoted above, now that I no longer give a rat's butt on WotC's stance, this is all a passing fancy to me.
Thanks heavens Paizo, Lisa, Eric, and crew had the right mind and guts to stick to their guns and support something still worth supporting.
-DM Jeff
|
Please beleive I really do feel bad for folks like Clark Peterson and Joseph Goodman, who are good and worthy folk and designers with an honest interest in D&D (that I also respect). They will get burned by this and it could cause no end of bad feelings with many, many fans if it's true.
Thing is, not WoC will get the Flame but the 3rd party publishers who, in good faith, promised their customers to produce 4th edition stuff and now can not deliver.
I hope that, even if there is no OGL/GSL that Necromancer Games and Goodman Games find a way to stay in business.
I hope that, even if there is no OGL/GSL that Necromancer Games and Goodman Games find a way to stay in business.
I'm sure they will. Necro has had exclusive, non-public contracts with Wizards before (Tome of Horrors for example). If there's no public license I am sure Necro will get a private one. And I can imagine Goodman getting something similar. I can't imagine any other company choosing to work with Wizards if there is no public license though.
Frankly, as time goes on, I see a whole lot of companies writing for Paizo's game.
Thanks heavens Paizo, Lisa, Eric, and crew had the right mind and guts to stick to their guns and support something still worth supporting.
QFT.
Maybe I won the lottery today!
If I won the lottery today, I have better things to spend my money on. I have a Paizo habit to support after all. Last thing I want to do is experience Logue Withdrawl.
Thing is, not WoC will get the Flame but the 3rd party publishers who, in good faith, promised their customers to produce 4th edition stuff and now can not deliver.
I hope that, even if there is no OGL/GSL that Necromancer Games and Goodman Games find a way to stay in business.
If people dont buy Necromancer or Goodman products anymore because they only want 4th edition product this makes sence.
If people dont buy Necromancer and Goodman products anymore because they promiced something and then didnt deliver they deserve a slap.
Its not their fault if this happens.
As for me. If Necromancer Games and Goodman's Dungeon Crawl Classics cannot go 4th edition and must go back to 3.5 I would be happier than a pig in poo!!!!
They would get my money again.
Personally, I believe there will be a minor backlash but very few purchasing opinions will change because of it. Those who were going to buy 4e won't change their mind about that decision because of no open gaming, IMO.
I'm not sure I agree here. If I was excited about 4th edition and then discovered there will be no 3rd party support...I may re-evaluate my stance.
WotC doesnt make very good adventures. No Dungeon Crawl Classics. No Necromancer Adventure Path.
Meanwhile Pathfinder puts out excelent adventures and other 3rd party companies will likely use the Pathfinder RPG as the rulebook for DCC or Necro adventures now.
This announcement will hurt WotC on some level. I dont blame them for waiting until after the Core Book release before anouncing this.
I'm not sure I agree here.
Unfortunately, ENWorld voters don't agree with you. Link.
At time of posting, 62% of posters said they would purchase 4E even if it were completely closed.
|
I'm not sure I agree here.Unfortunately, ENWorld voters don't agree with you. Link.
At time of posting, 62% of posters said they would purchase 4E even if it were completely closed.
Well, that whole story might be sort of a good news for us Paizoers. if fans of Orcus and Necro can't have their games, they will probably move to Paizo PFRPG, which is all the good for us.
Provided of course, that we generate enough positive buzz that we move people this way, so you know what we have to do now, right ?
At time of posting, 62% of posters said they would purchase 4E even if it were completely closed.
Yeah because that 62% is that of people told to go there and vote; Wotc has hired people just to hit messageboards polls and keep those numbers high; I bet alot of the people at enworld are connected to Wotc in some way. Family,cousin, brother, friend, granny and auntie May and Uncle Jim, yeah those polls are fixed...
at the risk of sounding all snarky, WotC can jump in a lake. Anyone who has stuck by them for the last 8 years or so can remember a kinder, gentler company that really did have the best interests of the hobby at heart.
Flash forward to this...sticking it to their biggest supporters. They are keeping such a tight lid on everything that they are truly coming off as...shifty. If your license allowed for robust 3rd party developement...you would crow about it right? All the C&C, T&T, Midnight, Ptolus, and other gamers would be re-assured that they werent going to be obsoleted right?
Occams razor would lead one to the conclusion that if there even is a GSL, it will be a fee and royalty based system that allows for fluff only. Sound like fun to you?
WotC...did you really think that selling out to the corporate stooges was the right path? For that matter, how about now?
Claims of bias not withstanding, I'm one of those posters who voted that I'd be going 4E, open or closed. I wish I had relatives or friends at WotC though ... I'd make them bring me some loot!
As people on said ENWorld thread say, 3E DnD is the exception here, not the rule. I buy all kinds of stuff from closed systems and really don't have a problem with it. I'll miss 3rd party adventures if this is the way everything shakes out (and I don't really think it is, just saying IF) but that won't stop me from buying the game.
Cheers! :)
at the risk of sounding all snarky, WotC can jump in a lake.
I'd prefer we tone this down a touch. I mean we're going to have our own game soon so I'd prefer we tone down the snark. I'm sure the Paizians would prefer similar. (Mind you, I am not disagreeing with you, not even slightly, but I'm just saying lets express dissatisfaction like this differently.)
|
|
As for me. If Necromancer Games and Goodman's Dungeon Crawl Classics cannot go 4th edition and must go back to 3.5 I would be happier than a pig in poo! They would get my money again.
Yup, same here. I'd feel bad they couldn't continue their plans, and for my wallet, but there you go. QFT.
WotC...did you really think that selling out to the corporate stooges was the right path? For that matter, how about now?
Well, to be fair we can trace this back to Peter Adkison, who was trying to do a good thing. He had folks back in the late 80's and early 90's give him loads of support and life savings stuff to start his company and he wanted to suitably reward them for all the years of faithfulness (and pay them back big time) and Hasbro was that ticket.
If he saw THIS coming or not is yet to be heard.
-DM Jeff
at the risk of sounding all snarky, WotC can jump in a lake.I'd prefer we tone this down a touch. I mean we're going to have our own game soon so I'd prefer we tone down the snark. I'm sure the Paizians would prefer similar. (Mind you, I am not disagreeing with you, not even slightly, but I'm just saying lets express dissatisfaction like this differently.)
Point taken. I just take issue with what they are doing these days. It has become crystal clear that it isn't MY hobby anymore...it's theirs...to improve or destroy in any way they see fit. /sigh.
I admit that I've been having similar thoughts to DMMcCoy recently...It comes to my mind that the OGL was apparently originally meant to outsource the least profitable (from WotC's perspective, and IMO) area of FRPG publishing -- the adventure modules. I'd bet dollars to XP that Wizards was hoping to have lots of adventures written while they focused on splatbooks, world settings, special superadventures and other big-ticket items.
Then, a funny thing happened on the way to WotC's domination of the FRPG market. Designers realized just how much they could get away with, legally, under the OGL. Castles and Crusades emerged. As did OSRIC, Laybrinth Lord, Freeport, Iron Kingdoms, Conan the RPG, all the way to Paizo's own 3.75. Wizards had been hoist on their own petar, as while they were still the 800-pound Tarrasque in the room, they were no longer concievably the only game in town. Now, people who didn't have the wherewithal to grab an 1e PH could get OSRIC. Those who liked 3e, just not so damn much of it, could play Castles and Crusades. Hell, you could play Conan as 3e and not even bother with the D&D core books! Those who don't want to make the switch to 4e can play Pathfinder. It's as if Bill Gates had opensourced Windows, hoping for cheap labor to make widgets for his system and others going nuts and making new OSes or ressurecting older OSes.
I would not be surprised myself if they rectify this by making 4e a closed system with no SRD.
Happily, this does not mean that any of the aforementioned games are going out of print. Wizards CANNOT revoke the OGL. All they can do is not extend it to 4e. (OTOH, so far WotC has not done anything to the groups that have backwards exteneded it to OD&D and AD&D 1e...)
Yeah because that 62% is that of people told to go there and vote; Wotc has hired people just to hit messageboards polls and keep those numbers high; I bet alot of the people at enworld are connected to Wotc in some way. Family,cousin, brother, friend, granny and auntie May and Uncle Jim, yeah those polls are fixed...
I'm guessing you're joking - ENWorld is nothing like that.
I'm guessing you're joking - ENWorld is nothing like that.
Don't sweat it. Back when this board used to get lots of traffic, plenty of the anti-4E crowd was under the impression that pro-4E reviews were all paid for by WotC. This is just a continuation of that theme it seems.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Yeah because that 62% is that of people told to go there and vote; Wotc has hired people just to hit messageboards polls and keep those numbers high; I bet alot of the people at enworld are connected to Wotc in some way. Family,cousin, brother, friend, granny and auntie May and Uncle Jim, yeah those polls are fixed...
At time of posting, 62% of posters said they would purchase 4E even if it were completely closed.
Or it may be that with Pathfinder, those of us who don't care anymore, don't care enough to vote...
Maybe they're going to abandon the GSL and simply continue with the OGL!
Maybe they're going to make a more friendly 3rd-party policy!
Maybe I won the lottery today!
;)
Maybe I've lost touch, but... what does GSL stand for? I know OGL is the "Open Gaming License", but I haven't heard of the GSL before.
However, if WotC isn't going to allow 3rd party publishers to produce 4E material, wouldn't that do one of two things.
1. Drive many of them into bankruptcy, or
2. Force them to continue supporting 3.5E. Maybe even support this new Pathfinder RPG I hear so much about. Hmm...
DogBone
Maybe I've lost touch, but... what does GSL stand for? I know OGL is the "Open Gaming License", but I haven't heard of the GSL before.
However, if WotC isn't going to allow 3rd party publishers to produce 4E material, wouldn't that do one of two things.
1. Drive many of them into bankruptcy, or
2. Force them to continue supporting 3.5E. Maybe even support this new Pathfinder RPG I hear so much about. Hmm...DogBone
GSL is the Game System Liscense, the 4E incarnation of the old OGL. Common thought is that the GSL will be more restrictive in what it does and does not allow. So far though, we don't know for sure what it contains.
As for your other questions:
1. I think most of them have other pursuits outside of the 3.5 ruleset, but it would probably hurt at least a few
and
2. Maybe! I'm not sure how many could really wait for the ruleset to come out though.
Overall, I don't really think this rumor is the case. Even if 4E doesn't have a generalized public liscense, I'd still expect them to have specific private liscenses with select companies they've dealt with in the past. Necromancer, for instance.
Cheers! :)
That was a long thread to read; but at least I understand your avatar name at last, Mr McCoy!
Huh?
He's a cat in a dryer over 'there'. I don't get it.
hmm
does anyone have the dates in hand for when the paid, and free versions of the srd were supposed to be available?
haven't companies already paid for theirs?
obviously the ones who ponied up the $5k will get the license since they have paid for it already
|
|
obviously the ones who ponied up the $5k will get the license since they have paid for it already
Well, this isn't so obvious, specially since NOBODY has paid the $5K fee, as the very Erik Mona told us days or weeks ago.
The problem is: nobody, even those who where interested in paying that fee, has received the GSL or any license affecting the 4e.
And the books are already being printed!
Chief Technical Officer
|
WotC...did you really think that selling out to the corporate stooges was the right path? For that matter, how about now?Well, to be fair we can trace this back to Peter Adkison, who was trying to do a good thing. He had folks back in the late 80's and early 90's give him loads of support and life savings stuff to start his company and he wanted to suitably reward them for all the years of faithfulness (and pay them back big time) and Hasbro was that ticket.
Hi there. I'm Vic Wertz, former Wizards of the Coast shareholder. I voted "yes" to the Hasbro sale. So did my partner, Lisa Stevens. We'd both do it again in a heartbeat. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single WotC shareholder whom I think wouldn't do so.
By the way, if we hadn't, Paizo would not exist today.
IF this theory is true, wouldn't that make the moving of World Wide D&D Day that much more of a kick at the 3rd party publishers?
i.e., not only can you not have access to 4E, but we're moving up our November event to two weeks BEFORE your Free RPG Day... at which you can't have any 4E products...
And before anyone jumps me, of course they have a right to move their WWD&DD event and yes it makes a lot of sense, marketing and promotion wise. I acknowledge that. It just seems, IF the theory is true, one more stab at the 3rd party market they created...
Hi there. I'm Vic Wertz, former Wizards of the Coast shareholder.
*Chorus of voices* Hi Vic!
At least we know that there's no need for a 12-step program to get over any GSL dependency. :-D
IF this theory is true, wouldn't that make the moving of World Wide D&D Day that much more of a kick at the 3rd party publishers?
i.e., not only can you not have access to 4E, but we're moving up our November event to two weeks BEFORE your Free RPG Day... at which you can't have any 4E products...
And before anyone jumps me, of course they have a right to move their WWD&DD event and yes it makes a lot of sense, marketing and promotion wise. I acknowledge that. It just seems, IF the theory is true, one more stab at the 3rd party market they created...
I think your theory is pretty wrong. The 3rd party market simply isn't a big enough threat that WotC is going to try and stamp them out. Before the release dates were pushed back, I'm sure the idea was to have DnD Day in May, but with the release pushback, so was the day pushed back.
No hard feelings, just the way the cards fell. To characterize this as a malicious act on WotC's part is misleading, IMO.
Cheers! :)
WotC...did you really think that selling out to the corporate stooges was the right path? For that matter, how about now?Well, to be fair we can trace this back to Peter Adkison, who was trying to do a good thing. He had folks back in the late 80's and early 90's give him loads of support and life savings stuff to start his company and he wanted to suitably reward them for all the years of faithfulness (and pay them back big time) and Hasbro was that ticket.Hi there. I'm Vic Wertz, former Wizards of the Coast shareholder. I voted "yes" to the Hasbro sale. So did my partner, Lisa Stevens. We'd both do it again in a heartbeat. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single WotC shareholder whom I think wouldn't do so.
By the way, if we hadn't, Paizo would not exist today.
Doth my eyes detect a bit of snarkiness? I'm not calling on you to defend your decision, or Lisa's. You did what you felt was right at the time, and obviously feel it is still the right choice. Great. It's good to like who you are and what you've done.
That said, you folks have a long term plan? The petulant 3rd party thing biting the hand that has fed thing is great and all, but eventually they will fire all the broken cogs over there at Wizards and get things right. Is it back in the congo line then?
I see PF becoming as different from 3.X as 4E is within only a year or two...assuming it continues. I hope it does, I'm just wondering if I am watching a train wreck, or a dog fight.
Consolidate with some of the other 3rd party vendors or be consumed. There is only so much you can do with a 1% market share.
Respectfully yours,
Donny the Mad DM
I see PF becoming as different from 3.X as 4E is within only a year or two
I seriously doubt that. Where your eyes are, that is where you are going. I believe that they have their eyes firmly planted on back compatability. Will it be different, yes. Will be so different that using 3.0 materiall will be quite difficult, I seriously doubt it. I expect it to have a similar feel (hell of alot closer then 4E, that's for sure). But lastly, I expect them their own take on the game, I expect it to be their own game. I believe in them. If there is any crew in the world that can do all that, its the Paizians.
|
I'm guessing you're joking - ENWorld is nothing like that.Don't sweat it. Back when this board used to get lots of traffic, plenty of the anti-4E crowd was under the impression that pro-4E reviews were all paid for by WotC. This is just a continuation of that theme it seems.
Cheers! :)
This board still gets lots of traffic. And EnWorld is a good site.
obviously the ones who ponied up the $5k will get the license since they have paid for it alreadyWell, this isn't so obvious, specially since NOBODY has paid the $5K fee, as the very Erik Mona told us days or weeks ago.
The problem is: nobody, even those who where interested in paying that fee, has received the GSL or any license affecting the 4e.
And the books are already being printed!
ah
I was under the impression that some had already paid, or would have had to based on the original schedule. Wouldn't it be interesting if the whole GSL thing was a bait to keep other companies following the carrot instead of working on their own stuff (like Pathfinder) and then later dropping the carrot and say "oh we decided to not do it this go around, sorry kids"I'm not saying that IS what they are doing, I'm just saying it is one way it could be seen. I would personally prefer to believe that noone is that nasty.
And EnWorld is a good site.
I agree. Member since 2000. :D
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I don't think people at WotC get paid all that much. You hear game designers talking all the time about how it barely pays the bills. Really, you don't get a whole lot of organizational ability when you're only paying people $75,000 per year (that's just a guess as to what the average WotC salary is, and I tried to guess high). That's in the East Coast. I don't know what it's like out west but our company pays our west coast people comparably.
.
HAHAHAHA.
I can think of maybe one or two people in the entire RPG _industry_ who make $75,000 a year. Maybe.
Editorial salaries in this business range from the mid-20s to the high-40s, I should think. It's been a long time since I worked at WotC, but I'm guessing that's still fairly accurate.
I was under the impression that some had already paid, or would have had to based on the original schedule. Wouldn't it be interesting if the whole GSL thing was a bait to keep other companies following the carrot instead of working on their own stuff (like Pathfinder) and then later dropping the carrot and say "oh we decided to not do it this go around, sorry kids"I'm not saying that IS what they are doing, I'm just saying it is one way it could be seen. I would personally prefer to believe that noone is that nasty.
I don't think it was a bait and switch. It's more likely Hanlon's Razor...Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Instead of "vetting" their policy BEFORE THE GENCON announcement last year, which would have been the intelligent move considering they actually help a special meeting with 3rd party publishers and new this would be a question, they waited until AFTER putting a $5,000 deal on the table to show the new license to the lawyers. It's a case of poor planning and poorer public relations.
What you are suggesting implies a level of forethought and planning I have never really believed WoTC was capable of. ;-)
I think realisticly, anyone that would be in a position to develop their own system would have already been planning their own system or some other "out" when the first rumors of 4e began. We started working on our plans for Karma last year. So a deliberate stunt like this would have zero impact on stopping anyone from designing their own system, because those with the resources to do so would have already started by now.
It is a shame, however, because we had hoped to support both 3.5 and 4e, as well as our own Karma system, in the upcoming publishing year. But we've scrapped all 4e plans. There is no way we could professionally put together 4e stuff for this year at this point, even is we saw a GSL tommarrow.
I see PF becoming as different from 3.X as 4E is within only a year or twoI seriously doubt that. Where your eyes are, that is where you are going. I believe that they have their eyes firmly planted on back compatability. Will it be different, yes. Will be so different that using 3.0 materiall will be quite difficult, I seriously doubt it. I expect it to have a similar feel (hell of alot closer then 4E, that's for sure). But lastly, I expect them their own take on the game, I expect it to be their own game. I believe in them. If there is any crew in the world that can do all that, its the Paizians.
I think if they accepted every personal house rule and random idea many people are pushing for on the boards, then, yes, it would be as different from 3.x as 4e is. However, on numerous occasions Jason and Erik have both said "No, that's too far." So they do seem to be keeping their focus on tweaking some things that could use it, but not re-writing everything.
I'll admit, with the constraints off, I even came up with a big list of wacky ideas to "fix" 3.5 even though I love the system. Thankfully, a day later I came to my senses and realized that 95% of the ideas were just wacky playing with the rules for playing sake and weren't fixes at all.
So I also have faith in the Paizo staff that they will just make "fixes" and not "wouldn't it be cool if" sort of changes.